Conference terri::cars_uk

    Bloody things should be banned world-wide.
    
    Laurie.

    .0�    I saw one on a French-registered car (here in France) two days
    .0�    ago, and didn't think the French allowed them - obviously they do!
    
    I think they're not allowed when the car passes certification. What the
    owner does later is another story and the french police definitely
    keep quiet. 
    
    The 'service des mines' is extremely hard to deal with when it comes to 
    getting a car certified for import. What goes on the roads later is the
    business of the 'gendarmerie' or whatever national/municipal police and
    they seem to be interested only in: seat belts, worn tyres and that's
    probably it.

They were mandated for all US passenger cars starting from 1986.  Evidently 
they have spread (like the plague) to other countries since then.

We are now seeing them on pickup trucks and vans, but I'm not sure if that is 
an extension of the law or just market pressure on the makers.  Remember, the 
best selling vehicle in the US the last few years was a pickup truck!

Dave (who has no third_brake_lights)

'85 Jetta (one year before implemented)
'87 GMC Safari (van, rule didn't apply)
'79 Rabbit
'58 Isetta
'26 Studebaker \
'24 Studebaker / only have one 'STOP' light each......

	WRT 3rd brake light on French cars:

	They are now legal (have been for ~1 year); I think this is as a result
	of some European directive, which also makes them mandatory on new cars
	a year or two.

	/Ben

    Well then, I wish they would make a device to switch them off after say
    10 seconds of continuous-pedal-when-stationary mandatory too. Here in
    Belgium, people are taught to *not* use their hand brake when
    staionary. This includes all traffic lights etc., and other stoppages
    of course. It makes hill-starts extremely interesting, and explains
    why, on a hill, cars sit at least 2 metres apart. Some people manage to
    roll back further than that before they manage to get the clutch to
    bite, with predictable results.
    
    Those bloody high-level lights hurt my eyes after a minute or two...
    
    Laurie.

    Well I personaly think they are a good idea, I dont know about you but
    im sick of being on a motorway and you approach a traffic jam too fast
    because nobody brakes in time etc because they are to busy trying to
    fnd the hazard warning lights.!.. At least if one of those brake
    light thingies is fitted you can see it from a further distance and act
    accordingly..
    I personaly do not have one and I am not a big fan of the custom ones
    you can buy, but those fitted to Saabs, Volvos and the new Fiat Punto 
    are quite well designed into  the car, and I think
    anything that reduces the risk of somebody hitting me or me hitting them 
    is a good idea!
    
    G.
              

A high level brake light should be fitted to every car where the off
switch for the fog lights doesn't work...

Sandi

    

re .7

You took the words out of my mouth (fingers!)

    I don't have a problem with the HMBL (high mount break light) concept. 
    I don't stare at them and they don't hurt my eyes...it's an
    understanding we have......
    
    What I don't like is the amber rear signal lights.  They are far too
    bright on most cars and cause me problem with my night vision.
    
    Brian
    

    The close proximity of french rear and front ends requires any safety
    precaution to prevent unexpected accidents. Narf Narf....
    			Brian.

    The third light does what it's designed to do, ie tell you the car in
    front is braking.  It has been proven to reduce substantially the
    number of rear-end shunts.  This makes it a safety feature, an accident
    prevention feature, imho, unlike airbags and side intrusion bars, which 
    I would classify as survival features which are of no use whatsoever 
    until you're actually having an accident.
    
    I don't have a problem with the glare, but then I don't usually drive
    that close to the car in front.
    
    Richard
    

    Although I don't have any statistics on this I personally believe that
    the only reason third brake lights reduce accidents is because they are
    different.
    
    Once every car on the road has them we will be back to the same
    situation as today.
    
    Ian.

    The problem I have with these things is the way people in traffic queues
    insist on sitting for minutes on end with their brake-lights on. A
    high-level brake light shines right into one's eyes; I personally find
    it very uncomfortable. As I said before, here in Belgium they're
    actually taught to do that rather than use the hand-brake. If, as I
    suggested, they were fitted with a device to turn them off after say 10
    stationary seconds, they wouldn't be such a pain... Some brake lights
    are *very* bright and ruin my night vision for several seconds.
    
    Laurie.

RE: .11

Here on the US side of the pond, we've had these lights on all cars 
manufactured since 1986.  IMO, they are unnecessary.  Automobiles
already have had two very large and effective tail lights to tell 
following drivers that the person in front is braking.

Yes, there are studies that indicate that the third light may be 
effective in reducing accidents.  However, they fall far short of 
proof of effectiveness.  I haven't heard that there has been any 
significant reduction in the number or proprotion of rear end 
accidents since the new brake lights were introduced in this country. 
In my experience, this has merely been yet another thing that raises 
the price of a new car.

--PSW

    The reason they are more effective than the normal lights is that they
    are in your face - high up and central, and closer to where you are
    looking as you drive along.  The original study used New York taxis and
    showed a one-third reduction in rear end shunts, as I remember.
    
    Belgian drivers are taught by Belgians, what do you expect?  They can
    hit each other over the head with them, it doesn't mean that high level
    brake lights are of no use in preventing accidents.  Which is more than
    you can say for airbags, door bars, seat belts, crumple zones, Procon
    Ten, head restraints, sun blinds, furry dice, Volvos and all the rest. 
    In my humble opinion.
    
    Richard
    

    I suppose that the next thing someone will come up with is that daytime
    running lights are a bad idea too.  It seems that some people are
    against anything that infringes even in the least little bit on their
    personal freedoms even if it has been proven to be of benefit to the
    world at large.  Just my opinion, of course.....
    
    Brian
    

In the mid to late 70's, Chevy came out with a station wagon (Malibu I think) 
that had the taillights in the rear bumper.  I don't know if there is/was a 
minimum height requirement for rear lights, but these had to be only 12-15" 
from the road.  Not too safe, especially when in a queue.  At least the third 
brake light would have helped there.

I've also noticed a few new cars with the third light in the center, but no 
higher than the two brake lights on the side.  Kind of defeats the purpose.

Another thing I've noticed on the cars with the long string of LEDs in the 
rear wing or on the rear roof - those LEDs light up just a fraction quicker 
than the normal brake lights.  See if you can catch it next time out.....

Dave

    In some cases, you can also see the 3rd brake light several cars in
    front, via the windscreen. Also, think about where you centre your
    gaze when watching the car that you are following.
    
    PHil

    Is this a good time to mention rear-window blinds?
    
    Laurie.

Re: .15 

>   looking as you drive along.  The original study used New York taxis and
>   showed a one-third reduction in rear end shunts, as I remember.
 
... but i wouldn't call "taxis" yer average vehicle. I can't comment on
New York, but certainly over here, taxis have an amazing ability to stop
for no reason, do u-turns etc. Maybe fitting flashing orange lights on
their roof would reduce accidents even further - and if that was the
case, maybe we could fit then to all cars.

Another thing - don't _American_ cars have RED turn indicators, so it can
be difficult to tell if the car in front is braking or turning, so a central
brake light would be more relevant to these cars, but not necessarily
to cars in the rest of the world.

Personally i have no problems with central brake light, *except*, as
mentioned earlier several times, for those dozy drivers who insist on
pressing the brake pedal for the entire time that thay are stopped!

mb

>> mentioned earlier several times, for those dozy drivers who insist on
>> pressing the brake pedal for the entire time that thay are stopped!
    
    ...well, at least you can have the last laugh (as long as it's their own
     car); a lot of cars these days come with vented discs - keeping your foot
     on the brake pedal while stopped is a sure-fire way of warping them....
    
    Graham
    
                                                                            

    I like high brake lights because they change the shape of the
    information. Brake lights and turn lights are all in a straight line,
    the high one makes a triangle and hence it is easier to register. Well
    I find it so.
    
    I suspect that most of those people who sit with brakes on are
    automatic drivers. Since I took over an auto I find myself sitting with
    the footbrake on rather than applying the handbrake as I always used
    to. I think it is the stop/go mentality.
    
    Andrew

    I think most people have missed the point - the idea of the "raised"
    third brake lamp - is to make it visible to say the driver of a
    vehicle 3 cars back that you are braking  - instead of the usuall
    domino effect ....
    Surley it is worth putting up with this glare if it means you dont end
    up wrapped to the car infront - or the car behind wrapped around you!
    
    G.
    
    
    

    ...and it's often hard to spot the ordinary brake lights if they've got
    their high intensity rear fog lights on as well (while sitting at the
    traffic lights 8^))
    
    Richard
    

	I always thought that this light originated in the States
	where seperate indicators are not required.  That would make
	this light a differentiator.

	For my part I don't like them.  It's not an infringement of
	freedom thing but more that they are not neccessary if the
	other lights are arranged properly (mainly the fog light).

	Dave

    Possibly in Europe the idea has been taken a step further -  Hence the
    reason they are set so high!!!
    Ie Volvo all models - Saab 900/9000 - and the new Fiat Punto (not in the
    centre just on the widow pillers).
    Its a long distant safety feature! 
    Not just another brake lamp....
    
    G.
    
    
    

    All cars are fitted with a device to tunrn the brake lamps off when
    stationary..........................................
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    It's called a handbrake. 8-)
    
    Dave B.
    

    
    
    The idea of fitting a third brake light (which I detest) because the
    other two are not visible has always imho been a stupid idea. Why not
    put the existing two brake lights into a visible position?
    
    Daytime running lamps are also naff.... still it's a useful warning
    that some nutter in a Volvo is near. 
    
    Richard.
    
    ps. I'm in favour of motorbikes using their headlights at all times.

    I always liked the red lights underneath the back of the old american
    street cars, makes your car look like a moving brothel....:-)...
    			brian.

    All the seppo cars I've seen have amber indicators and red brake
    lights, just like in Europe and back here as well.
    
    Confusion of braking and turning is not all that likely in the States,
    as use of the indicator to signal a turn is an open invitation to be
    cut off or blocked, so they are never used :)
    
    I will admit that rear window blinds, trucks etc do tend to reduce the
    effectiveness of the 3rd brake light, but if those vehicles are still
    able to see ahead, the domino effect chain may be broken. The lights
    are so cheap and simple that I really wonder why it was not though of
    years ago. The fact that some people are disturbed by them lends
    weight to the fact that they are more noticeable that the low mounted
    lights. Also, the single most common collision on the road that I have
    been involved in is being run up the back of when stopping for lights.
    I've also had to avoid many such collisions by modulating my braking
    effort while watching the rear view mirror.
    
    pHil

    Re .28 and daytime running lamps...
    
    I agree they _should_ be unnecessary, but am now convinced that they
    are needed.
    
    Since the beginning of April I've been driving a black R19.  You
    wouldn't believe the number of times I get a really startled look from
    other drivers as they suddenly "see" me at the last moment.  So now if
    there are frequent changes of light level from shadows, or the overall
    light level is low, or there's a hint of mist on go the side lights.

re.31:

>    light level is low, or there's a hint of mist on go the side lights.

Sidelights are NOT driving lights. If you think the conditions warrant 
lights then use headlights.

Dave.

    Yes sir, sorry sir

    As a Belgian I can tell you this:
    
    	- I have NEVER been told by any driving instructor not to use my
    	  handbrake when stationary
    
    	_ starting uphill is one of the mandatory tests you have to pass in
    	  order to get your driving license but I do have to admit you are
    	  allowed to roll back 2 milimeters
    
    What I really do not like is double fog lights. Impossible to tell if
    that car is braking or whatever especially when you are driving your
    motorcycle in heavy rain. It does rain from time to time in Belgium as
    we have seen lately.
    
    

    I hate to disagree, but that conflicts with both my experience, and
    comments from other Belgians, especially the former.
    
    Laurie.

    Well just for my peneth's worth in this ineresting topic...
    
    I find normal brake lights perfectly adequate, and look out them rather 
    than concentrate on one particular point. High level brake lights are
    fine in the day time (although still mildly annoying for some reason I
    cannot justify - particularly after-market ones) but at night downright
    daft - if you can't see 2 perfectly functioning brake lights in the
    dark something's wrong with your vision or your driving - are you going
    backwards at the time?
    
    My conclusion - no-one needs more braking lights, two is perfectly
    adequate. Slapping one or two more on is not the real solution, all
    that need be done is improve the existing design, as per punto/etc...
    
    Apart from that, it's nothing to do with the brake lights or where they
    are, moreover (dare I say it without a lot of people giving me an
    earbashing?!) something to do with the driver.
    
    I'm not insinuating any of you can't drive, sorry for anything implied!
    Just some light banter.....
    
    Dan.
    :-)

    re: .17
    
    Yes, I looked.  Why do they do that?
    
    Jeff

    LEDs light up straight away because there is no filament to heat up,
    therefore no "thermal inertia". Inside an LED there is some magick
    involving semiconductors and quantum mechanics and such. An LED is
    cold, and relatively efficient in terms of converting electricity to
    light, unlike filament lamps. LEDs go off straight away for the same
    reason. If they didn't, their relatives wouldn't be used in the
    "information superhighway" (yawn...).
    
    If you watch a high-wattage filament lamp it takes a while to warm up
    to incandescence and a while to cool off when the electricity stops. 
    
    Put another way: Bandwidth of car headlamp: one bit every second or 2.
    Bandwidth of suitable LEDs: hundreds of millions of bits per second.
    
    regards
    john

Re .36

I think you need to read reply 23, you are missing the point of a raised brake
light !

    If you hit the car in front you are travelling too close, period.

    Whilst discussing rear lights, and moving off the explicit topic of
    brake lights...
    
    Have Ford in the UK introduced something new on their rear lights? 
    From time to time I've found newer Escorts etc, with _very_ bright rear
    lights.  More than once when I've first seen them in the distance I've
    thought they were high intensity fogs, or brake lights.  But on getting
    closer have found them to be just the rear lights.
    
    Is there some sort of sensor that's controlling the intensity according
    to ambient lighting levels?
    
    Or is it dependent on whether the driver's using side highlights
    without headlights?
    
    Is it just me?
    
    Or what?
    
    
    Nick

	About two or three years ago, FORD changed their rear light arrangements
from Rear/Brake lights combined and separate Rear Fog Lights, to, Rear and Fog
Lights combined and separate Brake lights.

	What you are seeing is the dim in the head and bright in the tail
brigade who insist upon dazzling every body at all times that they have their
side/parking lights "on."

				Malcolm.

    Rat hole alert...
    
    What I can't stand/understand are the people who drive around with
    their FRONT fog lights on when it's not foggy.
    
    Is presenting the oncoming traffic with this barrage of white light
    some sort of personality problem: feeling inadequate, "I've got
    foglights and you haven't", "look at me, not the road ahead"?
    
    An interesting variation are the people who drive with their parking
    lights and fog light on - some sort of perverse variation of the above?
    
    I'm sure plenty of the readers of this notes file do this - come on,
    tell us why! 
    
    Rupert 8^)
    
    

    
    Driving with (any) lights on (at the front) isn't such a bad idea, it
    makes you much more visible, ask bike riders if it helps, nearly all
    Volvos now have lights permanantly on for this purpose, (Its illegal in
    Sweden to drive without your lights on at all times) Having been
    'forced' to try it for a few years its amazing how much more aware of
    other traffic you become. Course I'm not suggesting you should drive
    with full beam and fog lights on just to irritate others, unless of
    course your driving a flashy car in which case its useful so that people 
    notice ;-)  
    
    No I dont drive a Volvo.

    I have driving lights at the front of my car. They light up the sides
    of the road, and have no long-distance effect. I use them down dark
    country lanes, though can't admit to using them in town as they're no
    use.
    
    I can see how they would dazzle someone VERY BRIEFLY as they pass me in
    the oncoming direction, but wouldn't have thought this really me being
    selfish, moreover just being a bit safer.
    
    I know the people you refer to, though, who have 8 super Oscar's on the
    front and have to blat around with half of them on all the time!
    
    re. My comment back a few.
    	I can't see a high level brake light really benefitting cars a few
    back... how can you see it with cars in the way? I understand the idea
    would be that the light shines through all the blocking cars' glass
    area, but I fail to see this working 'in the real world'. (ie. heads in
    the way, difference in heights of cars, trucks, headrests, etc).

    The point about seeing the third brake light of a car three in front
    through the windows of those in between only really works because in
    most cases the 4 cars are so close together.
    
    If each car in this queue observed the 2 second rule then at 70mph
    the front car would be over 200 yards further down the road than the
    rear car. Even on a straight road you should be able to see the front
    cars 'normal' brake lights let alone the extra third light.
    
    Ian.
    

    
    Re .44
    �    No I dont drive a Volvo.
    
    But you're saving up for one, aren't you Garry? :-)
    
    
    Re .46
    
    Well said.
    
    Richard.

    re.46
    
    Umm, yes, I agree?! Did I say otherwise.... I don't think I mentioned
    anything to do with distance from car infront/speed/etc... are we
    heading off onto a different subject here?!
    
    Oh, never mind.... ;-)
    
    Dan

Being British but having lived in the US for 4 years, where (at least in New
Hampshire and Mass.) the third, rear-window, brake lights are required, I
thought I'd add my thoughts on this.

I like the high, third light.  Is it always visible two, three, four cars
ahead ? No.  But, in a lot of cases you do see these brake lights light up
before the car in front brakes and when you cant see the regular pair of
brake lights.  This gives you some advance warning of slowing or stopping
traffic and gives you more time to take the appropriate action.

Personally, having someone sitting with their foot on the brake at night
when stopped (and this is done a lot here with automatics being the norm)
doesnt bother me.  I've never even thought about it before reading it here.

Now, having said this.  My feeling is that in this area people drive (much)
closer together than I've experienced previously (this is a different
issue!) - so this may make the third light more useful here than some 
other places.

Overall though, I feel it can add to safety and am for it.

martin

Maybe if they fitted red brake lights on 50ft telescopic booms that
extended when you press the middle peddle, you could see cars braking
several miles ahead, and thus avoid any accidents!!!!

I think not!!!!!

mb

    Talking of volvos and brake lights.
    
    I was following a volvo 850(?) estate the other day and when it braked
    there were no less than SEVEN Lights (8 including the no. plate light).
    This included 4 rear side lights and 3 brake lights.
    
    Over the top or what.
    
    Royston

    I was just told of a story that a police officer, who when asked
    what the greatest contribution to road safety would be, answered :-
    
    a six inch metal spike pointing out of the steering wheel towards the
    drivers chest.
    
    Ian.

    Whether the policeman in question was jesting or not, I fail to
    understand that one!? I know, I'm a thicky.... someone explain!
    
    Dan$shuddering_at_the_thought_of_a_spike_in_the_chest

I think that i would mean that you would drive _very_ carefully, just
in case you got stabbed!!

    Aaaah, I see. Hmm, fair enough point I suppose!
    
    Dan$still_not_going_to_install_one_though...what_if_I_sneeze?!

I find the headlights on my Calibra pretty crappy and usually put
the front fogs on too. Seeing as the front fogs are incorporated 
into the reast of the headlight, I don't think anyone actually 
notices

re .56

guess if no-one notices then the fog lights must be pretty crap to



;-)

Alan

    
    I've had no problem with my front headlights on the Calibra, and the
    rear fog lamps are a wonder to behold.
    
    I'm surprised that the police haven't asked to borrow them for search
    and rescue missions.....
    
    Ian.