Are the signal lights on your vehicle as safe as they can be? Not really. A simple change to them could reduce your chance of being in a rear-end collision.
We spend a considerable amount of money on safety in our cars and trucks. Much of that budget is for equipment and engineering required by years of government legislation; items like seatbelts and padded dashboards that weren’t popular when mandated in the late 60s, but are taken for granted today, right up to recent additions, such as electronic stability control and even backup cameras.
Nowadays, with collision mitigation systems and blind-spot monitoring as selling features, and crash-test ratings having a considerable influence on consumers’ buying decisions, it’s clear that safety matters more than ever.
Would it surprise you to learn there’s a safety feature that could reduce your chances of being struck from behind by anywhere from just over five per cent to possibly as much as 28 per cent, and that it’s not mandatory?
Or that many automakers choose to save a few dollars per vehicle — or, worse yet, decide, with no cost benefit, that a perceived styling choice matters more — rather than incorporating that safety feature?
It’s true.
That safety feature is amber (“orange”) rear turn signals. They’re required in most major automotive markets — Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and China among them.
But not here.
Canadian motor vehicle standards tend to mirror those of the U.S. We differ on a few things — requiring daytime running lights, the new mandatory auto headlights or non-illuminated daytime dash regulation, and our allowance of European market-compliant adaptive headlights.
But on turn signals we are in lockstep with southern neighbours.
That means that we not only allow red-coloured signals on the rear of our vehicles, but we also allow the archaic “combination lamp” setup wherein one (usually red) lamp can serve as both turn signal and brake light. (There are a rare few models with LED “switchback” combination lamps that can illuminate the same lamp in red or amber.)
Colour aside, all have the same major fault: in a combination lamp’s signal mode, the brake light function is overridden, effectively leaving that side of the vehicle with no brake light. This means that, with the hazard lights on, only the third brake light is available to indicate braking — if that one isn’t burned out, as it seemingly is in so many pickups.
Genius!
Around 2010 the U.S. Department of Transportation teased aligning U.S. (and, by default, Canadian) vehicle standards with those of other world markets.
But it never came to pass.
This despite a 2009 study by the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that proved that in otherwise identical vehicles where the rear turn signals in different model years were either amber or red, the amber-equipped versions had a 5.3-per-cent lower rate of rear-end collisions when turning. (Think Honda Civic sedan, 2006-2008, red, versus 2009-2011, amber.)
This more tightly focused 2009 study was likely motivated by a 2008 NHTSA study that showed a potentially much higher reduction rate — as much as 28 per cent fewer collisions — when cars were solely differentiated by having amber signals or not.
The true value of requiring separate amber rear signals probably lies closer to the first study’s findings, but there’s an inarguable correlation in both studies.
Cost is often touted as a factor. Combo bulb designs potentially eliminate two light sources and their associated wiring. It’s been proven for decades that this expense isn’t prohibitive, as automakers often produce amber-equipped versions for sale in other markets. Further, some Mercedes and Hyundai models (among others) actually have the wiring and lighting elements in place for amber rear signals, yet don’t enable them for our market.
And automakers have managed to incorporate the sidemarkers, reflex reflectors, daytime running lights, and third brake lights that Canadian standards require without major backlash from buyers.
In fact, only one justifiable reason exists to not use a separate signal bulb, and that is the U.S.-Canadian minimum illuminated area requirement for signals; apparently the reason why 2011-16 VW Tiguans, for example, have amber lens sections but use combo lights for their brake lamps instead.
Designing for a standard would eliminate this.
Mandating it would make it a level playing field for the automakers.
For perspective, NHTSA’s 1998 follow-up study on the centre high-mounted stop lamp, which the agency mandated in 1986, determined that the now-familiar feature continued to offer a 4.3-per-cent-to-4.95-per-cent reduction in rear-end collisions. Odd then that NHTSA has yet to adopt a standard that would provide at least a 5.3-per-cent benefit, and possibly one greater than 25 per cent.
Isn’t the best way to reduce crash injuries avoiding one altogether?
In 2017, I wrote then-Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, about this issue, and, to my surprise, did receive a reply, which I appreciated.
His response noted that, “Vehicle lighting experts agree that an amber or red light flashing at a regulated rate draws adequate attention and is clear enough to indicate the meaning of the rear turn signal. Therefore, the choice of colour of the rear turn signal lamp is left to each manufacturer’s discretion.”
I’m not certain who these purported “experts” are — they’re certainly not the NHTSA’s — but you’d think an astronaut, of all people, would recognize the safety benefits of clear and unmistakable signals.
Ask a Mechanic is written by Brian Early, a Red Seal-certified Automotive Service Technician. You can send questions to wheels@thestar.ca
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation