Talk:Automotive lighting/Archive 4

NHTSA and amber turn signals

Regushee, I've removed your text that stated NHTSA may mandate amber turn signals. There are articles and blog posts on the net inaccurately headlined to that effect, but in fact, things are not at that stage yet. NHTSA has not stated any level of intent to mandate amber rear turn signals. What the agency has done is released a study demonstrating that amber rear turn signals give a significant safety benefit over red ones. They have opened a docket for public comment on that study. Because of the way the U.S. regulatory system works, by law a cost-effectiveness analysis will be required before NHTSA can issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and associated public-comment docket; when the NPRM is issued, that is the world's signal that NHTSA may mandate amber rear turn signals. Unless/until that happens, we cannot say it, for it's speculation that runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. The study showing amber signals are more effective is certainly interesting, for it brings what amounts to a reversal of NHTSA's longstanding official position that there's no benefit to amber versus red; we've got coverage to that effect in the article, with a link to the study. But we can't jump the gun and report a possible amber mandate that is not yet even under consideration.

As for DRLs extinguishing or dimming down when the adjacent turn signal is on: yes, Audis do it. So do Oldsmobile Bravadas and almost all current Chrysler products, and various other vehicles. The rules on when this must happen, when it may happen, and when it may not happen are more complex than the present wording covers; I'm hoping we can devise some more precise language for it without going overboard and reproducing the lengthy regulatory text itself. But I think the present concise wording, or an improved version of it, probably suffices for this article. More detail would go well at Daytime running lamp. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Automotive lighting → Vehicle lighting — I suggest a move to vehicle lighting to expand the scope of the article (to all vehicles, not just ground vehicles). In addition, I suggest merging the navigation light article into this article, as most vehicles that emit navigation lights also emit these to increase the viewing distance. This remark is also true in the reverse direction; lights used to increase the view distance can also immediatly function as navigation lights.

I would like to note a small issue however that can perhaps be included to the article; air, sea and ground vehicles use different colors for as their navigation/view lights. It would be most suitable if they all used a same color pattern; perhaps that a altered maritime lighting pattern would be best; namely:

• Right side of the vehicle: red light
• Left side of the vehicle: green light
• Back of the vehicle: white light

— 91.182.165.179 (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Oppose. This article is extremely long — not problematically so, given the variety of lighting functions on an automobile and the complexity of regulations, etc. — but very long nevertheless, even with the existing references to other articles on certain topics such as DRLs. Adding trains, planes, snowmobiles, boats, etc. would make it so long as to be completely unwieldy. Whether or not the merge takes place, your idea to alter the colour conventions to make them the same for all vehicles is well beyond the remit of this present project, which is to write an encyclopædia describing the world as it is — not to advocate for changes to make the world the way we might think it should be. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wrong. On ships and planes, red light is left, same as in politics, easy to remember: ref Navigation light. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — Yeah, he may know this already. He seems to be proposing total overhaul of the lighting colour conventions on all vehicles that travel on land, water, or air. It's a completely unworkable proposal from just about every angle, but that's immaterial, for it's beyond the scope of writing an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The needs and regimes of lighting vary dramatically among cars, boats, and aircraft. Cars are relatively stable and operate in a dense one (in a lane) or two dimensional environment with many obstacles and competing signals; the car regime includes lighting for illumination, signaling and position/course indicators with strict legal standards; unlike boats and aircraft, communication among cars is almost entirely visual. Boats roll, pitch, and yaw, operate in a relatively sparse two dimensional environment; boat lighting only includes position/course indicators as standards, but illumination may be used with no standard I know of; boats have standardize sound signals and very often radio communication. Aircraft have full three dimensional capability to roll, pitch and yaw and translate in all three dimensions, so their position/course indicator lights are designed for this three dimensional use, and they have landing lights; while they operate in a sparse environment while airborne, some airports can be quite dense; the aircraft regime is very strict and standardized, and alone has lighting little affected by aesthetics; aircraft signal intent almost exclusively by radio communication. Since the three lighting standards have nothing in common except the adoption of ship side colors by aircraft, combining the articles has no virtue and a number of disadvantages, including length, differing standards bodies, differing standard terminology, possible ambiguity and confusion, and difficulty finding the correct information for different regimes. If this isn't enough, this discussion omits related standards for stationary navigation lights for marine and air use (including geographic features, buildings and marine platforms), personal watercraft, sailboats, barges, diving flags and warnings, balloons, sport aircraft of various sorts, trains, off-road vehicles including snowmobiles etc. It bears emphasizing that lighting is one form of communication, often a minor form for boats and aircraft. (Mnemonic: Red is Right is Wrong.) Laguna CA (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. But should this be renamed to Motor vehicle lighting? As written it is rather long, as pointed out above, which could be a reason not to. But we really do not appear to cover Truck lighting or lighting for other motor vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment That would be a separate proposal, but I'm not sure I agree that Motor vehicle lighting is anything but a direct synonym of Automotive lighting. I agree with you there's room in this article for coverage of the aspects of automotive lighting peculiar to trucks, motorcycles, etc., but I don't really see an advantage or need to rename the article for that purpose. Am I missing the intent of your thought here? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The current name implies that it does not cover truck and motorcycle lighting. I suppose that Motor vehicle lighting could be added for all vehicles. Clearly we have a good main article for cars. My intent with the comment was to point out something that was raised by the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • H'mm…I disagree. It seems the producers, regulators, and researchers in the field include trucks and motorcycles within the term automotive. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
        • That's fine that you disagree. But given your response, I suspect that your opinion is based on a level of knowledge or experience that most readers do not poses. Most readers are not going to know that so your inclusion of those items is based on your level of knowledge. From reading the article, it appears that there is almost nothing included about other vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

dragging up some archived points

Just some stuff I saw in the archives which (I feel) bears further comment...

• Japanese truck speed indicators. It's true. Seen it discussed elsewhere (an anime board of all places - as the feature was sighted in The Cat Returns...) but haven't a reference link, so not putting it in myself. Can't remember what the legal precedent was, but presumably they had a problem with speeding truckers and van-drivers in innercity areas. Set of three lamps, visible from the front for oncoming or stationary police (and pedestrians?) to quickly guage the driver's speed without needing a speed gun or to turn around and follow them, assuming the mechanism hasn't been tampered with. No lights = stationary. One light = speeds up to 40km/h (typical inner city and residential limit for Japan), two lights = 41 to 60km/h (typical faster urban road limit), three lights = 61km/h or higher. Would something like this bear inclusion? After all it's an indicator AND warning lamp, of a sort, although uncommon... it's at least as worthy as those really rather questionable, rear green "safe to overtake" markers on old european trucks. (Presumably withdrawn after a spate of deaths caused by vindictive truckers turning them on when it was deeply unwise to pass?)

• BMW two-stage brake lights - if Gran Turismo is to be believed, they exist at least on the 1-series as well. Haven't seen them in the flesh at any point though; not yet seen a 1-series driven hard enough (or enough of them to have been following one coming up unexpectedly on a traffic queue) to light up both sets. If it's on the 5-series as well, then it would be safe to assume they're fitted across the whole range, so the current article does well to just say it's a general BMW system. However I think it's slightly inaccurate to say that it drives the rear tail lamp at higher intensity or whatever; it's more likely there's either two pairs of standard 5/21w dual-filament bulbs run normally as double tail lights with one pair doing brake duty in most cirumstances, or one dual-filament pair normally run as tail lamps, and one standard 21w brake-only pair. (I forget how many lights are seen at the rear on these when just travelling along... neither is outside the realms of possibility or easy engineering though; indeed my own car has twin tail lights, but in the reverse of this idea - one pair of standard 5w's, and one pair of 5/21w's. A twin 5/21 setup could also be co-opted to instead provide dual tail lights with one pair providing brake and the other pair rear fogs for styling reasons...)

• UK sidelights / dim dip / parking lights. Again, I'm afraid I have nothing to add but OR, but here goes. Own experience with a 1990-vintage, UK specced Volkswagen - with the ignition on, turning the light switch to fully on gave you dippable, full power headlights; halfway, a brighter-than-you'd-expect "sidelight" effect (the words being a hangover from the old, old days of totally seperate "head" and "side" lamps, btw) - basically, the dim dip - and a full beam flash tied to the dip switch. With the ignition off, either position gave a simple, dimmer sidelight, and with it off you could activate the light on just one side with the indicator stalk clicked to the appropriate position... thereby the car could fulfill all the various parking/dim-dip/etc regulations across the continent. I guess the one-side-only effect was a kludge to avoid running down the weak battery too much when leaving a legal-minimum marker light on (after all you only need it on the side sticking out into traffic, and the other may well be hidden), as was the near-eye-level light switch gaining a bright green telltale lamp of it's own when in dim-dip or parking light mode (but no buzzer/beeper!). The dim-dip effect was most apparent when just using the sidelights for whatever reason, with a blown headlamp bulb - the car's illumination would still appear somewhat lopsided even though there were still two functional low-wattage sidelamp bulbs in operation. A similar effect was noticable on other family cars of the period (e.g. Peugeot 205) but seems to have since died out along with the choke pull-lever, 4-speeds, lap-belts, radios mounted in the footwell, wire-thin steering wheels and bare painted metal in the cabin.

A shame we don't still have THAT feature, though; the side light setting on my current car really is only useful as a parking light, or a marker for a scant few minutes of bright twilight/light rain, the forward illumination is so dim as to be practically useless. I think I could see well enough for a safe speed of about 15-20mph when testing it on a moonless night in the country. Which is a bit of an oversight given that it already goes so far as to have seperate bulbs AND enclosures for full and dipped beams. It also seems that the parking light regulations have been swept away - both this car and its immediate predecessor ('98 and 2000 vintages) offer dim sidelight/full headlamp positions that work regardless of key position or even insertion, merely activating a handy beeper when the equation "lights on + ignition off + door open" is completed. Handily, however, they also allow use of the front fogs with the headlamps off, something which made them almost useless on the old VW because of glare, until I discovered how to futz with the switch so it would do dim-dip + fogs instead of mandating the use of full headlamps.

Further evidence of parking light regs was noticable on an even older Fiat ('85) in my family. There was actually an interlock button on the ignition barrel which had to be pushed in and the key turned _backwards_ from "off" to activate the parking light circuit - presumably the lights didn't operate AT ALL with the key off unless this was done.

• There IS a legal requirement for parking lights in the UK at least, by the way. The highway code seems to demand it for wrong-way parking or parking on unlit roads at any time, or lit ones with a limit over 40mph (might be not entirely accurate but i'm feeling too lazy to go off and find my copy of it - did re-read it within the last few months though, before taking my CBT - the same place I found out that "slow moving" vehicles such as cranes, tractors or mobility scooters have to have orange beacons on dual carriageways, and other roads with limits of 50mph or more). It's quite paranoid and safety concious in that regard, even though most cars tend to have rear reflectors, and fairly reflective front lamp enclosures and registration plates. I don't think anything's been repealed, it may just have been glossed over slightly. Similarly, side or dim-dip lamps are perfectly acceptable (though no longer "recommended", if they ever were) for use when driving on fully lit city streets. The idea seems to be that you see your way ahead by the streetlamps, and your vehicle lights are just for position marking and warning people of your approach, without needless dazzling or disturbance (and after all, at least half the time the tail lights will be the more useful - and they don't change intensity at all). In practice however, light alignment and dipping is much more consistent than it used to be, side lights a bit dimmer; so people just use their dipped beams instead, and you're liable to get flashed if you try using just the sides.

Phew... ;) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

centre high mount brake lights ... history and alternatives

Just wondering, also: there seems to be no mention of rear lights (or in some cases, front!) being mounted higher up the body than the traditional bumper-to-swageline positions, other than the CHMSL and the things "experimented with by German engineers in the 80s then abandoned". What of the old Fiat Punto hatchback, several Volvo and Saab estates, and the current Ford Mondeo estate (to name but a few) that had/have their whole light clusters running up the side of the vehicle, around the tailgate glass towards the roof? I think the Punto in particular didn't bother to include a third lamp until it was an absolute regulatory requirement, because it in effect already HAD a pair of HMSLs, rendering the central one fairly redundant except for exceptional cases of compromised sightlines. Did make replacing the bulbs a bit of a pain, however.

(and it's Fiat again for the high-level front lights, again for safety/visibility reasons - first gen 1990s Multipla, anyone?) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

furthermore --- indicators

ok i'll just have to agree to do the one more and then quit...

• "Citation needed" on the position variability of the turn signal switch?! Seems a bit rich when it's not even 100% guaranteed to be on a steering column stalk in all cases (didn't some of the late 70s/early 80s Citroens use a non-self-cancelling rocker switch? As did a lot of old buses and the like?). I've personally driven two (RHD) vehicles where it was on the right hand side, with "down" for a right turn and "up" for a left (and put the wipers on SO many times when going for a turn or lane change); an old style austin Mini, and a more recent (early 2000s) Daihatsu Hijet micro-van. Those'd be places to look for a citation if you're absolutely sure that one is needed - are they, for things are are reasonably easily demonstrated as fact and don't need a complex investigation?

The Citroen CX had a non-self-cancelling rocker switch mounted on a pod on the left of the wheel. I liked it, though mine was a sort of pale blue-grey colour and got filthy very quickly. Older British cars used to have RH indicators - my folks had a "Farina" Morris Oxford, dating from ~1961, with an LH column gearchange and the indicator stalk, complete with green flashing light on the end, on the right, and I think the '67 Wolseley Hornet they had later was the same (with a floor-mounted gear lever, obv.). However, a '77-'78 Mini they owned later had the stalk on the left. As far as I know Japanese vehicles also tended to have the indicator on the right - I certainly encountered one on a Mk. 1 Toyota MR2 around 1988, which confused the **** out of me. All the above were RHD, BTW. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional: I've just had a casual saunter round the car park and all the rice-burners I encountered - the oldest being a '95-'96 Nissan Almera - all appeared to have LH indicators. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Noise produced by the indicators... "electronically or electro-mechanically". Is it not that the latter was originally an unintended side effect of the flashing being created by a large, crude bimetallic relay (and the faster flash when one of the bulbs blew caused by more current going thru both the remaining bulb and the relay itself), which tended to be housed (along with other essential relays and fuses) somewhere close to the driver's side of the dashboard? With recent efforts at making this noise being less a novel warning feature and more to replicate something that's become a familiar "sign" other than the flashing light that the signals are on? (A type of psychological habituation effect that Vauxhall seems to have recently ignored, fitting its cars with dash lights that come on via a daylight sensor rather than being tied to the light switch... hence lots of their recent models being sighted rolling around with no lights at all in urban areas at night, including myself when I had one as a hire... never mind that the road ahead seems rather darker than usual, or people are flashing at me... the dash is lit, so the lights must be on! (or, never mind that there's a funny green light, I can't hear ticking, so the indicators are off)).

hmmm? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be something about Peugeots, in that almost daily I see one (and not the same one either) proceeding merrily down the M11 with an indicator left on for miles... Mr Larrington (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cornering Lamps

We have more main articles dealing with automotive lighting, so why shouldn't we add a section on cornering lamps and save some space? Woody (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Brake lights" versus "Stop lamps"

All the relevant sources refer to the red lights that burn steadily when the brake is applied as stop lamps. See Society of Automotive Engineers, US Federal Standard 108, Canada standard 108, UNECE Regulation 7, Australian Design Rule 53, Grote Industries, Peterson Manufacturing, Truck-Lite, etc.

The term "brake light" appears to be entirely colloquial; I can't seem to find it being used in any technical standard, regulation, or product catalog from an established maker. So, while the terms are probably interchangeable in casual conversation, it seems most appropriate to prefer the term "stop lamp" in this encyclopedia article; that's why I've made the change. 19:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.242.14 (talk)

Reversing lamp colour in Australia/NZ

Japanesevehicles100, please stop inserting unsupported (and probably unsupportable) text into Automotive lighting. Fact is, neither Australia nor New Zealand has adopted ECE regulations, and there does not appear to be any support for your idea that ECE regulations brought about those countries' requirements for white reversing lamps. In fact, both countries generally accept vehicles and equipment built to ECE regulations, but neither country has supplanted its own national regulations with ECE regulations. Moreover, unless and until you can reliably support an assertion that Australia and/or New Zealand began requiring a white reversing lamp as a result of ECE regulations, the sentence you seem to prefer will remain speculative, conjectural, and not verifiably accurate no matter how you rephrase it. Please take care to contribute in accord with the relevant core protocols of Wikipedia, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hazard flashers/ traffic hazards

Per BRDC, I have reverted This edit because it is questionable, speculative, unsupported, and probably unsupportable. There are numerous reasons why a vehicle might become a traffic hazard. It might be moving slower than the flow of traffic. It might have a mechanical problem or a flat tire. It might be pulled over on the side of the road. The claim about unsecured loads is kind of random; just about every jurisdiction has laws against carrying unsecured loads. Simply turning on the hazard flasher doesn't make it legal or allowable to carry an unsecured load, so it's neither helpful nor really truthful for us to be making a claim that could be construed that way. If reliable support can be provided for the notion that drivers of vehicles with unsecured loads commonly use their hazard flashers, let's take a look at it for possible inclusion. Pending that, I am putting in less questionable examples of why a driver might activate his hazard flashers. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In Re: Turn signal colour

I would like to point out that many US states (including Colorado, CRS 42-4-215. Signal lamps and devices - additional lighting equipment) allow more than just red or amber. For example (Colorado): Front turn signals: any shade of color between White and amber Rear turn signals: any shade of color between Red and amber

First note, since the people patrolling the roads are local cops, they're going to follow the local rules over Federal rules.

Second, how do they measure the color? If you go by the RGB scale (amber is 255 red, 191 green, 0 blue), than anything between those values and 255, 255, 255 is permissible - but that would include pink for the amber to yellow. And how do they define shade? I looked on wikipedia and it defined a shade as "a mixture of a color with black to reduce its lightness" - can't have shades between white and amber or red and amber. 184.166.15.172 (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In North America, State (and provincial) vehicle equipment standards are in most cases considerably more lax than Federal standards, but keep in mind that the Federal standards contain a provision that any state equipment standard not identical to the Federal standard is superseded by the Federal standard. Colorimetry of lighting devices is measured according to CIE 1931 colorspace; the RGB scale is not applicable. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Amber/yellow rear fog lamps.

Why no information on them?

I know the Soviet/Russian military has used them on jeeps and other trucks, and although uncommon, I have seen them on civilian vehicles elsewhere.

174.54.123.98 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no provision in any of the regulatory systems (the international UN/ECE, the Japanese, the US/Canada, the Australian ADR) for rear fog lamps that emit light of a colour other than red. If you can find reliable support for the assertion that the Russian military put yellow rear fog lamps on their vehicles, by all means provide it and let's incorporate it into the article. I've seen one or two yellow rear fog lamps consisting of an unauthorised colourless-lens aftermarket version of a factory red rear fog lamp, equipped with an amber bulb, and apparently installed because the owner thought it was stylish or something. I doubt we'll find any reliable material on that kind of infantile hoonery, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sequential turn signals

This edit was made by apparently-new editor David Ally (talk · contribs) with the summary "A careful review of the NHTSA letters cited revealed that some sequential lighting systems had failed to meet requirements for specific reasons rather than ruling out the entire concept of sequential turn signals." This edit is problematic for a couple of reasons: Firstly, David Ally's look at the NHTSA interpretations appears to be less careful than wishful or assumptive. If we carefully read the primary cited NHTSA interp, we see that it states, inter alia: "all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated". That is a declarative assertion with no conditions attached. It does not say all light sources providing the turn signal function must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal control is activated unless (anything), except (anything), as long as (anything), etc. The next sentences in the letter describe one of the ways in which the proposed aftermarket stop/turn signal lamp might fail to comply with certain of the various regulated aspects of vehicle lighting device design, construction, and performance. If the interp linked the latter sentences with the former with because or seeing as how or anything of that sort, David Ally's conclusion about its meaning might have some arguable merit to it. But there is no such linkage, so we have no grounds for concluding or assuming that the discussion of minimum lit area is the primary or exclusive reason why the device being discussed in that interpretation is noncompliant. Especially not for assuming, actually, since we are not permitted to put our assumptions and guesses and opinions into Wikipedia articles—there is no original research allowed here. That is the problem with David Ally's text "Apparently meeting all the requirements however, [some 2010 and newer Ford Mustangs are equipped with sequential turn signals]". "Apparently" means David Ally is drawing a conclusion based on what he sees, filtered through what he believes he understands, and that is pure original research.

The apparent conundrum between what NHTSA says (all turn signal lights must illuminate simultaneously) and what we see on the roads (2010 and newer Mustangs with sequential turn signals) is real and difficult to resolve for those who don't understand how NHTSA's regulations work. They are not written or enforced on an approval basis. A vehicle manufacturer does not have to seek or get approval for a particular configuration or design of a regulated system or device prior to putting it out for sale and use. The maker's legal obligation is merely to certify (assert) that his product meets all applicable requirements. That certification is based on whatever due dilligence the maker deems sufficient. If NHTSA eventually decides to question the compliance of (let's say) Ford's turn signals, then it would be up to Ford to make and support a case to NHTSA by interpreting FMVSS 108 either that their device complies, or that the noncompliance is inconsequential to traffic safety. If NHTSA finds the case convincing, then no enforcement action is taken. If NHTSA disagrees with Ford, then the range of consequences might range from an agreement to stop doing it on future vehicles to a mandatory recall of equipped vehicles to bring them into compliance, to possible civil penalties (fines). It is something of a gamble manufacturers play: they are generally reluctant to request interpretations of FMVSS 108 prior to putting out a design that arguably might or might not comply, because if NHTSA says "No" then that interpretation counts legally as part of the regulation and any further argument is foreclosed; they have no choice but to alter their design. The makers figure, and they're usually right, that lighting matters like this are a very low priority at NHTSA and there's not likely to be any inquiry into the matter, and if there is, they figure -- again, usually correctly -- that they have at least a decent shot at getting NHTSA to go away by writing up an interpretive argument that's at least not laughably bogus.

So there are lots of car lights on US roads that don't comply with the spirit and/or letter of any kind of straightfaced and sober reading of the regulatory text, but…they're still manufacturer-certified as compliant. It's kind of a haphazard system, but it's the one we have. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As I am at the beginning of the Wikipedia contributor learning curve, your commentary regarding my edit is most appreciated. I find that the end of the section dealing with sequential turn signals is still in need of clarification. Not knowing where to better express my further thoughts, I offer the following:

The sentence, “FMVSS 108 has been officially interpreted as requiring all turn signal lights to illuminate simultaneously.[35][57],” when strictly interpreted, is still incorrect, although, with some thinking, could still be interpreted well enough. If all turn signals on a vehicle were to illuminate simultaneously in a flashing manner, the appearance would be indistinguishable from hazard flashers.

Noting several sentences the cited letter to Charles I. Sassoon: “We informed Dr. Baldwin that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that this meant that all bulbs providing the center stop signal must be simultaneously activated, not sequentially. Similarly, all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated. Failure of all light sources to illuminate simultaneously means that the stop and turn signal functions of the Maxxima lamp would not comply with the minimum luminous lens area requirement of applicable SAE standards at all times after the brake pedal is applied or the turn signal operating control is activated.” Also: “When the turn signal function is activated on the Maxxima lamp, the minimum area requirement is not met at the time the first cycle begins because of the sequential nature of the lamp’s operation, a further noncompliance with Standard No. 108.”

The reference to ‘all bulbs’ in the stop signal and ‘all light sources’ providing a turn signal are directed to sources of light within the single illuminated lens of a fixture that needs to meet the luminous lens requirements for area and intensity of illumination for the full duration of each illuminated time period. The letter does not address a group of lenses in which each lens in the group individually meets the luminous lens requirements for area and intensity of illumination. While the letter, as you point out, does not provide for exception, do you not think it perhaps unjustified conjecture to extend the purpose of the letter beyond pointing out the failure of the graduated illumination of a single lens area to meet standards?

I did use the word “apparently” in an honest manner, as a part of a phrase to replace the word “however,” the word “however” relying on the veracity of the previous sentence, which I did not find to be wholly supported.

Regarding the vehicles referenced in the sequential turn signal portion of the article, the sequencing of lighted lenses is likely considered to meet requirements as a whole because each individual section of the sequence meets turn signal requirements for area and intensity of illumination and flash timing whether the other sections were present or not; should all but one of the segments fail to function, a valid turn signal would still be provided; a sequence of illuminated lenses, beginning with the lens closest to the centerline of the vehicle and continuing outward to indicate the turning direction, is not considered to be distracting or confusing to other motorists. Additionally, when the brakes are applied and/or the hazard flashers are activated, all segments illuminate simultaneously; no sequencing occurs for the stop or hazard functions of the lighting. I have no cite to directly support this conclusion. It can be seen that a group of three individual lenses, where each individual lens meets applicable requirements, would provide a viable signal at the time the first cycle begins and throughout the illuminated portion of the sequence, thus overcoming one of the faults given in the letter. In such a case, the faults of the Maxxima light addressed in letter may not apply to a well-designed sequential turn signal.

Your commentary on the means by which the NHTSA and vehicle/accessory manufacturers operate was not a part of the article, and therefore did not enter my thinking. I accept your information in this regard as entirely plausible. I suppose the best solution and information should come from the NHTSA in an advisory on the subject, “The manner in which sequential turn signals may meet applicable requirements,” even if that information is a non-ambiguous, all-encompassing ‘no acceptable method’.

Again, I appreciate your efforts. David Ally (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The crucial piece of NHTSA edict is Standard No. 108 requires (…) all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated. Subsequent text in the same NHTSA interpretation mentions minimum lit area requirements that might not be met if the elements of a multiple-lamp turn signal are operated sequentially rather than simultaneously. You assert the former requirement is because of the latter possibility, and therefore you conclude that if the latter condition is satisfactorily addressed—if each element of the multiple-lamp turn signal is capable of meeting all performance requirements individually—then the requirement for all lamps to be lit simultaneously does not apply. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the interpretation clearly indicating whether this contingency does or does not exist.

You and I might just as easily be right or wrong about NHTSA's position, intent, and rationale. Your suppositions, guesses, and assumptions are in line with my own regarding how Ford might argue for the compliance of the 2010 and later Mustang rear turn signal configuration. However, suppositions, guesses, and assumptions are not acceptable material for articles on Wikipedia. In fact, they are specifically barred by core Wikipedia principles including WP:V and WP:SYNTH (and WP:NOR more generally) — the same principles that make it very problematic for editors to add their own observations to articles, with or without denoting them with words like "apparently".

The language in the apposite NHTSA interpretation is itself open to interpretation: does all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated mean all elements of the turn signal array must illuminate and extinguish in simultaneous phase, beginning upon the driver's activation of the turn signal operating control? Or does it mean that all elements of the turn signal array must be simultaneously lit during some portion of each "on" phase of the turn signal cycle, while the turn signal operating control is activated? The first is a narrow reading and the second is a broad reading; both are arguably plausible readings. This is very typical of NHTSA interpretations: much more often than they'll give a firm "yes" or "no", the agency will provide interpretive guidance to assist regulated parties in meeting their legal burden of determining and certifying the compliance of their products—the final interpretation with respect to any particular product or configuration rests with the regulated party, in accord with the structure of the statutes under which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated.

That's why we don't have language in the article saying "Sequential turn signals are legal in the USA" or "Sequential turn signals are illegal under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108": there's no reliable support for either assertion, so all we can do is report as accurately as possible on what is available on the matter.

You further state The sentence, “FMVSS 108 has been officially interpreted as requiring all turn signal lights to illuminate simultaneously” when strictly interpreted, is still incorrect, although, with some thinking, could still be interpreted well enough. If all turn signals on a vehicle were to illuminate simultaneously in a flashing manner, the appearance would be indistinguishable from hazard flashers. I can see where you're coming from, and it's easy to fall into the trap of omitting what might seem obvious. In this case, the scenario you have in mind is not possible because the turn signal function is defined in SAE J588, referent as the turn signal technical standard in FMVSS 108 prior to its recent reformatting, as A flashing light to the front, side, and rear of a vehicle on the side toward which a change of direction is intended The reformatted FMVSS 108 says Turn signal lamps are the signaling element of a turn signal system which indicates the intention to turn or change direction by giving a flashing light on the side toward which the turn will be made. And the international regulation, UN Regulation 48, says "Direction-indicator lamp" means the lamp used to indicate to other road-users that the driver intends to change direction to the right or to the left. Emphasis added in all three cases to point up that a turn signal is by definition on one or the other side of the vehicle, not both. The hazard flasher function is legally an entirely separate function that can be implemented by simultaneous operation of the vehicle's left and right turn signals, but this is not the only way the hazard flasher function can be implemented. It's certainly the most common implementation, but there are other implementations as well. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopædia we're writing, and it's probably unreasonable to expect someone not already extremely knowledgeable about these matters to just figure it out on her own.

It will be a little tricky to fix the offending sentence without at least creating the appearance of disallowed synthesis, so I have added all these "one side" definitions as refs to support my copyedits to the sentence, clarifying the scope of NHTSA's assertion regarding simultaneity of illumination—this we can support reliably. Perhaps someday NHTSA will issue a more explicit statement regarding sequential turn signals, then we'll be able to use it here. And it will be interesting to keep an eye on what the United Nations working group on vehicle lighting and light-signalling (GRE) decides—the UN international regs on the subject presently explicitly require all operating turn signals to flash in synchronous phase, which specifically disallows sequential setups. The GRE is soon to consider whether and how to permit sequential turn signals; if they decide "yes", their language on the matter will likely be quite clear and unambiguous because that's generally how they roll. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

many images of every type, brand and model, have been replaced with German models, by a German user

an user: Faep who likes to change all the images of various vehicles and replacing them with German cars, just because he is German. Although I have canceled his action, he has seen fit to unleash an edit war. Please ask to intervene. very probably the user try to discredit me (as it has done in the past) with things that have nothing to do, even on en.wiki happened. In order to divert your attention from the problem. Please give the right considerations. --Pava (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

UNECE = International

Common reasoning says it is for Europe because of "United Nations Economic Commission for Europe while it maybe adopted by other countries, just as US government regulations may chose to adopt private industrial standards like SAE. I don't think it is correct to refer to it as "international regulation" especially to paint over non European/American English speaking countries.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are calling "Common reasoning" looks to me like just your own guess at things. It's a wrong guess. In fact, it is correct to refer to these regulations as international, for most of the world's countries recognize the, what used to be called "ECE Regulations" and are now known as "UN Regulations". Look at refs #2 and #3 in the relevant article. It is pretty much only the U.S. Americans who don't recognise the UN Regulations, so even though they tend to scoff at everyone else in the world...I think "international" should stay. 04:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.89.18 (talk)

Merger proposal

Automotive light sources used to be a list of light bulbs used on cars but has been renamed and a lot of general content on regulations has been added to it. Anything unique from that article that generally describes regulations, purpose, etc. of lighting could be usefully merged here. The bulb catalog can be dropped or moved to [some other Wikiproject] that specializes in parts lists. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that the regulatory content would be well placed in this article. I would be fine with seeing the bulb catalog disappear from Wikipedia per se completely; it's really not encyclopædic content and would be much better placed in a catalog wiki such as this one, there'll probably be pushback from those who think anything and everything belongs here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hesitant. I think that bringing too many dimensions into an article makes it hard to follow, especially when it comes to this subject that also sees a lot of evolution when it comes to the sources of light (bulbs, LEDs, HIDs). The use of sub-pages may make it easier. (E.g. pages; Automotive lighting/Lamps, Automotive lighting/Bulbs and Automotive lighting/Regulations Ehsnils (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Improve structure.

Today the structure is a bit hard to follow and track down. Especially since it is breaking down the information on where the lamps are located, even if there are lamps carrying the same function both front and rear and therefore carries a lot in common (like the position lights). The designations of the same lamp also differs depending on country and even standardization organization which makes things even more awkward.

Also see my comment under "Merger Proposal".

I have made a few images (Euro style weighs in because that's where I live) that links the various lamps to locations in order to make it easier to connect a designation with a specific lamp.

• 
  Exterior lighting car
• 
  Exterior lighting car (Made as a drawing since trucks have a huge variation depending on use)
• 
  Exterior lighting Bus
• 
  Exterior lighting trailer (Caravan used to get the max-scenario)

Ehsnils (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have refreshed the Swedish pages sv:Fordonsbelysning and broken the page up into sub-pages to make it easier. Ehsnils (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Relevant

Off-topic sections:

3.2.1 Driving lamps, paragraph two: Matters of etymology are discussed. Proposal: creation of an "Terminology and etymology" section or addition of a wikitionary link or something, for less jumping back-and-forth throughout the article between matters of description, regulation, etymology and terminology.

3.2.4 Spot lights: Historical matters are discussed. Proposal: content to be moved to History.

4.1.3 Dim-dip lamps: Historical matters again

4.2.1 Side marker lights and reflectors: History (this one's minor though) Skl (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Add "opera lights"

Add "opera lights" 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.40.50.215 (talk)

Add rear deceleration lamps

In the US within the last ~15 years I’ve seen higher-end commercial tour/commuter busses equipped with dedicated rear-facing deceleration warning lamps. These rearward facing amber lamp pairs are tied to the electric retarder, and are intended to warn vehicles behind the bus of an impending stop based on deceleration, rather than actuation of the brake pedal itself. When activated they either use the short-multi-flash-burst and transition to steady, or go directly to steady-burning "on".

Unable to locate good citation for it at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.84.132 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

California Vehicle Code VC 25251.5 covers them, but CA DMV site down for maintenance.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc25251_5.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.84.132 (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversing lights and illumination

Article currently claims that it is a fallacy that reversing lights are for illumination, but The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 Part 1 defines "reversing lamps" as "A lamp used to illuminate the road to the rear of a vehicle for the purpose of reversing and to warn other road users that the vehicle is reversing or about to reverse". This example seems to disprove the allegation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good reference you found, thank you. It uses basiscally the same language (mentioning both the illumination and warning functions) as ECE Regulation 23 and SAE J593. I have added your reference (and those other two) to the reversing lights section of the article, hopefully that will stave-off further squabbling over what these lights are for. 24.87.69.125 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who's driven a car backwards at night can judge for him/herself if the backup lights provide useful illumination. But that's not a permissible observation here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Selfish revert of reasonable edit?

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Automotive lighting and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Hans Haase (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I find this edit by "Hans Haase" kind of un-kosher. It's a wholesale "undo all" revert of what looks to me like a good faith effort to tidy up and improve the article, just casually tossed aside with a cryptic, dismissive, 3-word edit summary. In fact, it's a revert that makes it hard for me to assume "Hans Haase"'s good faith, because it looks like just a reflexive revert to "Hans Haase"'s pet version. It's possible "24.87.69.125" and "Hans Haase" are having some kind of large-scale or long-running quarrel, but (1) I don't see any evidence of it beyond [[1]] equally cryptic (but more prickly) nastiness "Hans Haase" threw at "24.87.69.125" on an article of a subject related to this one, and (2) it doesn't matter if it's an old feud or a new one, I still don't think it's OK.

Can we get some eyes on the actual "meat" of the edits to this article to help sort out which part(s) of which version(s) should stay, please? 207.8.179.21 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the two schematics are a very obscure way of presenting the differences between how American and European turn signals and brake lights are connected - it would be better to describe the differences in plain text, rather than expect the reader to deduce the difference after scratching her head over the unnecessarily detailed schematic. Not everyone reads wiring diagrams as their native script. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is useful for understanding basics of automotive lighting. Today, puls width modulation and CAN bus is used. This information is part of a good article. It gives the answers in differences in international standards and behavior in operating it. Equivalent information can not be explained in several sections of text. Understanding written information, a diagram confirms the given information for the reader. We can begin with a historical part, countnued by redundant light bulbs, inrush current limmiting, what the europeans use inside flasher only. The result: a failed turn signal increases the flashers frequency, but it does not indicate the attempted turn. Would you really double the articles text by interpreting a circuit diagram in text with minor sources of information? We would be straight on the way of WP:OR. Within the diagram more details are shown. Marked with colors makes it easy to understand for people who are not familar in read large circuit diagrams. Wikipedia collects the worlds knowledge an should be easy to understand. These diagrams are made to bring it to interested readers in no matter of their skills. The given information ist reviewable in several service manuals. I prefered GM but took a look on VW as well. Brake lights can be operated without ignition is a typical VW feature. On the other hand I am warning each who is trying to cut knowledge due interests about TTIP and cross atlantic automotive export on false information about any benefit in regulations in current use, savety in operation, functionality and traffic savety against sales interests. If you wish to change the symbols to the ANSI/IEEE standards, I will create new diagrams. If you see any mistake, tell me, I will fix it. Pimp my tail lighs is not a really encyclopedic detail of the article. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The diagram is encyclopedic, noteable, exists in millions of vehicles, it is interesting, useful, harmless and it is valid information. If we have people who cant read, we would not delete the project. So do not desturb or WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, WP:PLEASEDONT, it took time to create it. --Hans Haase (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As 2 opinions send by IP came from Vegas and I did a edit showing critisism of an organisation which is based in Germany and Nevada and several arguments are here focussing on my name, I startet a 3O. --Hans Haase (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The article has been reported. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wtshymanski. The diagrams seem to confront the reader with very arcane, non-intuitive information, and there is no WP:V support for the claim that the one diagram accurately represents a "European" setup and the other represents an "American" setup. In fact, there are numerous different vehicle lighting system and wiring configurations, both in Europe and in the United States. It is misleading (and unsupportable) to claim that there is any single wiring setup that is characteristic of "European" or "US" specification vehicles. There's a lot of overlap, because (as we can read in this article and verify by checking the citations that exist) lighting items such as side turn signals and amber rear turn signals and white front position lamps and rear fog lights that are mandatory in Europe are allowed in the US, and items such as side marker lights that are mandatory in the US are allowed in Europe. I can appreciate that the diagrams took time and effort to create, but that doesn't justify their presence in this article. Neither does their creator Hans Haase's unsupported insistence here on the talk page, that the diagrams are "encyclopedic". I'm not sure what to make of Hans Haase's insinuation that there's some kind of evil plot at work on this article; the administrator notice he posted is strange. There is also the matter of Hans' combative, acidic edit summaries and addition to the article of rambling, incogent repetition of material already covered (and supported by references #7 and #18). I didn't think Wikipedia was a competitive sport or a race to see how much of our own content we can force into an article, aren't we supposed to be cooperating? 24.87.69.125 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@24.87.69.125: If you dont read manuals, showing exact these diagrams, i can help you. The next revert will be reported as vandalism. You have liked to commerical pages where can't find any useful information. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, Hans, this angry, belligerent tone of yours isn't endearing you or your edits to anyone. Going around accusing other users of vandalism, trolling, bizarre conspiracies, etc...why are you doing this? There is no trolling going on, there's no vandalism going on, and I don't see what you seem to see with regard to some kind of dark conspiracy about Nevada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Your administrator notice went nowhere because it had no merit. I'm also not seeing the "commercial pages" you claim have been linked. Could you please just take some deep breaths, relax, and consider that Wikipedia is not a competition? 24.87.69.125 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)