I've always heard it as "PICNIC"

Problem In Chair, Not In Computer

The hazards also override your turn signals so I now have no idea when you are going to attempt lane change.

This wouldn’t really be helpful to those who are colorblind.

I think what he wants is the front turn signal to wrap around the front, so I can see the left signal from the right quarter.

I'm not aware that this is not the case, but I don't know that I would have noticed if it was not.

Here's an idea. How about we zap the drivers after they make a turn if they didn't use a turn signal beforehand?

Somebody better tell traffic light designers

It used to be mandatory with always on rear lights in Sweden (you couldn't even turn them off). But an adaptation to EU rules removed that requirement.

I don't understand this at all. Why do I, as a person in front of a vehicle, care whether or not it's braking?

The hazards are to indicate you are stopped and now a hazard.

Only when you are stopped and now a hazard. Your car becomes a blinking light. We have road rules for blinking lights, so it SHOULD be saying one specific thing.

Thank you for coming to this road safety talk.

This will lead to people braking momentarily to slow down, and others turning in front of slowing down traffic.

Little benefit, but the cost of adding front brake lights would be passed on to the car buyers.

Couldn't we just use the point system from 5th element? The car noticed you did something illegal and dedicated from your point pool.

Would speed up crosswalks a lot too. Whenever I cross a crosswalk with my dog I don't want to risk me misjudging the braking of cars so I tend to really wait until I'm sure they're stopping.

Sounds like it can help oncoming traffic as well as traffic to either side of the vehicle

Oh, you think I need a new chair? Will the Internet come back then?

Thats more an issue of using the same lamp for rear lights and turn signal

Yeah, the only thing I could think of is that I'm driving down a country road, and I see the front brake light ahead of me because someone stopped for a deer in the road or something.

And the negative state of "the lack of this light means that the vehicle could be moving" is exactly what we have now.

My main thoughts instantly come to someone in the opposing left turn lane, if they are not applying the brakes they are likely starting to turn and if they do it right in front of you, you have more of a heads up than just them starting to turn and can set yourself in a better position to hopefully stop in time. Driving is all about judgment calls and having more info quicker is important to those calls.

I mean when a car is coming at me from a cross street, I want to be able to tell if they're turning or just an asshole not using their signal. On some cars, the turn signal is mounted so far to the side that if they're approaching from my right and turning right onto the same street as me, I can't see that turn signal. Sometimes combined with the roundness of the nose exacerbating the problem.

The key detail is that, like with rear brake lights, they extinguish when the foot is removed from the brake pedal. So it's not so much the presence of the brake light, but the presence of an inactive brake light that would, serve as a warning that a car is about to start moving. This would be very helpful to drivers on a road when other drivers are pulling out too early from a side road or driveway. That little bit of extra warning is, in many situations, enough for you to pump the brakes, hit the horn, or both.

Risk Compension predicts that drivers would simply use this new information to drive more aggressively, negating any possible safety benefits.