But isn't that exactly the situation we're in now? If there's a car in the opposing left turn lane, they might start to turn in front of you.

The only thing the light does is say "right now, they're braking". It doesn't say whether they're moving or stationary any more than the headlights, and it doesn't say anything about their intentions or whether it's safe to enter the intersection.

Struggled with this for a second, then I figured it out...

The brake light coming ON isn't the important part, like the rear brake lights... it's the brake lights turning OFF that's important in the front.

So maybe, now hear me out, MAYBE we need to invert that. Have front brake lights that are on ALL the time, and pressing the brake turns them off to indicate safety?

Yeah, and then you have the distraction of people looking in the mirror because of lights behind them. Especially seeing lights behind you at night thinking it’s a police car

ID10T for those who didn't get it.

First of all, this would be illegal in many countries.

Second of all: we can differentiate cars by: has red lights, back.

If we lose this option we can no longer differentiate easily if there is a car coming towards us or driving away from us.

Say you're a pedestrian and a car is coming toward you as you're entering a crosswalk. Being able to see if they are braking or not could save your life.

Isn't that the case for pretty much everything? Newer cars alternate blinking their headlights and the signal indicator, and even cars w/ the turn signal on the side will have some light bleed through since it's all one assembly. In the majority of cars, I can see their turn signals when they're perpendicular to me. The larger issue is that most people in my area don't bother to use their signals in the first place.

I've seen newer cars turn the headlight off while the turn indicator is on, so you get a sort of double-blink effect.

I don't see any reason why we can't just have the whole headlight blink yellow as well with the turn indicator. LEDs are everywhere and can handle changing colors really easily, so it's not hard to require that for all new cars.

I still think rear signaling could be improved dramatically by using a wide third-brake light to show the intensity of braking.

For example -- I have seen some aftermarket turn signals which are bars the width of the vehicle, and show a "moving" signal starting in the center and then progressing towards the outer edge of the vehicle.

So now take that idea for brake. When you barely have your foot on the brake pedal, it would light a couple lights in the center of your brake signal. Press a little harder and now it's lighting up 1/4 of the lights from the center towards the outside edge of the vehicle. And when you're pressing the brake pedal to the floor, all of the lights are lit up from the center to the outside edges of the vehicle. The harder you press on the pedal, the more lights are illuminated.

Now you have an immediate indication of just how hard the person in front of you is braking. With the normal on/off brake signals, you don't know what's happening until moments later as you determine how fast you are approaching that car. They could be casually slowing, or they could be locking up their wheels for an accident in front of them.

Yea, that's part of why I don't know for sure if they make cars the way the guy at the top of this thread is describing.

Same. I don't think I've ever seen a car that can show me the signal on the opposite side of the car, but I have seen a lot of cars where I can see the indicator while stopped at an intersection and the car is perpendicular to me, since I have a little bit of angle to see the edge w/ the indicator.

99% of the time, it's not an issue, and the other 1% of the time it doesn't really matter if I can see the indicator (I.e. they're already halfway turning, so they're angled away from me).

Can we do this in the same bill as the popup spikes that take out your tires if you stop across the crosswalk? The guided RPGs replacing red light cams can wait a little longer.

They tested using a green light for the front brake light, not a red one

I get what you're saying — so it's about the subconscious awareness of the state change that happens after the driver decided to go, but before the car starts moving. I can see some amount of value in that.

I still can't help but think it's going to be interpreted by many as a sign that it's safe to proceed and ignore the car rather than be prepared for any eventuality, though.

It is to colorblind people. You could use something else of course, just saying...

If a car is braking it rides differently from one that isn't. A car is normally rather level and leans "forward" when braking.

Besides that, YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING. If it's moving fast enough that you need this, you shouldn't be trying to get in front anyways.

I feel that in my area the driving culture has become so toxic that there’s a better than average chance that indicating a lane change (which I always do) will lead to the vehicle in the lane you’re attempting to change into accelerating to prevent you from ‘getting in front of them.’
It’s so frustrating (and dangerous!). It seems that a lot of folks feel entitled to the road, or the patch of road in front of their car fro as long as the eye can see, and are willing to behave irrationally regarding it.

I feel that telegraphing that your vehicle is slowing down (for any purpose) will lead to overconfidence or even willful misunderstanding by other drivers. A careful slow-down will turn to panic as they try to take advantage of the situation. I also think that drivers will focus on the vehicles too much, and will not focus on things like pedestrians or perhaps why your car is slowing down, and wind up contributing to the problem.

For normal people, yes. This is to prevent accidents.

This sure riled people up.

Layer 0 obfuscation error.