Mini’s statement only highlights the absurdity (emphasis mine):
>With regard to the turn indicator light pattern, there should be no trouble at all for a driver to understand, when seeing the full rear of the car, which direction is being indicated
So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like when it’s changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You know, like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
Or when it's dark. I'm imagining a cyclist or pedestrian seeing only the blinking light and maybe a vague outline of the vehicle at best, seeing the <- blinking and thinking, "that car is turning left". Then the cyclist wakes up in the hospital after being flattened by a right hook[1]
Usually yes. But in urban areas (where there are lots of street lights, and lots of cyclists), people often forget to turn their lights on. I guess it's becoming less of a problem now that most cars have auto lights, but I still see cars driving around without lights pretty regularly.
Last year saw a revival of drive-in cinemas in my area (for ... obvious reasons).
Apparently drivers are getting so used to the automation, that the staff was doing rounds telling the audience to turn off their automatic lights.
Then, on the way out, at least the driver in front of us completely forgot to turn on the lights again. This was not in a well lit area, but on cross country roads. I honestly have no idea how the driver did not notice that she couldn't see the road well.
Same here! I went to a drive-in just a couple of weeks ago, for the first time in .. decades? .. and that happened. The other thing was all the people in big SUVs parking backwards and opening up their tailgates, thus blocking the view of people behind them. The house rules said that open tailgates should not extend higher than the vehicle itself, meaning some folk had them tied partly closed, but I think enforcement was mostly complaint-based.
If the drive-in theater became a real thing again, I imagine it would have to adapt to these realities.
Yeah I’m astonished at how often people drive with headlights off. Why is it even an option for lights to be off when in drive? I can understand wanting to turn them off sometimes, but not while moving.
I think the proliferation of daytime running lights is partly to blame here, because you still get some light out of the front even without headlights on.
The thing that always gets me is switching between (rental) cars that have automatic headlight sensors and those that don't.
That is not a safe assumption if you're a bicyclist or pedestrian at night, especially if the area is well-lit with cool light (such as white LEDs) that share a general color with headlights.
Good enough for now, but in 10 years those cars will be worn with the typical problems of any other 10 year old car. At least a few will have non-functioning tail lights until the owner realized the problem and gets around to fixing it. (I suspect in my past I drove with non-functional taillights for many months before someone told me - it isn't the type of thing you check often)
I make a point of checking at least once a week - I have to get out of my car when leaving the house to close a set of gates, so I grab a big rock from the yard to wedge down the brake pedal and walk around the vehicle doing a brief inspection.
It's annoying at first, but quickly becomes habit.
My 2000 Audi has an indicator light that comes on if one of the stop lamps is not working.
It would be nice if this was a standard feature in every car. Trying to determine whether the lights in the tail lamp cluster are all working without some assistance is difficult at best.
Even if I could see the full back of the car I think I'd still risk a brain-fart. It's like a driving Stroop Test (where words like "blue" are shown but you have to say what colour they are shown in, not what colour they say).
The designers screwed up many obvious things, not just these signals.
Mini Mk 1 (2000) was a beautiful minimal design by Frank Stephenson. Things started going downhill with Mk 2 (2006) and further models. He left, and I guess designers suffered from non-invented here syndrome.
I own a Mk 1 and I've leased or driven all other models. Aside from being uglier, many subtle things in the dashboard were tweaked making it a lot less intuitive. It makes me angry every time I see how they ruined a great design. Engines, on the other hand, have improved very significantly with each generation.
This is what I _hate_ about the Audi striping indicators. Yes, they are actually useful when you see them when they are indicating.
However, when they have the hazard lights on, they still stripe. So if it's still and you can't see the left indicator, it feels like a very strong statement that they are trying to move out.
I'm still confused how they made it through regulation. Image you're a security-engineer and read "On average the indicator light runs at only 50% because we think it looks cool."
You're right. I imagined that the light would start to fill up immediately after turning off but it looks like thats not how it works, it really is completely off for some time.
Besides the fact that they're blinking lights so only on 50% of the time by design, consider the fact that regulations specify the minimum luminous output which these cars obviously pass. Add to that the fact that you're using modern high power LED lights and that the human eye perceives light in a logarithmic manner, it wouldn't surprise me if these indicators will be more noticeable on their "minimum" output than their old incandescent bulb counterparts.
Have you measeured their area? Betcha they're at least twice as big as the smallest ones on the market -- whichever vehicle those are on -- so 50% of these is still more visible lit-up area than 100% of those.
I don't have a problem with those. If you can only see half the car, hazards that blink normally still look like a turn signal blinking too. Yeah, the motion calls extra attention, but paying extra attention to a car with its hazards on seems fine.
These types of laws aren't set at a Federal level in the US, but rather, state-by-state. As far as I know, they all allow red or amber. Most US cars have red turn signals.
The red comes from the fact that combined red turn signal+brake lights with white reverse was the standard for a very long time, from at least the 1940s.
Interesting, thank you. Since I've never been to NA I just took the yellow turn lights for granted.
I just looked it up for Germany, and apparently turn light have to be yellow for every newly registered car after 1970.
Federal law (FMVSS 108) permits red rear turn signals, either combined with the brake lamp or a separate turn signal lamp. Interestingly enough, they require amber color front turn signals because the white ones were difficult to see when the headlamps were illuminated. It's too bad they didn't use the same reasoning for the rear turn signals compared to the stop lamps.
There would be a huge backlash if they tried. Standard trailer connectors combine the brake light with the turn signal. (the brake like turns on both turn signals 100%) Many trucks just send enough wires (which are expensive these days) to run the trailer and tie the taillights off of those.
Thus to require amber to the rear means the standard trailer connector needs to be replaced, then some sort of grade period for old trailers, and - well I doubt I could think of all the complex factors required. In 30 years we might be able to do it.
Trucks and trailers are each their own entity with their own papers in Germany. Perhaps this would solve the problem in the US too?
When you have a new truck but an old trailer, you'd just show both papers when being questioned about it => everything is fine.
For a car branded for being small, that is now 3x heavier than the original sensational design I would not call this absolute idiocy. It is consistent idiocy.
As the article states, the euro-models light up the middle bar of the lamp. This appears to be US-centric issue due to the fact turn signals are not required to be amber.
Result: night-time accidents, especially in fog. Drivers will see a single flashing taillight arrow and make incorrect assumptions. Very severe and fatal collisions and consequential lawsuits will ensue. Cooper will pay, pay, pay. They will issue recalls and beg for leniency. But there is no doubt they f*cked this design.
If one of the two tail lights and/or a brake light(s) is/are out then the situation will only be worse.
I'd short Cooper stock were I an investor. This will cost them a pretty penny.
Gawd, I can't imagine what a self-driving car would see when it is following a Mini down a foggy British roadway. Perhaps someone could model it?
If I'm not mistaken, rear fog lamps are required by UNECE regulations and would mitigate this issue. Unfortunately, in the US rear fog lamps are not required.
If it’s on a British road, said self-driving car will see normal yellow indicators, since red is not a permissible colour. As mentioned in the article.
Yeah, I think the amber horizontal bar in the middle for EU cars is an acceptable design. Cutesy, but no risk to the health and safety of the driver and others.
It's the US spec that seems incredibly poorly thought out.
Even though this is a particularly egregious example, poorly thought out indicators are not exactly new in the US though - it is unfathomable to me why people thing that making the turn signals the same colour as both tail and brake light is a good idea...
As a cyclist I'm always annoyed at the scenario that a car parked to the right of the bike lane having their left turn signal on, and their right turn signal is blocked by the car behind them, so I don't know if they are actually trying to pull out or just having their blinkers on.
Designs like this could actually be a solution to that, if they have the whole <-> on both sides, so when it's blinker they blink -> <-, and when it's turn signal they turn on <- or ->, depending on which side. That would totally resolve cyclist's problem.
But no. Mini completely ruined that. I have so many questions to the designer on how, in any scenario, this is a good idea.
People can complain about overbearing EU bureaucracy all they want - I love it. Please give me 500 pages of regulations about indicator lights if the end result is sane indicator lights.
The design is dumb but you’re really stretching. I don’t need to see the entire rear of the car to know which way the blinker is indicating. If I did then that would mean 99% of the cars on the road, which have no arrow at all, would suffer from this ambiguity.
The issue is if you only see 1/2 the car people are going to make the wrong assumption rather than not knowing. You really don’t want confusion when driving multi ton vehicles at highway speeds.
> So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like when it’s changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You know, like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
I don't understand how this is different with any other indicators.
With other indicators, if you lack context your brain is aware that you don’t have enough info to deduce what’s happening. With the MINI, they are providing additional (incorrect) context to reassure you of the (wrong) result.
> So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like when it’s changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You know, like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
You either see which side of the car you're seeing, or you don't and the shape of the light doesn't matter. When you drive, you don't interpret the light of the turn signal, you interpret where it is.
For me that's one thing that looks stupid on paper but that doesn't matter in real life with all the context we have when driving.
> When you drive, you don't interpret the light of the turn signal, you interpret where it is.
That is not true, you only interpret "where it is" because there is no other information encoded in the light itself, when seeing a regular car with a plain signal you do interpret where it is. But in service cars (police car, ambulances, road maintenance trucks), large truck, or static light signaling, we frequently have special purpose lights with a meaning encoded in the light itself, and in those cases the position is irrelevant, the meaning is 100% in the icon used, so all drivers are already primed to interpret an arrow shaped light as an arrow. Now, those service vehicles don't have those special purpose lights in places were they could be ambiguously interpreted as a turn signal, so there is no problem there, but that Mini turn signal is quite unsettling, it sends two conflicting messages (position vs iconography), and that is BAD in traffic.
And say, you're a cyclist, going somewhat fast but not having headlights that would illuminate the rear of the car as to make out the relation of these arrows and the vehicle.
> You either see which side of the car you're seeing, or you don't and the shape of the light doesn't matter.
Huh? I don't understand your reasoning. To everyone else, that seems to be precisely the situation where the shape of the light does matter, because it's the only context you have to go on. Care to explain your thinking?
> Mini has not heard any concerns from customers regarding the rear turn indicators
That perfectly summarize the car industry. Manufacturers only care about the people in the car. It's not their problem if their car are death machines for everyone outside.
FWIW, the answer to that question is yes. We bought a Mini a few years back and the Union Jack indicators were an upgrade (not a cheap one as I recall)
Oh, I had no idea it’s supposed to be a Union Jack, though it makes sense after you said it. All it looked like to me was the designer intentionally doing something unbelievably stupid for no reason at all. I guess having a really dumb reason is slightly better.
I was trying to find out if they blinked in the weird arrow pattern by configuring one online, but it's impossible to tell (they're not shown blinking).
Kinda surprising that they're not keen on selling potential customers on the upgrade.
The salesperson doesn't care, and the dealership sells whatever the manufacturer ships to them. The Mini dealer isn't about to start stocking Kias instead of Minis.
If anyone at Mini sees their 2019 model sold N in the first 6 months, and their 2021 model sold N/2, does anyone at corporate ask the dealerships to explain?
I hope someone would care. What if 90% of potential buyers jumped off when they saw the mileage numbers. Or after the test drive. Or when they heard how long delivery would take.
I'm sure they do, but as a car enthusiast, we're forever frustrated, because the number of people who care is simply miniscule.
I always bought used cars and it's frustrating that, of course, the manufacturers/dealers only care about people buying new.
But now, having bought a new car, I realize they STILL don't care about my opinion, because people who care about the car-like-appliances they buy are in such a minority.
Car dealerships have scads of people lining up to throw money at them for the privilege of having a new car. Look at how various non-enthusiast vehicles become trendy and command huge markups -- eg, the Kia Telluride became the "it" child taxi a few years ago (replacing the Honda CRV) and every self-respecting parent simply HAD to pay thousands over sticker to have the latest status symbol.
Go try to buy a new car and the sales people simply don't seem to care about you wanting a difficult to find color combination from another dealer. They could source one if they wanted to, but they don't. They're catering to the masses who are simply to be allowed to buy a car sitting on the lot. They want to make as much money as possible from each sale; getting a marginal sale to someone who actually cares which option package or color they get simply isn't worth it. There are too few of "us" and too many of "them".
In the US, it's incredibly rare to people actually order a car from the factory the way they want it, because nobody is willing to wait. The buyer accepts that they 'have to' buy whatever is on the lot that day. With most cars, you have very few options you can even select from anyway; they're all bundled in packages of stuff you may or may not care about. To be fair, this is an industry-wide trend; having fewer SKUs, in retail parlance, makes a ton of sense. But I think it's particularly bad in the US.
> Go try to buy a new car and the sales people simply don't seem to care about you wanting a difficult to find color combination from another dealer.
This, and similar complaints about the buying process, always feels so weird to me as a European. Parting with such a huge amount as the cost of a new car, AFAIK pretty much nobody in Europe ever picks a pre-made one from the lot; it's always ordered to spec, with the exact colours and equipment and options you want. What's the huge rush for you Yanks that you don't do it that way? "But that takes weeks!" -- yeah, so what? If you're getting a new car, don't you usually know that a few weeks beforehand?
Why are people in such a rush to get their cars? I understand if your old one broke down and you absolutely need one for a job ASAP, but if you can afford to buy a new car, surely you could afford to wait a bit to get exactly the car you want?
I ordered a car in 2016, and the process is terrible. For one thing, the local dealers didn't seem interested at all, so I had to drive 30 miles away to a dealer that was willing to make an easy sale.
Then, the options really aren't there anyway, depending on the brand. If I want the safety features, I'm also getting 'premium wheels' which I don't want, the gps navigation time capsule because h I'm not paying $100 to update that, and 70 speakers. And it didn't actually come like we ordered anyway (it was pretty close though, had the vacuum cleaner when we wanted a spare tire, managed to find a spot to squeeze in a spare tire). And after all that, it still took 90 minutes to pick up the car when it showed up 3ish months later.
It's much easier to take a car that's already on the lot. Manufacturer's websites are pretty good at finding inventory that's close to what you really want, and you just deal with that.
People at a showroom might not be considered actual customers. We would need to get actual customer who have purchased the car to contact Mini, publically via Twitter, so they could no longer hide behind this statement.
I got really frustrated when I started to see 3 rapid flashes when a Toyota or Kia driver put on the brakes on the Highway. What had been a common signal for “you’re a little too close” was now shown every time the driver pressed the brake pedal.
I guess I could’ve complained to one of the manufacturers, but what do they care? I’m not buying their cars.
This is the Pulse[0] "safety system". I was trying to buy a new truck this spring, and going through the back-and-forth of talking to a number of dealers. I had a vehicle specced out, and ready to commit to, and I asked to review the final paperwork. There was a $400 charge listed that hadn't been disclosed earlier. I was frustrated because I'd asked numerous times, "Am I going to see any additional charges on the final paperwork?"
The dealer explained that this is a "critical safety feature" that they install on all the vehicles they sell. He then explained that it makes the brake light flash whenever you press the brake pedal. I read about it for 10 minutes, and found there's a legitimate system in use in Europe that detects emergency braking and flashes the brake light. Since that system detects emergency braking and not just pressing the brake pedal, it doesn't go off all the time and actually means something to other drivers. The Pulse system is just a $30 part that's spliced into the wires right behind the brake light, that the dealer gets to charge $400 for it. And it annoys everyone driving behind you.
I live in a small town on an island with 14 miles of road. There were about five vehicles here five or ten years ago with this system, and they stood out because we all start to recognize each other's cars in an isolated town of 10,000. All of those cars are gone or have had the system removed. I told the dealer I'd look like an a***e to bring that system back to our town. He called back later to say I was lucky and they hadn't installed the system on this particular vehicle yet, and he got special permission to sell me one without Pulse. I told him I found a dealer that wasn't trying to upsell useless parts and hung up.
I've heard of people buying new without running into this kind of tactic. But this is the first time I've ever bought a new vehicle, and I ran into almost every issue I've read about when dealing with new car dealers.
> The dealer explained that this is a "critical safety feature" that they install on all the vehicles they sell. He then explained that it makes the brake light flash whenever you press the brake pedal. I read about it for 10 minutes, and found there's a legitimate system in use in Europe that detects emergency braking and flashes the brake light. Since that system detects emergency braking and not just pressing the brake pedal, it doesn't go off all the time and actually means something to other drivers.
Good god, slimy sales tactics asides that sounds like complete cargo-culting of the feature making it not just useless for its original purpose but actively misleading.
And I would expect the original feature grew at least in part from the common habit (I don't think it's ever required) of enabling the hazards when reaching an unforeseen obstruction: on many cars these days the hazards will automatically switch on during emergency braking (usually detected via an accelerometer, it tends to come on at the same time as brake assist though I don't think the two are coupled), it's possible that on some the brakes will also flash though I can't remember ever seeing that.
Of course many US cars have red turn signals / hazards, and US standards even allow brakes and turn signals to use the same lights, which is… not sane.
There are a fair number of vehicles on the road already with enhanced emergency brake lights; BMW in particular comes to mind. If you REALLY romp on it, another set of segments will light up, I think it might be the rear fogs that come on, along with a single additional flash. Not the godawful strobing every time you brush the brakes like with these "pulse" systems. (which thankfully seem incredibly rare on the west coast.. for now).
One particularly awful safety feature actually ramps up brake force assist when it "detects" emergency braking behavior; typically abrupt lift off of the throttle and subsequent application of the brake.
They never considered that maybe I WANT to abruptly lift off the throttle and then GENTLY apply the brakes, without having my head thrown towards the steering wheel.
> There are a fair number of vehicles on the road already with enhanced emergency brake lights; BMW in particular comes to mind.
FMVSS 108 still requires steady illumination of the stop lamps (including the center high mounted one). I found one article[1] staying that the NHTSA granted a temporary exception to that requirement for Mercedes in 2006. Was that exemption expanded and is it still in effect?
Interesting. I suspect the way it works, since the vehicles I'm thinking of have an additional set of stop lamps that illuminate, is that a 2nd set comes on and one or the other set flashes, but the others stay illuminate the whole time.
Pulse has a "Gross Margin Analysis" spreadsheet published (probably unintentionally) on their website[1]. It shows that they're charging dealerships $59.00 for the part and it installs in about 15 minutes.
At a 500% markup, it feels less about your safety and more about the dealerships/pulseprotects income safety.
> Dealership Monthly Investment calculation is based upon a Dealership un-installing modules on vehicles sold without Pulse.
The profit calculation is based on preinstalling the system on every vehicle that goes on the lot, and then uninstalling it on request. This means opting out costs the dealership real money, from installing and then uninstalling it.
It's extremely distracting while driving, and if more cars adopt that, then everyone will be worse off. I wish they were illegal (and I wonder if they technically are, because flashing means that for a brief second the light is off while the pedal is being pressed, and I have to imagine the law is written that the brake light must be lit when the brake pedal is pressed).
Flashing red lights are generally illegal and reserved for emergency vehicles. Pulse skirts this by claiming it's not a flashing light, but a pulsing one.
"Pulse is the only pulsing third brake light that meets regulatory requirements for use in all 50 states. Step on the brake pedal and Pulse goes to work pulsing, rather than flashing, the third brake light. What’s the difference? NHTSA regulations restrict flashing lights to emergency vehicles. Our award winning rear-end collision deterrent technology causes the third brake light to remain steady burning, even while the light pulses."
IMO it would be better for NHTSA to create rulemaking that would regulate pulsing brake lights for use under heavy braking conditions similar to Europe. Effectively making it a safety feature instead of yet another annoying distraction on the road that this pulse system puts out.
I think in Europe in case of emergency breaking all turnsignals blink automatically for a moment (not the break lights). You can make all the turnsignals blink manually when you toggle "emergency lights" switch.
This feature is called "Dynamic Brake Lights" and seems to be somewhat common on new vehicles in Europe. Under hard emergency braking, the brake (red) lights flash rapidly. If the vehicle comes to a complete stop after emergency braking, the hazard (blinking amber) lights will turn on automatically until you move off again.
Many EU-spec cars have the brake lights flash under emergency braking, and the hazards come on if the car comes to a stop after that. This is how it was implemented in several cars I owned - a C-class, an Audi A5, and now in a EU-spec Model 3 as well.
This is pretty common in Germany on the Autbahn - sudden change in traffic, i.e. much slower going cars and especially when approaching the end of a jam, you turn on your hazard blinkers to signal this to the following cars. It works pretty well and is very useful (especially because people might be going at 200km/h behind you, approaching the end of a jam).
Newer cars have an automatic high-frequency hazard flasher that triggers when heavy/sudden breaking occurs, also to warn the cars behind you.
This is also standard common curtesy on Japanese highways. The biggest part is drivers behind the original signaler will turn on their hazards to communicate backwards in the chain. Thus everyone can anticipate the slow down before the slow down would be visible. It is a big deal in Japan where even the raised highways and especially tunnels under Tokyo are curvy.
I'm actually not a fan of it. Granted I've mostly driven older cars, without the wonders of ABS etc - but most situations that require heavy, unplanned breaking for me, are also times I really should have two hands on the wheel.
I'm not fundamentally opposed - systems that do it automatically sound like a fantastic compromise. I just think if it's dangerous enough that I feel other drivers need more warning than normal, it's probably dangerous enough that I should have full control.
First, do what you need to get the car under control.
Then, switch on the hazards so the driver behind you gets a heads up. Obviously you don’t risk crashing fumbling for the hazards.
Particularly useful on rural roads with many turns where the slowdown really might be surprising, or on off ramps where the car behind you might not have arrived yet.
It's done afterwards, once you've safely reduced the speed of your vehicle, not during the initial emergency braking.
It's basically a heads up for all the vehicles far behind you that haven't yet noticed a sudden change in the flow of the traffic. Gives them more time to reduce speed without haste.
Usually there is a buffer where you've noticed a hazard in front and are braking in time. But then your next focus is on what is behind you. Did they notice you braking hard, are the about to hit into you, do you need to move over for them, etc. Hazards just add a bit more warning that red brake lights, because they're so common, can't convey.
If you're suddenly going so much less than the prevailing speed that you're a hazard then turning on your flashers makes sense since that's what they're used for.
Trying to encode extra info into the brake lights is a fools errand.
> > What had been a common signal for “you’re a little too close”
> I've never seen or heard of this.
If you're being annoyingly tailgated, rapidly tap your brakes a couple times to signal the tailgater that you have brakes -- if you need to use them for real, he'll crash into you, so he should back off.
Used to be standard communication in Northern Europe, i.e Germany up through the Nordics, but may have fallen somewhat out of the public consciousness recently (Geroffmylawn, damn millennials, etc).
This isn't the manufacturer, they're aftermarket. It started (sensibly) with some emergency vehicles having it to make sure to get the attention of the driver[s] behind them. At some point people in high-traffic areas started thinking their 18 year old Corolla was worthy of the same treatment.
In Europe under emergency braking, the brake lights pulse (I think, i.e. from half-lit to full-lit) and the hazard lights flash too. The hazard lights stay lit if you stop, at least on some cars.
I'm reasonably sure this is because in the US the rear brake lights are often also used as the turn signal and the hazard lights.
Under hard braking on European/Japanese cars the hazard lights will automatically come on. Because they're overloaded in the US it's hard to tell if it's that, or the brake lights flashing unless you're paying close attention to the middle brake light.
Edit: Just seen the comment about the Pulse system - didn't know about that!
> 3 rapid flashes [...] a common signal for "you’re a little too close"
That's new to me as EU driver. What I tend to do is hit brakes three or more times in a rhythmic fashion to signal there's traffic jam ahead; specifically on Autobahn where speeds go high with distances often way too low, instead of turning on alarm blinkers.
I think that was exactly what was meant: A manual[§] signal. Only the context the GP meant, and that I've also seen it used in, was usually a more personal "You're driving too close on my arse; back off a bit to create a safety margin" rather than your warning of stau ahead.
Ah ok, that makes sense; it's basically the same thing. Though there are other nuances to "teach" other drivers behind you, like driving extra-slow or breaking once I guess.
> Though there are other nuances to "teach" other drivers behind you, like driving extra-slow
Yeah, but I don't want to drive extra slow, do I? For one thing, I want to proceed as fast as possible, to get where I'm going. For another, if I slow down, the gap in front of me will widen enough that some fucker -- quite possibly the one now tailgating me -- will squeeze into it, and then I am the one tailgating someone.
> or breaking once I guess.
Quite the Freudian typo... Yes, braking for real while being tailgated is rather likely to lead to things breaking. And since one of those things is me (and another my car), I'd prefer not to.
> The third sentence indicates that they would know if there were any possible concerns because they own a Mini.
It indicates that they're used to that because they own a Mini, and by the first time that it actually matters they're accustomed enough to not recognise the concern.
The human brain is really good about not having to ever consciously think about something if it's had enough exposure in advance.
We're supposed to brush twice a day, get regular exercise, eat well, not get drunk, not smoke, have an appropriate work/life balance, limit screen time, get enough sun exposure, not get too much sun exposure, vote, floss, do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and change the oil every five thousand miles, too. But how is all that working out?
I do check my car every couple of weeks. I have a routine that takes about 3 minutes total. About twice a month so about 24 times 3 minutes ~ 1 hour per year.
Although I could argue it actually takes zero time because I usually do this while waiting for somebody else to get into the car.
As a side note, if you are too busy to brush your teeth you should consider talking to a health professional about consequences of not brushing teeth. Or maybe your wife/girlfriend.
I also inspect my car pretty regularly in a quick "walk-around", and check things like tire pressure at least monthly, if we're out here collecting anecdotes.
I just check my lights in either glass window reflections or paint reflections from parked cars depending on how and where I’m parked.
The only car that needed the engine oil checked regularly was our second car, a 12 year old Opel Corsa. All other cars kept their fluid and just needed the oil changed at the regular intervals.
My 2000 model Audi actually has a indicator light on the dash that only comes in when the stop lamp is not coming on, but only when the brake pedal is pressed.
Even if people look at their own cars they'd assume it's fine in the sense that most countries have regulations that cars need to meet before they can be sold.
In Psychology there is Stroop Effect. Remember the funny game when asked to name the color of the word it takes longer and is more prone to errors when the color of the ink does not match the name of the color?
I guess this design can only happen because no regulator thought that a car manufacturer could be THAT dumb.
> there should be no trouble at all for a driver to understand, when seeing the full rear of the car, which direction is being indicated.
This response from Mini presumes drivers have the luxury of using "system 2" logical/analytical reasoning in a hectic realtime environment where they must most rely on "system 1" intuitive reasoning.
There needs to be a name for this type design fallacy, because it's not the first time I've seen it.
> Imagine if you can only see the car's taillights and you see a blinking arrow move the opposite way it points. What would you think you saw?
If conditions were that bad and you saw a ‘normal’ indicator flash it would be a 50/50 guess which way it was going. That’s better I suppose but hardly good.
I'd say 90/10. The positioning of the light in relation to the road is usually going to be a very good heuristic.
However if that light was a freaking arrow I'm going to think "oh, it must be one of those 10% of cases, it's a good thing that indicator was designed so well" shortly before I'm killed.
The comment above is clearly controversial, I can't think of driving at night behind a car and not seeing both rear lights, and usually illuminated license plate and illumination coming from the rear window pane. Overall that gives me a full sense of the width of the car.
The indicator light would be relatively to the left/right of the car, and typically would look like a single bulb due to distance and diffraction.
>> I can't think of driving at night behind a car and not seeing both rear lights, and usually illuminated license plate and illumination coming from the rear window pane.
Have you ever driven in a snowstorm at night? (I am not being facetious, there are terrible snowstorms in the winter where I live due to lake-effect snow. Your mileage may vary depending on where you live.)
Visibility is terrible in a nighttime snowstorm.
Reflective surfaces are covered with snow.
Lights can be partially or completely covered so that only a faint glow is visible.
Anything that leads to confusion, such as a backward-pointing arrow turn signal light, could cause confusion that might lead to accidents. It might not confuse some drivers, but it only takes one confused driver to cause a road accident.
> Have you ever driven in a snowstorm at night? (I am not being facetious, there are terrible snowstorms in the winter where I live due to lake-effect snow. Your mileage may vary depending on where you live.)
Yes, once or twice. The general recommendation is NOT to drive during a snow storm. For those that must drive during a snow storm probably aren't driving these Minis.
After all, most cars are not designed for every possible climate/severe weather scenario, I don't see why Minis should be held to a higher regard.
It's absolutely technically possible to drive a Mini in a snowstorm, just like any other car (apart from perhaps super- and "hyper-" sports cars with ~zero ground clearance).
Whether one can follow the common-sense recommendation not to drive in a snow storm is due to all kinds of other circumstances, approximately none of which is related to what brand of car you own.
The article's writer agrees with Mini. After several hundred words of mockery they conclude with: "I don’t actually think the design is going to really confuse people...I don’t really think these are actually hurting anyone."
I've worked in places where, if it's a senior VIP's idea, nobody questions it. You just do it. Doesn't matter if it's good, clever, high-value, safe, ethical, legal, or even possible. You just do it and don't ask why, or so much as hint that it's a terrible idea. Everyone just whistles and pretends it's great. I would hope that this wouldn't be the case in a car company, where safety needs to be a huge part of the whole process, but I've never worked there.
They probably designed the car with Europe regulations in mind first, and then rather than try and design an entirely new brake light for the US just took the lazy/cheap way and lit up the other two available light bars.
Is that really the case? In the UK at least indicators have to be orange, so they are easy to distinguish from brake lights. I find it insane that there are cars with red indicators like this one. Definitely couldn't be sold in the UK.
The article writer believes EU spec indicators are just horizontal (amber) lines so they would not have the issue.
But presumably those would be too small for US rules so they lit additional segments, making the arrow, which is what the parent commenter referred to.
What if you're in foggy weather or bad rain and can't properly see the car in front of you, and you see a "arrow pointing left" flashing ahead... Not only is the arrow pointing in the wrong direction but you may incorrectly assume that the vehicle itself is to the right of that light when it is in fact to the left of it.
Signals are most important in reduced vision conditions, and this reduces the reliability of those signals.
They're shaped like arrows pointing the opposite way, and we've had arrows for directions long before we had turn signals. If I ever see one of those in the street you bet I'll be confused for a split second. Being confused even for a split second is not a great thing when you're driving a two ton vehicle.
The article talks about this: "Now, I think the vast majority of drivers will understand what’s going on and treat them as normal blinking turn indicators, but these indicators hurt your brain, at least a little bit"
I think you are interpreting "confused" as "I can't tell which way the car is turning", while everyone else is talking about "This UX forces me to use my brain when I shouldn't have to".
Yeah, I don't think they're literally meaning "hurt" here.
Maybe a better analogy is where you're having a conversation with someone, and they throw in a double-negative. It's not like you're literally unable to work it out, but you need to engage with it consciously for a second. In a high-stakes conversation, that's just something that's good to avoid.
A memorable example of this for me (if a bit of a tangent) was when Felix Baumgartner was doing his mega parachute jump, and they kept screwing up the comms for which direction the wind was coming from / going in: https://youtu.be/rNhmYaWiPEk?t=4200
(by convention, people talk about wind in terms of the direction they come from).
I think the whole thing here is that driving involves a lot of modelling other drivers and their intentions, so our tolerance for bad UX that requires conscious thought should be really low.
I think the author is more accurately simulating how his brain will feel when he's flying down the road, tracking the trajectories of the very fast metal boxes surrounding him, and suddenly encounters a non-standard ambiguous signal. Turn signal decoding should be instant and unconscious, and this mini signal disrupts that. If anything I think he's understating the risks.
If I were behind that I would not be perpetually confused. But I’d sure as hell have a split second of confusion, and generally we try to avoid those sorts of situations when driving.
They do not follow the pattern if every other turn signal you have seen, because no other turn signal has an arrow pointing in the opposite direction of what it is indicating.
Can you really not understand how that might cause a moment of confusion? You see a turn signal like normal, but then you notice it is pointing in a different direction… you don’t think that might make some people pause for an instant and think?
We are used to both turn signals and arrows being used to indicate direction… when they contradict each other, it is going to get past our automatic brain and make us think, which is bad when driving.
Okay, maybe your brain is wired differently, just like the brain of the designer who created the lights.
The position of the light on the car is a signal for my brain, but it takes some processing. If it's on the right side of the vehicle, my brain evaluates that to "right" and vice versa, but maybe it's a short car, like a Smart ForTwo or a Fiat 500, and I'm looking at its side, so the right-hand-side indicator is left from the "center of perceived mass", but in that case there should be another smaller light somewhere around the side-view mirror and hmmm, yeah, it's turning right. It just takes a tiny bit of processing power and a tiny bit of time.
But an arrow, boy, I've been looking at arrows all my life. They've been telling me where to go at the train station, which way to turn on Google Maps and sometimes even literally which way to turn the steering wheel, on the outside of a sharp turn. An arrow requires no additional processing and is a strong, unmistakable signal.
So what my brain sees on that Mini flashing its left indicator is something like "Car turning left, btw RIGHT".
I agree! In fact, I’m sick of red meaning stop, and green meaning go for traffic lights. After all, this is redundant information, we all know the arrangement. Why not swap up the colors for fun?
This idea is only slightly worse than using wrong-pointing arrows for turn signals.
There's this trick question among children here. One makes the other repeat "white" ten times and immediately asks "What do cows drink?". The answer is almost always milk. It might even be working without repeating white part [1].
You should have encountered many situations like this before, simple tasks creating cognitive load, how can't you know what the fuss is?
The Mini indicators don't look like arrows to me. They look just like basic indicators. I don't know what else to say?
To be honest I think people are massively exaggerating how confusing they are for fun Internet outrage points. People calling for people to be sacked and things. Crazy.
> like every other turn signal you’ve seen in your entire life.
You don't know a priori that they work like other turn signals.
You are presented with a new paradigm. Blinking side AND arrow direction. All bets are off. You now have to decide whether they indeed kept them on the right side or if they innovated and it's the arrows that are right.
It's a turn signal on a car. It's not the enigma you're making it out to be. Thousands of these on the road for like a decade. Absolutely nobody is actually confused.
A whole lot of people pretending to be mystified for some reason in this thread.
Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between being able to think about this for as long as you want and post comments on HackerNews, and having to make a split-second decision while driving at high speed? Yeah, obviously System 2 gives the right answer. But what about System 1?
I don't know what else to say? I've seen them on cars. They really aren't confusing. They've been around for like a decade. Nobody seems to actually have a problem with them. Only people looking at photos of them on a website and discussing on a forum seem to be irate about it.
Just looking at the video in the tweet had me slightly confused. Arrows are powerful.
It's like those puzzles or quiz's or whatnot that have the word "red" written in a blue font. Of course everyone can read the word, but in split second decisions the brain is going to grab whichever details it can.
This reminds me of the colour word test, where you have to say what colour a word is but the word itself is the name of a different colour. The cognitive conflict behind this is called the Stroop Effect and I wonder if this isn’t being inflicted on drivers behind these minis.
25251. (a) Flashing lights are permitted on vehicles as follows:
(1) To indicate an intention to turn or move to the right or left
upon a roadway, turn signal lamps and turn signal exterior pilot
indicator lamps and side lamps permitted under Section 25106 may be
flashed on the side of a vehicle toward which the turn or movement is
to be made.
If you feel that the mini is in violation by failing to do it's most basic of job of indicating left or right, file a complaint with the investigations division, and this state with the largest number of car registrations can fix it by forcing a recall or blocking registrations until it it fixed by the mfg
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv-complaints-ffinv-1/
From what I have seen of American cars, this one is completely compliant. The horrible part about this car is that the signals are red and that they are the same light as the rear/brake lights. Which is apparently extremely common in the US.
Yeah that's how a lot of cars are here. It really isn't confusing at all, unlike putting any arrow that points the opposite direction that you're trying to indicate.
>Stylists don’t deserve all the blame. In America, the brake light and rear turn signal must each have a lit lens area of at least 50 cm2 (7¾ in2). The American regulation calls this lit lens area “EPLLA” for Effective Projected Luminous Lens Area. This minimum-size requirement doesn’t exist outside America. It’s not such a big deal on a large vehicle where there’s plenty of space for a large rear lamp, but on smaller rear lamps space is at a premium. There often isn’t room for two lamps of at least 50 cm2, so that makes a design constraint.
>American regs say rear turn signals can be implemented by flashing the brake light, so the automaker needs to have only one lamp of at least 50 cm2 per side. Problem solved; the red combination brake/tail/turn lamp is legal
There's plenty of room, the Mini is 56" high and 68" wide. There's space for two lights each smaller than a soda can.
The stylists and sales targets have more weight than safety-minded regulators or consumers, so the stylists can veto any changes that add a color like yellow or increase the size of the lights.
Speaking of terrible turn signals, Technology Connections on YouTube did a very informative (though a bit ranting) video on them in the US. Worth a watch and really interesting.
The MINI is actually not a BMW, although it is true that it is made by BMW. Nor are MINI drivers really very much like BMW drivers, in fact I'd say that overall as a population, they are quite different.
(I had a MINI from 2002-2020. Put about 300k miles on it.)
That’s the BMW X1 and x2 right? I feel the “correct” answer is that the X1/2 is actually minis not a proper BMW since they are built on the “mini” platform and are front wheel driven.
The Mini and BMW dealers near me are, indeed, separate. They are right next door to each other, and appear to share employees and a repair facility. Strange isn't it?
Well, technically, at least in Germany, they are the same. I have a 2021 Mini and it was surprising when I got some paper for taxes to see that the state considers it as BMW car.
To whomever is saying that "only position of the light matter" I invite you to try playing a car simulation game where all the arrows are inverted.
Arrows are so well used (especially in the driving context) that the way we react to them is down to subconscious reflex. Imagine that the light is replaced by and neon written ("RIGHT" on the left side, and "LEFT" on the right side)
To me, this sends another signal. One that says "don't work at Mini".
If something like this is able to make it all the way through design, production and testing -- with no one raising a red flag along the way -- what other less visible but equally bone-headed ideas are making it into their cars?
I think the problem lies, as usual, with america. These lamp clusters were designed in a European environment where we have brake lights and turn indicators. By the time the design was nearing production it was probably too late to cancel when they realised that some parts of this planet have the boneheaded idea that flashing the red stop light was a good idea. Mini therefore had three options:
1) Sell the global spec in the states, which they can't do because there will be at least one state who thinks its too foreign or "un american".
2) Don't sell in the states, which I guess they could do since this is a factory modification and not part of the standard spec, but now they have a lot of undesirable cars because you can no longer visually distinguish the up-specced car from the basic model.
3) Change the orange bulb for red and sell cars to the boneheaded (and dangerous) american standard of flashing the stop lights.
> By the time the design was nearing production it was probably too late to cancel when they realised that some parts of this planet have the boneheaded idea that flashing the red stop light was a good idea
If only designing cars is what they did for a living..
You have a point, but it's not that clear cut. Large corporations are quite non-uniform and decision making is sometimes random. For example, remember YouTube Red? A quite boneheaded decision, yet I'm told there are many many good areas to work in at Google.
Flashing the red brake light is a North American thing. Over in Europe you would have a dedicated amber light and I expect there is a different light than the Union Jack which would be reserved for combined rear and brake lights only.
I’ve seen a mini with these lights recently here in Ireland and I’d expect the driver may find their car burnt out sooner rather than later.
European Minis have those stupid looking Union Jack light clusters, but IIRC it’s just the horizontal bar that flashes yellow on those, not the extra diagonal bits that make them into reverse arrows.
> Flashing the red brake light is a North American thing
Nowadays, the brake light is rarely used. It's usually a different part of the taillight cluster which may be red or amber, and most manufacturers (especially European ones, ironically) sometimes choose to use a red one for NA markets. The complaint here isn't that the brake lights are being used, but that the turn signal is designed like this.
> It's usually a different part of the taillight cluster which may be red or amber,
Which remains one of the issues, even if it's not technically a brake light. In Europe red turning signs are not legal.
But I can see how the same turn signal in amber would help very little, as you'd still have a very clear, very bright arrow pointing the wrong way entirely.
I find it crazy that Americans allow turn signals to use the same red lights as brakes considering how many different safety rules they have. Like how all cars have to have amber reflectors on the front bumpers, which almost all European cars have to add almost as an afterthought [1], or how the door lock pins can't be flush with the door (at least I assume this is regulation since I never see non-flush door lock pins in European cars). And now the most recent one is the mandatory backup cameras, and I don't think I know any other country in the world where those are mandated by law.
America has the highest per capita traffic deaths among OECD countries. Our traffic / vehicle regulations aren’t that strong and are rarely enforced on after-market modifications.
This is getting downvotes, but it’s literally legal to drive a jacked up, high center of gravity pickup trucks in the US. Meanwhile in Europe such a modification would be illegal because it reduces front-facing visibility.
Per miles driven the US has an average number of traffic deaths. The problem is that the country's infrastructure is designed so poorly that the number of miles driven per capita is laughably absurd.
Maybe the root cause is the laughably easy barrier of entry to have a license to drive a death missile?
It's a multi faceted issue of course, but to me, getting better educated drivers on the road is by far the easiest problem to solve around driving.
I would say almost everyone knows not to text and drive, or run red lights or to speed. Yet these are all frequent occurrences. Even proposals to add speed or red light cameras (with strict rules to prevent municipal abuse) face heavy opposition. I don’t think education alone will fix traffic safety.
People don't know the basics of changing lanes, passing slower vehicles, u-turns, planning for their exits, etc etc etc. People text and drive due to the most basic misunderstanding of how dangerous driving is and how much damage they can cause to others.
Taking devil’s advocate here, but people claim that automated enforcement has equity concerns, privacy concerns and immigration concerns. Again, these aren’t my arguments, but:
There’s concern that automated enforcement is a regressive punishment that unduly burdens low-income motorists. There’s a belief that these cameras will be concentrated in low-income or minority neighborhoods.
The privacy concerns are fairly obvious, people are concerned the government is building a database of vehicle locations.
And the immigration concerns are that information could be fed back to ICE to detain undocumented immigrants.
However if you read the enabling legislation, a lot of these concerns are addressed through data retention, data sharing and safety standards (i.e. tickets can only be issued at 9 MPH over the limit and there must be a warning sign.)
I also think an unspoken part of the opposition is some people feel they can talk a cop out of writing a ticket, but they can’t argue with a machine.
>> Per miles driven the US has an average number of traffic deaths.
> Maybe the root cause is the laughably easy barrier of entry to have a license to drive a death missile?
You're saying we should make driver's licenses punitively difficult to get in order to shift American population structure in the direction of dense settlements?
The reason America isn't densely settled is much simpler than that; there aren't very many people in America.
I'll copy paste what i said in another comment:People don't know the basics of changing lanes, passing slower vehicles, u-turns, planning for their exits, etc etc etc.
The DMV test is a joke. The 15 minute test in a quiet neighborhood does not prepare you to be a proper participant on the road.
> You're saying we should make driver's licenses punitively difficult to get in order to shift American population structure in the direction of dense settlements?
I don't think there's anything punitive about proportionately strict regulation for something that kills so many people.
It kills a lot of people. Whether the mechanism for it killing a lot of people is a large number of miles driven rather than a high rate of deaths per mile is neither here nor there.
It does not kill a large number of people in relative terms. In absolute terms, it kills an extremely tiny number of people; the death rate from traffic accidents in the US in 2018 was 0.01%.
It's one of the biggest killers of young people (e.g. looks like it's at least 25% of deaths of people aged 20-24?), so in terms of years of life lost it has a big impact.
American's views of freedoms are a little wonky. In most of the world you can go about life with many transport options. You could drive, you could walk, you could ride a bike. While in the US the only realistic option is to drive.
In a personal freedoms sense, I would think that Europeans have more personal freedom since they have more realistic options to pick from.
In the general population no, but for the type of person who engages in antisocial behaviour I fully expect this to happen. The irony is that the they would do it while wearing a UK football team’s jersey.
I laughed out loud as soon as I saw the gif of the turn signal. This is an unintentional Stroop test in a place where you need to have absolute clarity.
> Mini has chosen the Union Jack lights to highlight Mini’s British heritage
Mmm .. designed by an American, built by BMW, much much bigger, I don't think there is any of the original Mini left. I see an original on the road now and again, and they are really tiny. A new Mini could eat one for breakfast.
Personally I find the Audi-style sequential lightshow signals far more stupid - and more distracting.
These look odd in a static image where the reader has been primed by the title, but in real life they are flashing lights on the corner of the car. The animated GIF in the article isn’t confusing is it?
> The animated GIF in the article isn’t confusing is it?
I would say that it, in fact, is: once you see the arrow pointing the wrong way around it becomes difficult to "unsee" it.
I actually missed the issue in the video, the gif and text made the arrow "pop out", and now I can't unsee the clearly right-pointing arrow blinking at me, from a car which is certainly trying to turn left.
Wow what a circular response - people who buy the Mini have no problem with its stupid features. Of course they don't - they bought the car so you know that already.
That Mini rep response sounds like a lame rationalization.
Amusing to see this on HN. I saw one of these Minis on the road the other day for the first time and I admit I got confused for two seconds. But then again I’m used to Chicago drivers who signal left when they want to turn right and vice versa — it’s a thing here. When I realized that the Mini’s turn signal was one half of the Union Jack I laughed because the design language reminded me of Austin Powers and perhaps it was meant to be intentionally funny and tacky by being jingoistic.
Lenovo have committed a similar crime with their camera shutter design that includes the red dot from the thinkpad logo, totally ignoring that a red dot/light in the context of a camera has been used to indicate a recording state for a long time. Lenovo's Camera is in the off/disabled/shuttered position when the red dot is visible.
Although of little consequence in reality, the idea that some exec thought this would help the brand blows my mind. It definitely detracts from Lenovo's image in my mind and indicates that they care more about advertising to me than good design.
The red dot is quite bright, in a well lit area I don't know if I could distinguish it from a dim LED. On my carbon X1, there is an infrared camera or sensor right next to it, so in my case I actually have the IRlens and the dot adjacent to one another as you might expect on a recording device.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I was confused by it, just thought to myself "huh, that's kind of silly"
I just checked our new 2022 Mini SE EV, and fortunately, it doesn't have this design. The turn signal is more like a T rotated 90 degrees with the vertical bar towards the inside of the car.
But I do wish it had amber turn signals, I don't know why the USA doesn't make that the standard since it removes all ambiguity with the brake light.
The gif at the top of the article seems plausibly understandable, but seeing it in context in the video further down, having a blinking right facing arrow and a solid illuminated left facing arrow, I really had no idea which direction was being indicated and could only infer based on the road lines.
I don't think I'm substantially dumber than average, but asked my wife, without any context, "which way is this car turning?" -- She also got it wrong. Seems like a bad idea.
Flashing the brake light saves a wire or two, reduces the bulb count by two, and avoids another bulb housing.
Plus it's allowed in the spec and makes your car look older and more dignified. (Remember when we had to blink our brakelights because times were tough? We're still tough!)
Some pickup trucks are wired for either, and you can swap out the lenses and add a bulb to get separate signals.
In the US, there's a regulation mandating the size of the lit area for the turn signal exceed a certain surface area. The European style amber signal area on most standard-sized or small cars is unlikely to comply. This (and regulations around the amount of red reflector in taillights) is the reason why most Americanized cars get terrible taillights with reused brake lights.
The main issue here is that, much like 4000w HID headlights, they only irritate others, not the owner/purchaser of the vehicle, who may not even be aware of what their rear turn indicators look like, or that there is anything wrong with them.
Or like the dashes that light at night even when your headlights aren’t but your DRLs are, so you are completely unaware you have no taillights and it’s very difficult to discover otherwise.
My wife cares very little about cars but was pointed these tail lights out to me just yesterday. She said something like "those are stupid, why would somebody buy tail lights like that?" thinking they were aftermarket.
Absolutely horrid design that is going to fucking kill people. Like, so bad that it deserves to in the next edition of DoET as an example of what not to do. Whoever worked on this should be demoted and the senior person who signed off on it should be fired
Also, Mini's flippant and patronizing cluelessness in response to the OP's concern is appalling. This is 2021 are companies really still thinking "no one else has complained" is a valid defense when it comes to design?
I'm a taillight enthusiast, but, I must say, it never even occurred to me that these look like an arrow, even after watching the gif.
It's much less awful than the Mini Clubman, which, like so many new vehicles, have decided to install brake lights and signals IN THE BUMPER. My understanding is there's an EU (?) regulation that taillights must be visible when the trunk/hatch is open; eg, for roadside emergencies where you are broken down but are getting things out of the back, your lights must still be visible.
Manufacturers have designed around this by having taillights that go up with the hatch, but still have brake/signal/various lights way down in the bumper. So you'll be driving behind a vehicle, seeing its normal taillights lit up with the headlights, but when they go to brake or signal, segments 2 feet lower come on. The visibility of this 'solution' is far worse than using lights up high. Yes, we have the center-mounted high stop light, but this is a step in the wrong direction, and makes turn signals less visible than ever.
Also, my standard rant, ban red turn signals. They should always and forever be amber, which gets rid of a ton of confusion due to pulsing brake lights.
What goes into being a tail light enthusiast? I can’t wrap my head around this concept. He used the term Blinkie in the article but I thought it was a joke. Are you a blinkie?
I have strong opinions on their function, and have spent not-insignificant money to buy/install/modify various 'correct' functionality, eg, buying lamps and switches from Europe and modifying wiring to make the 'correct' functions work (amber turn signals, rear fog lights).
Turn signals that are also brake lights are just insane.
Turn signals that are also hazard lights are silly too. My personal pet peeve is the use of hazard lights to show a public transit bus is stopped for passengers. They'll then switch to a turn signal to re-enter traffic. There is no discernible difference to the lights when the right/curbside indicator light is obscured by a trailing car.
And failure to yield to the turn signal on buses is against the law.
> It's much less awful than the Mini Clubman, which, like so many new vehicles, have decided to install brake lights and signals IN THE BUMPER. My understanding is there's an EU (?) regulation that taillights must be visible when the trunk/hatch is open; eg, for roadside emergencies where you are broken down but are getting things out of the back, your lights must still be visible.
There's a US reg on the subject: lamps on non-fixed parts of vehicles are considered auxiliary, so any of them must be duplicated on a fixed part of the vehicle.
I don't know about EU regs on the subject, I can't remember seeing lights on the bumper aside from rear fogs.
edit: I think it's allowed in the EU as long as the lights are visible as expected, and interestingly brake lights are not covered, however the bumper workaround is also permitted, per Regulation No 48 § 5.18 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...)
5.18. Rear position lamps, rear direction-indicators and rear retro-reflectors, triangular as well as non-triangular, may be installed on movable components only:
5.18.1. If at all fixed positions of the movable components the lamps on the movable components meet all the position, geometric visibility and photometric requirements for those lamps.
5.18.2. In the case where the functions referred to in paragraph 5.18 are obtained by an assembly of two lamps marked ‘D’ (see paragraph 2.16.1), only one of the lamps needs to meet the position, geometric visibility and photometric requirements for those lamps at all fixed positions of the movable components; or
5.18.3. Where additional lamps for the above functions are fitted and are activated, when the movable component is in any fixed open position, provided that these additional lamps satisfy all the position, geometric visibility and photometric requirements applicable to the lamps installed on the movable component.
5.18.4. In the case where the functions referred to in paragraph 5.18 are obtained by an interdependent lamp system either of the following conditions shall apply:
(a) should the complete interdependent lamp system be mounted on the moving component(s), the requirements of paragraph 5.18.1 shall be satisfied. However, additional lamps for the above functions may be activated, when the movable component is in any fixed open position, provided that these additional lamps satisfy all the position, geometric visibility and photometric requirements applicable to the lamps installed on the movable component; or
(b) should the interdependent lamp system be partly mounted on the fixed component and partly mounted on a movable component, the interdependent lamp(s) specified by the Applicant during the device approval procedure shall meet all the position, outwards geometric visibility and photometric requirements for those lamps, at all fixed positions of the movable component(s). The inwards geometric visibility requirement(s) is(are) deemed to be satisfied if this(these) interdependent lamp(s) still conform(s) to the photometric values prescribed in the field of light distribution for the approval of the device, at all fixed positions of the movable component(s).
In Asia and Europe, turn signals are orange blinkers at the rear. They are distinct from the red brake lights which are a whole different element.
In USA, it's the brake lights that blink when you turn on the turn signal! And it blinks in red! There's no orange.
Who decided that was a great idea?!
The first time I was in USA, this red element started blinking in the car in front of me, and for a moment I was confused.
- I didn't even realise turning was his intention.
- When I did realise turning is his intention, I thought the owner of that particular car modified his tail lights, because he thought it was cool. Eventually I realized the brake lights blink for all newish cars.
Also, for new European cars (like, BMWs and Audis in particular), the orange blinkers that we get in Asia/Europe actually look pretty cool, with some sweeping orange LEDs designs in some cases. Too bad America misses out on that.
I'm on desktop with remote exploits mitigated (JS disabled) and all I get is text. I'm curious as to what the actual turn signal looks like. The text definitely doesn't get across the point.
You know what the UK flag, the "Union Jack" looks like? A rectangle with a square and a diagonal cross on it: A + overlaid on an X . Mini cars have that design, split in half, as the motif of their rear lights. (Half and a bit: The center vertical bar is replicated on the inner edge of both sides.) The rest, the center horizontal cross bar from the square cross plus half the diagonal cross, makes an arrow on each side -- pointing towards the other side.
Left side: ->|
Right side: |<-
The -> and <- bits are the brake lights / indicators, so when turning left it flashes an arrow pointing right on the left side of the car, and vice versa.
I don't find it surprising some designer thought it was cool. And too everybody, calling this "idiotic" (the journalist included — well, especially him): I'm sure you are making decisions as idiotic as this in your professional work once in a while, and even manage to think that they were good. It's normal.
I am surprised, though, if this car passed certification. If there's no rule that makes it possible to forbid driving this, there should be. There shouldn't be much room left for guesswork to decide if it's dangerous or not, tired people behind the wheel do all kinds of stupid shit, you shouldn't push them further.
Reminds me of official aviation-speak where "takeoff power" means firewall the throttle, for things like taking off. Until one day the copilot heard it as "take off power" and chopped the throttle, resulting in a crash. Military aviation had to learn that the hard way, too.
These sort of mistakes seem stupidly obvious, but it's only when you see it. For example, on Windows 95 the "turn off" button was infamously labeled "Start".
I think the Ford/GM thing of using the brake lights also as the turn signal is far more dangerous -- when the brakes are on, a turn signal just turns the single light off. In traffic stopping quickly, and you can only see one light, you have a fraction of a second to determine if the car is stopping or changing lanes.
I see this in traffic all the time, and nearly been hit by cars that look like they are braking but actually changing lanes. Why are separate light colors not mandated?
They are mandated in any country that uses UNECE regulations for vehicle lighting. In the US and Canada, red turn signals are allowed as a cost saving measure. That's why you can see high end luxury cars with LED tail lamp clusters that have red rear turn signals in the US.
Similar situation...the U.S. fire fighting community starting using European-style reflective chevrons in the 2005-2010 period. U.S. apparatus spec is governed by something called NFPA 1901 but is highly decentralized and people were mounting them upside down even though they were conforming to the (nascent) standard for rear reflective surface area. The "V" shape of upside down chevrons can pull people TOWARDS a vehicle vs. direct them away from it. Mostly fixed now but a hot mess.
Gotta love the warning KEEP BACK 343 FEET in the "correct" photo. Where in the world did they get 343 feet? That doesn't correspond to a round number in meters, an integer fraction of a mile, or anything else.
I've been noticing a steady regression in the effectiveness of signals on cars which seems to be caused by a pursuit of aesthetic quality over function. The lights used to be designed such that they were large illuminated surfaces (using a Fresnel lens). Now they are increasingly composed of thin lines which just don't work as well. They also seem to be highly directional. The other day I could tell a car was about to turn not because I could see the indicator flashing but because I could see that one of the daytime running lights was off, and I happen to know that happens when indicators are on. They were completely useless.
The brightness of the lights is getting ridiculous too. Some brake lights are blinding which is awful if you're sitting behind someone who doesn't know how to use the handbrake. Half the cars on the road seem like they are constantly using high beam lights on the front now. I've even flashed oncoming cars before, only to be flashed back as they weren't even using high beams. It's making driving at night really unbearable.
I am not sure I buy into the idea there is a problem here. The light is on the right side of the car. The light is flashing. Ergo the car is turning right.
If it were turning left (as per the "arrow" direction) then the light would also need to be on the left hand side, and I would have to be imagining a whole car exists to the right of it. Which means either:
- I cannot move into where said phantom car is, ie where the real car is going
- upon observation of the lack of car it is obvious that the turn signal is to the right
I have seen a few of these, and I haven't suffered a moment of confusion because I am not looking for arrows to indicate direction. Indeed I have never seen an arrow light indicating direction of turn! It is simply a point in reference to the position of the vehicle.
Side note - this is why hazard lights suck. If you can only see one side of the car they're indistinguishable from an indicator and a source of regular confusion in the real world (for me, at least)
On my drawing board I've conceived an LED matrix sign to go in the back window of my car.
That could do a good job of turn signals, warnings for tailgaters, etc. I think putting up a message like "I support my local police department" might lead me to getting stopped.
One trouble I see is that the view out the back would be partially obscured, Probably the light strips would spaced such that 50% or so of light could get through, but if the strips were lit up either by themselves or something else contrast would be impaired. It would probably be OK with a rear-view camera but I wouldn't want to argue about that with the cops.
So for now I'll stick with a single LED strip mounted on the side that can replace my car's image with a McLaren F1 if somebody looks at it at just the right time in the right way.
I always liked the look of the new mini, and the electric one looks interesting, but then i seen the tail lights... Yea, British Heritage, whatever... IM IRISH... feck off... at least give the option of proper ones... BMW also own Rolls Royce... they dont do stupid things like this with them...
There are even worse implementations. In the US and Canada where red color rear turn signals are permitted as a cost saving measure, you will see implementations where you have to discern a blinking red light surrounded by an illuminated solid red light (when the brakes are applied).
Mini has always struck me as a gimmick on wheels. In the US The cars sole purpose is an ego stroke for insufferable anglophiles... the kind who refer to every bar as a pub and flog the premier league like some sort of religious talisman.
Its built in mexico, owned by BMW and speaking as someone who makes a living working on cars, is a piece of garbage in ways only BMW could aspire to achieve. Agonizing turbo locations, self destructing interference engines that exist to skirt the warranty claims department, and a transmission configuration that makes a lada look positively formula one by comparison.
And now finally the Union jack themes come to bite them in the ass. Save your money and buy a Mazda CX crossover.
MINI’s manufacturing home is in Oxford, England, on the same site where cars have been produced for over 100 years. In addition to Plant Oxford, some MINI vehicles are assembled at the VDL NedCar plant in the city of Born in the Netherlands, and at the Magna Steyr facility in Graz, Austria.
The really stupid thing is we have these exact same design of lights on the UK delivered Mini's, however it's just the center horizontal bar that flashes orange.
As I understand, US regulations have stricter requirements on the required light surface area. Presumably this design decision was an attempt to meet those requirements.
Audi models in the US also light their taillights in addition to the scrolling bar they have in the EU.
While on surface it sounds dumb but this is how 99% companies operate. Nobody is interested, rewarded, or even allowed to question this status quo. If you point out nonsense you'd be first ignored, then told good point but not priority, then told not your problem, and then be managed out of the way. Everyone in entire command chain wants to do minimum, and only have praises for superiors. They want to see things work like 1 2 3... And you opposing is you making them look bad and make them work more. They are trying to maximize local maximum which is getting promotion by completing projects which doesn't align with what's best for the company.
As a regular bike commuter, and a person that used to want to buy a mini. I've found mini drivers to be some of the most aggressive, most impatient on the road. I assume it's because they are acting out some Le mans fantasy to my detriment.
This will suck primarily for cyclists and motorcyclists approaching intersections. Most of the time they won’t be directly behind a vehicle and will instead be off to the left or right and may only see a single side before overtaking a driver.
The headline & picture made me laugh because I've seen these for years in the UK and never seen them as arrows. Actually looking at these lights as sold in the UK, they have a vertical bar on the inside, so it's not quite as "arrowy" - e.g. https://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P90289429...
I'm not sure what the motivation is for the redesign, it does look less Union Jack-like.
It would be fun to pull datasets of collision data based on this version of mini and earlier versions to see if there is a statistical increase in damage to cars while that are currently in a move that used a turn signal.
someone sat down, designed those tail-lights. and got all the subordinates to nod, in agreement. then they later went to their husband / wife and little kids with a smug on their face like they did a good job.
Do you know this for a fact? Because it could’ve been some executive told the designer to make a Union Jack blinker. And the designer dutifully did their job, even though they thought it was stupid.
Hmm, I would not be distracted by this. There are so many different indicators in Europe (we have laxer rule than the US on blinkers) that the "direction" or whatever does not phase me at all.
I have seen all kind of indicators while driving in Europe, and they all share the same basic thing; a flashing light indicating in which direction the car will be turning.
Suddenly seeing a flashing arrow pointing the other way instantly confused me, and I had no idea which way the car would be turning. This is just plain stupid.
Another example of Brexit Syndrome - put union jacks everywhere while saying/doing things that make everyone else in the world wonder if you've lost your mind.
Slightly off topic, but FWIW the website is also a mess. You’re allowed to read one sentence at a time as they’re interspersed with ads, autoplaying videos and sign-up forms.
The turn signals on new Kias that are 11" off the ground on the lowest part of the bumper are ridiculously hard to spot and after fall below the line of vision.
Apart from the US (where paper checks still circulate and I assume fax machines are everywhere) are there other places where blinking the red tail light is an acceptable indicator signal? What’s wrong with just mandating indicator ligts? Every car manufacturer can make them - because obviously they are required elsewhere - so why go through the trouble and cost of manufacturing a worse solution as well?
Are there no regulatory agencies that review new car designs? Like if a car is to be imported into country X, besides meeting all established regulations (emissions, safety, etc), there isn't anybody who gives it even a once over?
This will undoubtedly cause an accident at some point.
It'd be interesting to know how a design like this made it from whoever's idea all the way to production.
Looking at the images from article
It's obvious.
They put the led's, into the lenses, on the wrong side. Someone had a great idea, with the arrows. But by the time it got into production, the insides were reversed. Maybe a drawing was mirror imaged, maybe the layout at the factory was upside down? D6one simple little thing.
I’d agree with you but they’ve had union jacks in the headlights forever in this exact configuration. The only difference this time is they’ve tweaked what parts of the Union Jack is lit which makes it look more like an arrow.
It’s not a good headlight design but it’s certainly not the worst either. There’s a zillion examples of really shitty tail light design on American cars in particular.
This is a pretty clickbait article and I usually like Jalopnik.
It's cute if it's just mini who does such things (union jack taillights), but it gets tiresome when every single marque feels the need to splatter design elements all over the place in the name of product differentiation. Even the super expensive ones. Like anyone cares less.
I've seen the European version on roads and the UK flag symbolics was obvious to me, haven't noticed it's an arrow as well... or perhaps the EU version has separate orange light panel for blinkers? Overall it's BMW, their trademark is to be show off and obnoxious.
Why can't the US simply require auto makers to use a damn yellow light for turn signals? This is common in almost every country. Yet in the US (and Canada, btw), we get the stupid Red color for break and turn signals.
An indicator with an arrow pointing in the opposite direction of the indicated turn leaving the viewer to decipher the direction of the turn based on the location of the indicator.
Flawless design
There are so many use cases where this could cause confusion, and actually risk an accident. I thought when I read the headline that I had a reasonable idea how bad it would be, but it was so much worse.
My wife thinks my anti-modern-mini rants are incredibly funny. But I think the car is a list of lazy mistranslations of a design classic. Thanks for adding another example to my list of mini shame.
I remember seeing my friend’s Isuzu Trooper 4x4 in a parking lot next to a “Mini” that dwarfed it. I don’t hate minis, but that moment made me realize what a silly brand they are.
Double down on stupidity. Nope, we're not gonna fix it. We'll insist that we're right and you're an idiot.
I hope that a big consumer country, like US, bans this idiocy.
But what was the problem that Mini was trying to solve here? Did they thought that turn signals has they currently exist pose any kind of perception problem?
This is a clever and effective marketing measure: it raises attention, is memorable, people talk about it and it is a statement in line with the brand.
Interestingly they had to work hard to make the design legal - because the Union Jack is asymmetrical which is not allowed for headlights. Not because the design is irritating. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4izR1worekc
Everyone in here seems to be making the assumption that people will see the arrow and honor it as an arrow instead of subconsciously just seeing tail light and acting accordingly.
Driving is so second nature to the overwhelming majority of drivers that they won't even see the arrow.
If this arrow was orange and 4ft tall like the arrows used to control traffic flow you might have a case.
I beleive a term "stupid" is more suitable for drivers who may think that blinking on the right side of the car may indicate a left turn because of the LED pattern.
My humble take: it's actually not meant to be an arrow - although it does indeed look like one - but the part of the embedded Union Jack that lights up.
I mean, that’s not a humble take, that’s what the article is about. That the use of the Union Jack has had the side effect of making the lights into arrows, but on the wrong side (when seen as arrows, which is a natural interpretation). Not that they were intended to be arrows.
> oh, the left hand side indicator is blinking. It's possible they might turn left.
Not hard at all, which is why this isn't a problem if you have enough time to think all that.
This is a problem in the tiny minority of cases where it's night, it's raining, you're either going too fast or maybe blinded by someone's high beams and all your brain can process in a split second is BLINKING ARROW LEFT.
If my visibility is impaired for the reasons you mention, then I’m sure I’m not seeing the “arrow” either. Blinking light comes before shape recognition in the visual hierarchy.
Exactly. The shape is likely only just resolvable at a safe highway following distance, whereas you'll see it flashing from further away. Arguably the visual design might even trigger the "something is wrong" reflex and make you pay attention.
What I failed to articulate (I can’t get my brain to boot this morning) is that a decent amount of motorcycles use arrows as their turn indicators. When I see a blinking arrow at night, I assume it’s a bike.
What if one tail light is slightly defective and you're in the dark. Driving is done with the subconscious and this potentially lethal in the wrong circumstance.
If it is so dark that your headlights are not able to illuminate the car ahead's reflectors and numberplate adequately for you to see them, even if it has defective lights, and react in time, then you are traveling too fast for the conditions.
The correct response to something weird or potentially hazardous ahead is to slow down and try to determine what is going on.
> then you are traveling too fast for the conditions
Oh, yes, absolutely. But you've already made the mistake and there's nothing to be done anymore. We can either make you and everyone around you pay for your mistakes, or try to make the whole environment as forgiving and as safe as possible. Just like in aviation, navy, software development, or most other industries.
Honestly I'd be fine with blinkers being anything, make them emojis for all I care, _except_ arrows pointing the wrong direction. The quirkiness isn't the problem at all here
Same. I drove a MINI for 18 years partly because they are so quirky and that's enjoyable, but this is simply the wrong kind of thing to indulge quirkiness in.
Turn signals need to function well as turn signals. That's vitally important. You can't fuck with that by making the signal actively and hilariously misleading. It's just not ok.
Ah, yes. Form over function, the driving principle for many insane UX "improvements" over the past 20 years. Personality is great. It's not more important than clarity or other related concerns though.
I doubt anyone would’ve called it stupid when the arrows pointed in the direction the car would be driving. There’s zero common sense in reversing them.
>With regard to the turn indicator light pattern, there should be no trouble at all for a driver to understand, when seeing the full rear of the car, which direction is being indicated
So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like when it’s changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You know, like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
Absolute idiocy.