Tail light safety and modern traffic

[Fred]

Originally Posted by 117harv

This is a restoration, preservation, site for the enjoyment of our vintage Ford cars and trucks, but it seems some want it to be something else. We ALL know what we are getting into with these old cars and trucks, their short comings for lack of a better word are what I like. I dont want to hear about LED's, steering racks, radials, etc. there are plenty of sites for and to discuss modern items wether it be for comfort or safety.

Like someone said, you can lite the back up like a semi if you like, it's your ride. Puting more or better lights on probably will help, but so will defensive driving. Motor cycles have one light, they are sure to get slammed into while stopped according to many of you. I drive all kinds of vehicles with manual trans, alot of the time while stopped I dont have my foot on the brake, so no light. If another driver has to rely on a brake light to tell if they are getting closer to another car, and not the fact that the car is getting closer/larger, then they shouldn't be driving.

Agree 100% !!

[CarlG]

Originally Posted by 117harv

This is a ..., preservation, site ....

That's what this thread is all about -- preservation!

[Patrick L.]

Originally Posted by CarlG

That's what this thread is all about -- preservation!

Well said !

At this point I'm all about self-preservation too.

I too was once against anything but the original lighting as I've said. One's opinion tends to change with experience. The experience of being rear-ended twice within a month. Once on a motorcycle and again in the old roadster. Both times it was completely the fault of the other driver, but, one has no control over dumbass drivers. So, rather than end up dead right, I made some changes to said bike and car. It may help, it may not help. But, I want to give all the dumbass drivers behind me a decent chance to maybe see me. Good drivers will see you, but, their numbers seem to be getting thinner as the years go by.

[H. L. Chauvin]

Agree 100%!

With any Vehicle Forum title like "Tail Light Safety and Modern Traffic":

Thinking about non-replaceable family member preservation in today's traffic is far more mature than thinking only about replaceable steel preservation.

[Y-Blockhead]

Originally Posted by 117harv

This is a restoration, preservation, site for the enjoyment of our vintage Ford cars and trucks, but it seems some want it to be something else. We ALL know what we are getting into with these old cars and trucks, their short comings for lack of a better word are what I like. I dont want to hear about LED's, steering racks, radials, etc. there are plenty of sites for and to discuss modern items wether it be for comfort or safety.

I can respect your point of view but when you see a thread titled "Tail Light Safety and Modern Traffic" maybe you should just bypass it and don't read it if it bothers you so.

Myself, like some others, don't see anything wrong with attempting to make it safer to drive our cars then parking them or trailering them between shows. My car is not a "points" car and never will be and I try to keep 'most' of it original but when it comes to the safety of me and my family I tend to 'cheat' a little...

[John S]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I was rear ended twice in about three years. The first time on my way to work at 5:30 AM in my old '65 F100 and the second time in my special coupe. Both times I was traveling at the posted speed and was in no way at fault.
The deal with the truck I just blew off to a drunk going home from a bar, although I don't know if he was drunk since he left the scene and left me holding the bag for the loss.
The Model A was hit coming in to the sleepy little town of Edgewood on US 80 on a bright sunny day in the middle of the morning on the way to a club event. We were doing about 50 and a kid in a Mazda 3 going about 70 hit us from behind. I don't know if he was asleep, fooling with a phone, or just plain stoned. It just doesn't matter. The Texas State Trooper gave him a ticket and let him go. I don't think 47 flashing lights would have helped get that guy's attention that morning, I really don't.
The moral of my story is that not only can you not fix stupid, these days there is not even a place to hide from it.

[H. L. Chauvin]

FWIW, while on the subject of Safety & Preservation, or "Tail light safety and modern traffic"

After checking casually statistics on Wikipedia, I was totally shocked to see the difference in fatalities between Model A days in 1931 with much slower moving traffic, & "today's 2012 fast moving traffic with our texting drivers that we always complain about.

This may be something one may want to think about ........... or it may be something someone may want to totally ignore .......... appears opinions of other Model A owners should always be respected because most people just think differently.


1. In 1931, with some cars with single tail lights & no seat belts,
there were 31,963 deaths caused by vehicle accidents.
25. 8 deaths per 100,000 people,
when the U. S. population was only 124,039,648.

2. In 2012, with far more LED lights & far more seat belts,
there were only 33,56 deaths caused by vehicle accidents.
10. 69 deaths per 100,000 people,
when the U. S. population was 313,941,000, almost tripled.

[29Cabriolet]

Originally Posted by H. L. Chauvin

FWIW, while on the subject of Safety & Preservation, or "Tail light safety and modern traffic"

After checking casually statistics on Wikipedia, I was totally shocked to see the difference in fatalities between Model A days in 1931 with much slower moving traffic, & "today's 2012 fast moving traffic with our texting drivers that we always complain about.

This may be something one may want to think about ........... or it may be something someone may want to totally ignore .......... appears opinions of other Model A owners should always be respected because most people just think differently.


1. In 1931, with some cars with single tail lights & no seat belts,
there were 31,963 deaths caused by vehicle accidents.
25. 8 deaths per 100,000 people,
when the U. S. population was only 124,039,648.

2. In 2012, with far more LED lights & far more seat belts,
there were only 33,56 deaths caused by vehicle accidents.
10. 69 deaths per 100,000 people,
when the U. S. population was 313,941,000, almost tripled.

Wouldn't the number of cars on the road be a more appropriate and meaningful statistic than US population?

[45GPW]

Originally Posted by H. L. Chauvin

1. In 1931, with some cars with single tail lights & no seat belts,
there were 31,963 deaths caused by vehicle accidents.
25. 8 deaths per 100,000 people,
when the U. S. population was only 124,039,648.

2. In 2012, with far more LED lights & far more seat belts,
there were only 33,56 deaths caused by vehicle accidents.
10. 69 deaths per 100,000 people,
when the U. S. population was 313,941,000, almost tripled.

Those statistics don't include the total number of motor vehicle accidents, nor the number of accidents directly attributable to taillights and brake lights, or lack thereof; i.e., rear end collisions, and most importantly, your argument using those statistics doesn't mention the difference in the overall construction of vehicles in 1931 compared to modern vehicles.

The recent unfortunate accident involving a Ford Barn member in Texas had nothing at all to do with taillights and brake lights, although seat belts most likely played a part in reducing the severity of injuries.

With the exception of the WWII years, when speed limits and driving in general were arbitrarily reduced for rubber conservation, the death rate from motor vehicle accidents in the US didn't begin a significant and consistent decline until the 1980s.

Dual taillights, brake lights and turn signals became a Federal requirement in 1958. Up to that point, many cars, and commercial vehicles, still only had one taillight and brake light.

Passenger restraints became a Federal requirement in 1968. Air bags, in 1998.

Center high-mount brake lights became a Federal requirement in 1986 for cars, and 1990 for light trucks.

None of those items--taillights, brake lights, passenger restraints, air bags, center high-mount brake lights--are retroactive requirements, meaning there are still many cars on the road without some or all of them, although the percentage of such cars driven on the road on a daily basis has declined significantly, and will continue to decline.

Furthermore, the 1974-1988 arbitrary reduction in the National maximum speed limit to 55 MPH had virtually no effect on the motor vehicle death rate. In fact, in some of those years, the death rate actually increased.

The purpose in mentioning the items above is not to argue the brake light taillight issue; it's simply to point out that there's a lot more to the motor vehicle death statistics than just taillights, brake lights and seat belts.

If you want to make a valid argument for multiple taillights, brake lights and center high-mount brake lights, you should use statistics for motor vehicle accidents involving rear end collisions, not the death rate from all motor vehicle accidents.

[ericr]

surely these various devices were made mandatory only after some empirical research about their effectiveness, and probably in conjunction with insurance institutes or other private agencies. Though I know some members will doubt the background of the origin of the devices.

[H. L. Chauvin]

Vehicle accident statistics can be interesting if one takes time to study same in minute detail.

Positive & negative reactions & responses to detailed statistics can become most amusing.

Then, some people smoke cigarettes & live past 85.

[dlfrisch]

I use the rear window LED strip for brake only (with my two tail lights). I think it gets the rear drivers attention away from the cell phone or texting,,,,,Now, if I could only get my '30 coupe running, I could use my rear stop lighting.

[45GPW]

Originally Posted by dlfrisch

I use the rear window LED strip for brake only (with my two tail lights). I think it gets the rear drivers attention away from the cell phone or texting,,,,,

Hopefully more than just a split second before the crash.

Just saying I don't think any light all by itself is going to get the potentially oblivious rear driver's attention away from the cell phone or texting until he/she decides to look at the road again. That's why, when I apply the brakes, and during the time I'm stopped, even in my modern vehicle, I glance in the rear view mirror to see what's coming behind me, and if I'll have to try to perform some evasive maneuver so they'll hit the car in front of me instead (as if a slowing or stopped Model A could respond to anything like that with sufficient agility).

Frankly, I wish the technology existed to disable a mobile device so that it can't be used for texting while an automobile is in motion. I suppose many won't agree with that.

[John S]

Originally Posted by 45GPW

Hopefully more than just a split second before the crash.

Just saying I don't think any light all by itself is going to get the potentially oblivious rear driver's attention away from the cell phone or texting until he/she decides to look at the road again. That's why, when I apply the brakes, and during the time I'm stopped, even in my modern vehicle, I glance in the rear view mirror to see what's coming behind me, and if I'll have to try to perform some evasive maneuver so they'll hit the car in front of me instead (as if a slowing or stopped Model A could respond to anything like that with sufficient agility).

Frankly, I wish the technology existed to disable a mobile device so that it can't be used for texting while an automobile is in motion. I suppose many won't agree with that.

That's what I was talking about in my post. We were hit in broad daylight going down the road 5 mph (45 in a 50) under the posted speed. The kid came on us so fast I never saw him coming as my attention was on the road ahead. Nothing short of a flashing light bar from a squad car would have grabbed that pinhead's attention.

[Y-Blockhead]

The way I see it is if I have the third light up higher than the stock light (say in the rear window or on top of the spare tire like mine) I have a better chance of maybe getting the idiot to notice it before he plows into me than if it's not there at all. I'm thinking maybe that will improve my percentage to NOT get hit. Who knows?

I'll keep my light. It unplugs and comes off easily if I ever show it? (Doubtful, I bought it to drive, not park so someone can look at it.)

The light I made is quite bright, it has 20 red LEDs and 1 flashing blue LED in the center. Doesn't look "Modern" either

[insomniacshotrods]

Originally Posted by Hoogah

I've been thinking about fitting the third brake light unit that sticks to the inside of the rear window (https://parts.modelastore.com/show_Product.asp?ID=4355), but am not sure about the reliability of those suction cups. Similar ones certainly fail to keep things like soap holders stuck to the tiles in my laundry!! Anyone had any experience with this unit over a period of time?

It also comes with two sticky round pads thats what i used and still holding strong after a year. I used the suction ones to mount it ,then made a circle with a magic marker on the outside of the window for placement, then replaced with the sticky ones and push to mount.

[triumphleroy]

An aside to all the talk about high mounted stop lights reminds me that Chrysler pioneered them I believe and I do remember them right after WWII! If I remember correctly they were forced to take them off there mounting area high on the deck lids after numerous complaints about supposedly blinding drivers behind the cars? Many years later the stop lights were moved back to the higher mountings by many mfgs.

[Brother Hesekiel]

Bright red firetrucks with flashing red and blue lights and ear-drum-blasting sirens get T-boned. It ain't the light. You can paint your Model A in signal colors, light it up like a Christmas tree, and make it sound like a "loud pipes save lives" Harley, and smoke like my 2-stroke Saab, hereby attacking all senses (eyes, ears, nose), and there will still be a texting lady in the Expedition t-bone you because she looks on her phone, the ghetto blaster on volume 9, totally in a world of her own. Seriously, how far do you want to go with that?

[SDJason]

Originally Posted by Brother Hesekiel

Bright red firetrucks with flashing red and blue lights and ear-drum-blasting sirens get T-boned. It ain't the light. You can paint your Model A in signal colors, light it up like a Christmas tree, and make it sound like a "loud pipes save lives" Harley, and smoke like my 2-stroke Saab, hereby attacking all senses (eyes, ears, nose), and there will still be a texting lady in the Expedition t-bone you because she looks on her phone, the ghetto blaster on volume 9, totally in a world of her own. Seriously, how far do you want to go with that?

I'd hardly call adding a 2nd or 3rd brake light "attacking all senses"...you seem to have a visceral, almost angry reaction to the thought of having anything other than the one original light Model As came with. Why the chip on your shoulder?

[Brother Hesekiel]

You appear to have been missing my point.

My point is that cars don't get rear-ended because the light bulb in the third (center) brake light failed. They get rear ended because modern drivers don't perceive vehicle operation as a worthwhile task in itself anymore. They are disconnected from their rolling computers and distracted, talk, listen to loud music, dance up and down in their seat -- with a bunch 'o teenagers on the back seat doing the same -- engage in texting, making phone calls, shaving, putting on make-up, and perhaps even masturbating. Save for those accidents that happen during heavy fog, accidents don't happen because the taillights are too small or there's no third brake light; accidents happen because of unattentive, highly distracted drivers, and no amount of candlepower can change that.