Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 448 posts

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#311

Post by exporectomy »

chrisseaton wrote: post #17
malyk wrote: post #11

So the left turn signal is an arrow pointing to the right? And the right turn signal is an arrow pointing to the left? How does that pass, well, anything at all without someone saying “that might not be the best idea”!

How could anyone be confused? They’re on the side the car is turning - like every other turn signal you’ve seen in your entire life.

Then what does this flashing arrow on the back of the vehicle mean?

https://trafficsafetyzone.com/product/magnetic-led-direction...

or this which looks a lot more like the Mini indicator:

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/2304413-red-light...

Of course you can work it out with context and time, but are you sure your reflexes can work it all out quickly?

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#312

Post by ashtonkem »

jen20 wrote: post #261
giardini wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#314

Post by gokhan »

chrisseaton wrote: post #77
roamerz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to just laugh at your comment. It’s either brilliant sarcasm or you just might be the guy that designed this.

No not joking. They seem to follow the same predictable pattern as every other turn signal I've ever seen. Not sure what the fuss is.

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?

[1] https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/what-do-cows-drink-...

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#315

Post by chrisseaton »

exporectomy wrote: post #311
chrisseaton wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could anyone be confused? They’re on the side the car is turning - like every other turn signal you’ve seen in your entire life.

Then what does this flashing arrow on the back of the vehicle mean? https://trafficsafetyzone.com/product/magnetic-led-direction... or this which looks a lot more like the Mini indicator: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/2304413-red-light... Of course you can work it out with context and time, but are you sure your reflexes can work it all out quickly?

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.

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#316

Post by u801e »

tyingq wrote: post #277
mccorrinall wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean this indicator? https://youtu.be/r9Fin7pyzDc Honestly, seems pretty good to me compared to the Mini one (which for some reason is RED instead of amber?! Plus an arrow in the opposite direction!) Is there no law which makes amber coloured turn lights mandatory on cars (in the US)?

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.

Any state vehicle law pertaining to vehicle lighting has been superceded by FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) 108.

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#317

Post by thaumasiotes »

massysett wrote: post #287
sircastor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's very weird as a union jack - there is no central vertical bar.

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#318

Post by u801e »

bombcar wrote: post #284
tyingq wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Federal law can override and has done so in cases like seatbelts. But they’ve not bothered for turn signals. If it were to happen CA would likely be the first and then the rest of the country could follow.

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.

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#319

Post by mitjam »

im3w1l wrote: post #149
mitjam wrote: post #102

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.

Clowning around like this shouldn't pay off, and if the marketing people think it does then we need to start increasing the punishments.

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

Re: Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever

#320

Post by u801e »

giardini wrote: post #218
ashtonkem wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they’re working, and if there isn’t something obstructing their view, like another vehicle or fog. Generally it’s best to design vehicle signaling with an assumption that situations are not ideal, just in case.

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…

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.
Post reply on HN