Vehicle Visibility Index

The most hi-vis vehicles (regarding paint jobs) are probably those used by the emergency services. Trouble is I don't suppose many people would be too taken with the asthetics.

You make a good point, but the manufacturers want to make "pretty" cars that people will want to buy. Got to find a balance somewhere.

Oddly, No!
Red isn't a good colour! It's dark and many males have slight red/green deficiency.
White or yellow is best.
Guess what coulour fletchings I have on my arrows?
Can I do the Pink Car joke now?
Del

I was thinking police & ambulance rather than fire & rescue - but even they're catching on these days:

They don't rely on color alone to be visible. Sound and flashing lights account for most of their presence.

True - but not very practical for the ordinary motorist.

Paint them white. From a 2007 study.

BLACK coloured cars are more likely to be involved in a crash, according to definitive new research linking road safety and vehicle colour.

The Vehicle Colour Study, conducted by Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), confirmed the popular belief that white is the safest choice when it came to being visible and safe on the road.

Compared to white vehicles, black cars had a 12 per cent higher crash risk, closely followed by grey cars with 11 per cent higher risk. Silver vehicles were next, with 10 per cent, then blue and red at 7 per cent.

While other car colours such as cream, yellow and beige ranked closely to white, no other colour ranked safer than white.

Is that because of the visability of the cars or the nature of drivers of black cars?

Nah, if that were the case Mercedes & BMWs would be crashing all over the place.
Ever noticed how Merc' drivers don't know how wide their cars are?
Or is it just in the UK that they seem to think they are 25% wider than they really are?
Del

Another variable heard from.....

whats more dangerous?

Black sedan Or White sportscar?

Yellow Taxi?

I drive big vehicles. They tend to be looked out for by those who drive small vehicles simply because they know their vehicle is my "crumple zone"!

I took out a full grown deer at 65+ MPH, square on hit, with my Ford F250 Super duty and I only had a slight dent in the bumper, a loose licence plate holder, and blood and hair to wash off.

I did the same with a Pontiac Sunbird years ago and totaled the car.

Was the Sunfire black or white?

The Sunbird was a glossy silver grey with "zippy exhaust". The pickup is red with chrome accenting and a V10 on a strait pipe. Both stood out well visually and acoustically.

Shouldn't the Sunfire have been a brilliant, blinding yellow/orange that cannot be looked at or observed with the naked eye, for too long without protective welding type filters to prevent permanent retinal damage?

If that were the case, the Sunfire should have been visible from 91 million miles away; more than enough time to avoid any kind of confrontation, I would think at least.

So, what's in a name? (Sunfire/Sunbird)

I believe international orange or yellow is the color that attracts the eye the quickest. Being able to identify vehicle presence quickly is the number one concern. That can only be accomplished I feel by color, as that is the only realistic variable that can be accomodated on vehicles without a lot of extra cost.

Worst case is the vehicle at night with poor lights or no lights at all. Your vehicle's lights will be the only thing that can draw your attention to possible danger. Maybe concentrating effort on improving headlights might be a better proposal.

Personally, I like to drive invisible cars. Cars that the police can't see. Mini-vans, old farts cars like a Buick sedans. People that drive Cadillac Escalads are obviously drug dealers. People that drive customised Hondas are punks that must be guilty of something. Sports cars are breaking the speed limit no matter how fast they a going.

How about this? Or did I misunderstand the point of this thread? Del?

So, when I first moved into my country-bumpkin home way up here in the 'redneck' part of paradise, a couple of years ago, I'm driving into town on the main 2 lane regional road at night. Then, when approaching town, I noticed in my headlights a big SUV truck parked just off the road and perpendicular to the right of the road, about 250 yards ahead, and my first instinct was that it must be a police vehicle, waiting for speeders. So, I naturally slowed down, and eventually passed the parked vehicle, on my way into town. No problem.

This same thing happened on several similar occasions, until I travelled the same route during daytime, and saw that it was not a police vehicle doing speed checks, but only a local landscaper's pickup truck with some very reflective signage tape on the side. It just didn't only fool me, but also my neighbours that saw the same thing. It did impress me as to the reflective intensity that the tape he used,had.

Perhaps this type of reflective tape should be made mandatory on vehicles along the lengths and widths of vehicles. It could be made to look good (colour co-ordinated, contoured and all that).

PS - Up here in Canada, all new vehicles sold for the last 10 or 15 years, or so are all equipped with 'daylight driving lights', which means that the headlamps (lo-beam I think, are automatically on, when the ignition is turned on). I have no idea on how this has affected accident occurrences - All I know that our insurance rates are lately going up through the roof in most provinces. - Loupy.

Loupy,

I think Sweden was the first country to make daylight running lights compulsory in 1977. I once spent quite a lot of time trying to find out how to switch the damnned things off on a rented Volvo, until someone told me that it was not possible.

Every country that has implemented this policy has seen a reduction in accident rates and severity in the first year ranging from 10 to 38% (depends which stats you believe).

In the US now I believe that you can get a reduction in insurance premiums in some states if you have daylight running lights - allowed since 1996 in Texas. Having lived in Europe for a number of years and driving a SAAB fitted with them I still mostly drive with my low beam lights on during the day.

Prof, Loupy,

In the 'country' we adopted low-beam headlights during the daylight to serve as an indicator. This was when the roads were very narrow ( I know a lot still are).

If one looked ahead and saw two vehicles abreast on the road, the lamps served as an indicator as what was going on, ie passing or overtaking, and who doing what.

'Specially handy if one was in the overtaking maneuver oneself.

It's with this experience that I reckon it's safer to drive at night. I do my long-distancing at night, perferably.

RAC published some data a couple of years ago indicating that if all the drivers in UK were to use running lights it would would cause a further 650m tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Reasonable argument for not doing it.

Of course most folks are blissfully unaware that the electrical system in a vehicle takes horsepower to run. I did a survey of a few neighbours and most reckoned that the engine was running anyway, so the lights were free.

HAH!

I'd be all for low wattage ( LEDS) running lights, But I'm dead against the wankers who insist on running their fogs all the time ( it's unlawful here, but not often cited, as there isn't much of a result [$$$$$] ).

Cheers,

Stu.

As far as I understand, most OE daytime running light systems dim the lights during the day. That is true for my Corolla. They don't need full brightness, just contrast.

This would cut energy usage.

good idea.

I think a simple dot should do it, like a representation for radar crossection as used in aircraft.

When it comes time to arm vehicles with intelligent sensors, they need to have some method of scanning the data. the dot can be a reasonable analog representation, without being complicated. it serves well for graphic communication. It can also include differences that are color based.

chris

My white van .. People would run into my rear bumper on a pretty regular basis..

They thought they were driving into a cloud i guess.

..When i tow a low trailer.. unloaded.. More crashes..

People need to look at the road ahead to actually see the cars, trucks, trailers, trains and motorcycles.

There is a good reason for daytime running lights..

....Can you give me an example of a vehicle that's nearly invisible when seen from the front or rear? ..or is this fear mongering?

..My white van is quite visible.. There is a great need to focus on the blind drivers.

I used to commute in heavy fog regularly, day time was more dangerous. The most invisible were gray cars with drivers who didn't feel like they needed to turn on their lights

I have a similar occurrence in town with my 20 foot flatbed trailer. Apparently the added 25 feet of 8.5 foot wide trailer with reflectors and bright brake lighting just does not register with many people as an equivalent to a normal sized vehicle between me and them at stoplights.

Almost every time in town some idiot or two come to a screeching stop on its tail end at a stop light!

Doppler radar that stopped tailgating would be good too.
Of course there would be an outcry, same as for seatbelts and ABS.
Dead people jut don't lobby hard enough , lazy gits.
Del

Provided we have equal missiles for slow people drivers in the fast lane who don't know enough to look around once in a while.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way!

One of my favorite subjects since I drive "professionally" now and then. Lights on helps a great deal. In Maine the law states that you should have headlights on when wipers are in use. Strange that they don't just say when it's raining! Anyway, one of the features I really like about my Toyota is the headlights are AUTOMATIC! Amazing that when I start the car they come on! So I always have full head lights and tail lights. This brings me to my problem when DTLs or Day Time Lights that are automatic. It's a great idea not gone far enough. If you notice, when the DTLs are on the tail lights are NOT! So people that think they are safe when driving in rain or fog can only been see (a little) better from the front. Most accidents in fog are rear-end collisions due to driving too close and not being able to see the guy in front of you. So why don't the auto manufacturers either make the headlights on all vehicles go on automatically OR at least at that one diode that would make the tail lights go on with the DTLs? Probably the same reason that the "third" or high tail-light didn't get incorporated into all cars until it was passed as a law by congress (I think it might have been Dole that proposed that) That third light has saved me a number of times when I could see it go on, by looking THROUGH the car in front of me. And that brings up the last issue for now...dark windows in minivans! It decreases the ability of other drivers to see other cars through the dark glass.

So visibility is important but we have to solve some the simple issues we have already created or ignored first! So lights on for safety at all times and get a car without tinted glass (unless it a limo which is what I drive ).

Ooooh, you've started me off now with the tinted glass, pillocks in great big 4x4s with tinted glass.
Pencil me in for the 5 minute rant...I'm sure you can write it youselves by now.
Del _{(don't forget the bit about bankers too)}

& then there's the delivery vans, which are either going 120% of the speed limit in the slow lane Or 80% in the fastlane

its also against the law.

Thanks to everybody that responded.

From what had been said I would say that such a specification should address the following:

1. If the visibility drops to say 100 meters some lights should come on automatically.

2. Vehicles with a colour that has a reflectivity below a certain value should have reflective material to some percentage of the profile.

3. An indicator of sorts to beep should a vehicle come within range (20 meter)

Yes, isn't it funny how many cars are "Asphalt Metallic" and "Foggybottom Gray"