Talk:Automotive lighting

Archived discussions

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4

Sequential turn signals

This edit was made by apparently-new editor David Ally (talk · contribs) with the summary "A careful review of the NHTSA letters cited revealed that some sequential lighting systems had failed to meet requirements for specific reasons rather than ruling out the entire concept of sequential turn signals." This edit is problematic for a couple of reasons: Firstly, David Ally's look at the NHTSA interpretations appears to be less careful than wishful or assumptive. If we carefully read the primary cited NHTSA interp, we see that it states, inter alia: "all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated". That is a declarative assertion with no conditions attached. It does not say all light sources providing the turn signal function must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal control is activated unless (anything), except (anything), as long as (anything), etc. The next sentences in the letter describe one of the ways in which the proposed aftermarket stop/turn signal lamp might fail to comply with certain of the various regulated aspects of vehicle lighting device design, construction, and performance. If the interp linked the latter sentences with the former with because or seeing as how or anything of that sort, David Ally's conclusion about its meaning might have some arguable merit to it. But there is no such linkage, so we have no grounds for concluding or assuming that the discussion of minimum lit area is the primary or exclusive reason why the device being discussed in that interpretation is noncompliant. Especially not for assuming, actually, since we are not permitted to put our assumptions and guesses and opinions into Wikipedia articles—there is no original research allowed here. That is the problem with David Ally's text "Apparently meeting all the requirements however, [some 2010 and newer Ford Mustangs are equipped with sequential turn signals]". "Apparently" means David Ally is drawing a conclusion based on what he sees, filtered through what he believes he understands, and that is pure original research.

The apparent conundrum between what NHTSA says (all turn signal lights must illuminate simultaneously) and what we see on the roads (2010 and newer Mustangs with sequential turn signals) is real and difficult to resolve for those who don't understand how NHTSA's regulations work. They are not written or enforced on an approval basis. A vehicle manufacturer does not have to seek or get approval for a particular configuration or design of a regulated system or device prior to putting it out for sale and use. The maker's legal obligation is merely to certify (assert) that his product meets all applicable requirements. That certification is based on whatever due dilligence the maker deems sufficient. If NHTSA eventually decides to question the compliance of (let's say) Ford's turn signals, then it would be up to Ford to make and support a case to NHTSA by interpreting FMVSS 108 either that their device complies, or that the noncompliance is inconsequential to traffic safety. If NHTSA finds the case convincing, then no enforcement action is taken. If NHTSA disagrees with Ford, then the range of consequences might range from an agreement to stop doing it on future vehicles to a mandatory recall of equipped vehicles to bring them into compliance, to possible civil penalties (fines). It is something of a gamble manufacturers play: they are generally reluctant to request interpretations of FMVSS 108 prior to putting out a design that arguably might or might not comply, because if NHTSA says "No" then that interpretation counts legally as part of the regulation and any further argument is foreclosed; they have no choice but to alter their design. The makers figure, and they're usually right, that lighting matters like this are a very low priority at NHTSA and there's not likely to be any inquiry into the matter, and if there is, they figure -- again, usually correctly -- that they have at least a decent shot at getting NHTSA to go away by writing up an interpretive argument that's at least not laughably bogus.

So there are lots of car lights on US roads that don't comply with the spirit and/or letter of any kind of straightfaced and sober reading of the regulatory text, but…they're still manufacturer-certified as compliant. It's kind of a haphazard system, but it's the one we have. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As I am at the beginning of the Wikipedia contributor learning curve, your commentary regarding my edit is most appreciated. I find that the end of the section dealing with sequential turn signals is still in need of clarification. Not knowing where to better express my further thoughts, I offer the following:

The sentence, “FMVSS 108 has been officially interpreted as requiring all turn signal lights to illuminate simultaneously.[35][57],” when strictly interpreted, is still incorrect, although, with some thinking, could still be interpreted well enough. If all turn signals on a vehicle were to illuminate simultaneously in a flashing manner, the appearance would be indistinguishable from hazard flashers.

Noting several sentences the cited letter to Charles I. Sassoon: “We informed Dr. Baldwin that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that this meant that all bulbs providing the center stop signal must be simultaneously activated, not sequentially. Similarly, all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated. Failure of all light sources to illuminate simultaneously means that the stop and turn signal functions of the Maxxima lamp would not comply with the minimum luminous lens area requirement of applicable SAE standards at all times after the brake pedal is applied or the turn signal operating control is activated.” Also: “When the turn signal function is activated on the Maxxima lamp, the minimum area requirement is not met at the time the first cycle begins because of the sequential nature of the lamp’s operation, a further noncompliance with Standard No. 108.”

The reference to ‘all bulbs’ in the stop signal and ‘all light sources’ providing a turn signal are directed to sources of light within the single illuminated lens of a fixture that needs to meet the luminous lens requirements for area and intensity of illumination for the full duration of each illuminated time period. The letter does not address a group of lenses in which each lens in the group individually meets the luminous lens requirements for area and intensity of illumination. While the letter, as you point out, does not provide for exception, do you not think it perhaps unjustified conjecture to extend the purpose of the letter beyond pointing out the failure of the graduated illumination of a single lens area to meet standards?

I did use the word “apparently” in an honest manner, as a part of a phrase to replace the word “however,” the word “however” relying on the veracity of the previous sentence, which I did not find to be wholly supported.

Regarding the vehicles referenced in the sequential turn signal portion of the article, the sequencing of lighted lenses is likely considered to meet requirements as a whole because each individual section of the sequence meets turn signal requirements for area and intensity of illumination and flash timing whether the other sections were present or not; should all but one of the segments fail to function, a valid turn signal would still be provided; a sequence of illuminated lenses, beginning with the lens closest to the centerline of the vehicle and continuing outward to indicate the turning direction, is not considered to be distracting or confusing to other motorists. Additionally, when the brakes are applied and/or the hazard flashers are activated, all segments illuminate simultaneously; no sequencing occurs for the stop or hazard functions of the lighting. I have no cite to directly support this conclusion. It can be seen that a group of three individual lenses, where each individual lens meets applicable requirements, would provide a viable signal at the time the first cycle begins and throughout the illuminated portion of the sequence, thus overcoming one of the faults given in the letter. In such a case, the faults of the Maxxima light addressed in letter may not apply to a well-designed sequential turn signal.

Your commentary on the means by which the NHTSA and vehicle/accessory manufacturers operate was not a part of the article, and therefore did not enter my thinking. I accept your information in this regard as entirely plausible. I suppose the best solution and information should come from the NHTSA in an advisory on the subject, “The manner in which sequential turn signals may meet applicable requirements,” even if that information is a non-ambiguous, all-encompassing ‘no acceptable method’.

Again, I appreciate your efforts. David Ally (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The crucial piece of NHTSA edict is Standard No. 108 requires (…) all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated. Subsequent text in the same NHTSA interpretation mentions minimum lit area requirements that might not be met if the elements of a multiple-lamp turn signal are operated sequentially rather than simultaneously. You assert the former requirement is because of the latter possibility, and therefore you conclude that if the latter condition is satisfactorily addressed—if each element of the multiple-lamp turn signal is capable of meeting all performance requirements individually—then the requirement for all lamps to be lit simultaneously does not apply. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the interpretation clearly indicating whether this contingency does or does not exist.

You and I might just as easily be right or wrong about NHTSA's position, intent, and rationale. Your suppositions, guesses, and assumptions are in line with my own regarding how Ford might argue for the compliance of the 2010 and later Mustang rear turn signal configuration. However, suppositions, guesses, and assumptions are not acceptable material for articles on Wikipedia. In fact, they are specifically barred by core Wikipedia principles including WP:V and WP:SYNTH (and WP:NOR more generally) — the same principles that make it very problematic for editors to add their own observations to articles, with or without denoting them with words like "apparently".

The language in the apposite NHTSA interpretation is itself open to interpretation: does all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated mean all elements of the turn signal array must illuminate and extinguish in simultaneous phase, beginning upon the driver's activation of the turn signal operating control? Or does it mean that all elements of the turn signal array must be simultaneously lit during some portion of each "on" phase of the turn signal cycle, while the turn signal operating control is activated? The first is a narrow reading and the second is a broad reading; both are arguably plausible readings. This is very typical of NHTSA interpretations: much more often than they'll give a firm "yes" or "no", the agency will provide interpretive guidance to assist regulated parties in meeting their legal burden of determining and certifying the compliance of their products—the final interpretation with respect to any particular product or configuration rests with the regulated party, in accord with the structure of the statutes under which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated.

That's why we don't have language in the article saying "Sequential turn signals are legal in the USA" or "Sequential turn signals are illegal under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108": there's no reliable support for either assertion, so all we can do is report as accurately as possible on what is available on the matter.

You further state The sentence, “FMVSS 108 has been officially interpreted as requiring all turn signal lights to illuminate simultaneously” when strictly interpreted, is still incorrect, although, with some thinking, could still be interpreted well enough. If all turn signals on a vehicle were to illuminate simultaneously in a flashing manner, the appearance would be indistinguishable from hazard flashers. I can see where you're coming from, and it's easy to fall into the trap of omitting what might seem obvious. In this case, the scenario you have in mind is not possible because the turn signal function is defined in SAE J588, referent as the turn signal technical standard in FMVSS 108 prior to its recent reformatting, as A flashing light to the front, side, and rear of a vehicle on the side toward which a change of direction is intended The reformatted FMVSS 108 says Turn signal lamps are the signaling element of a turn signal system which indicates the intention to turn or change direction by giving a flashing light on the side toward which the turn will be made. And the international regulation, UN Regulation 48, says "Direction-indicator lamp" means the lamp used to indicate to other road-users that the driver intends to change direction to the right or to the left. Emphasis added in all three cases to point up that a turn signal is by definition on one or the other side of the vehicle, not both. The hazard flasher function is legally an entirely separate function that can be implemented by simultaneous operation of the vehicle's left and right turn signals, but this is not the only way the hazard flasher function can be implemented. It's certainly the most common implementation, but there are other implementations as well. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopædia we're writing, and it's probably unreasonable to expect someone not already extremely knowledgeable about these matters to just figure it out on her own.

It will be a little tricky to fix the offending sentence without at least creating the appearance of disallowed synthesis, so I have added all these "one side" definitions as refs to support my copyedits to the sentence, clarifying the scope of NHTSA's assertion regarding simultaneity of illumination—this we can support reliably. Perhaps someday NHTSA will issue a more explicit statement regarding sequential turn signals, then we'll be able to use it here. And it will be interesting to keep an eye on what the United Nations working group on vehicle lighting and light-signalling (GRE) decides—the UN international regs on the subject presently explicitly require all operating turn signals to flash in synchronous phase, which specifically disallows sequential setups. The GRE is soon to consider whether and how to permit sequential turn signals; if they decide "yes", their language on the matter will likely be quite clear and unambiguous because that's generally how they roll. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Vehicle Lighting: UK Practice

The main article suggests that reversing lights are compulsory. In the UK, the installation of reversing lights is optional, although of course, any prospective purchaser would be critical of a manufacturer who did not provide them. One or two lights are permitted, each having a maximum of 21 watts, and controlled either automatically with the selection of reverse gear or by a dedicated switch with a warning light. There are limits to the mounting height of such lamps, not to be confused with work lights which may be mounted higher on the rear of certain vehicles and which are not permitted for use when the vehicle is travelling on a public highway. Reversing lamps are not currently included within the statutory annual vehicle test. Douglasson (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, reversing lamps _are_ compulsory in the UK. The old British Standard for fitment of vehicle lights was long ago supplanted by UN Regulation 48, which requires each vehicle to be equipped with one or two reversing lamps. It is true that the MoT protocol does not include an inspection of the reversing lamp(s), but that does not mean they are not required -- merely that they are not tested. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was basing my contribution on the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (SCHEDULE 14 - requirements relating to optional reversing lamps) which states that there is no requirement for reversing lamps but does give some restrictions on those which are fitted. These Regulations were amended in 2005, but none of the amendments refers to the quoted section. I note that the UN Regulation quoted came into force on 1st January 1982 and the UK became a contracting party on 21 Feb 1985. Since the 1989 Regulations came into force on 1st November 1989, the latter will take precedence in any proceedings. Nevertheless, I think that we will both take a dim view of any manufacturer who not fit them.

One change that I should make to my comment concerns the power rating of the lamps - the maximum permitted being 24 watts per lamp with a maximum of two such lamps. The confusion arose because 21 watt bulbs are much more common on 12 volts systems. Douglasson (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Automotive light sources used to be a list of light bulbs used on cars but has been renamed and a lot of general content on regulations has been added to it. Anything unique from that article that generally describes regulations, purpose, etc. of lighting could be usefully merged here. The bulb catalog can be dropped or moved to [some other Wikiproject] that specializes in parts lists. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that the regulatory content would be well placed in this article. I would be fine with seeing the bulb catalog disappear from Wikipedia per se completely; it's really not encyclopædic content and would be much better placed in a catalog wiki such as this one, there'll probably be pushback from those who think anything and everything belongs here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hesitant. I think that bringing too many dimensions into an article makes it hard to follow, especially when it comes to this subject that also sees a lot of evolution when it comes to the sources of light (bulbs, LEDs, HIDs). The use of sub-pages may make it easier. (E.g. pages; Automotive lighting/Lamps, Automotive lighting/Bulbs and Automotive lighting/Regulations Ehsnils (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

UNECE = International

Common reasoning says it is for Europe because of "United Nations Economic Commission for Europe while it maybe adopted by other countries, just as US government regulations may chose to adopt private industrial standards like SAE. I don't think it is correct to refer to it as "international regulation" especially to paint over non European/American English speaking countries.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are calling "Common reasoning" looks to me like just your own guess at things. It's a wrong guess. In fact, it is correct to refer to these regulations as international, for most of the world's countries recognize the, what used to be called "ECE Regulations" and are now known as "UN Regulations". Look at refs #2 and #3 in the relevant article. It is pretty much only the U.S. Americans who don't recognise the UN Regulations, so even though they tend to scoff at everyone else in the world...I think "international" should stay. 04:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.89.18 (talk)

many images of every type, brand and model, have been replaced with German models, by a German user

an user: Faep who likes to change all the images of various vehicles and replacing them with German cars, just because he is German. Although I have canceled his action, he has seen fit to unleash an edit war. Please ask to intervene. very probably the user try to discredit me (as it has done in the past) with things that have nothing to do, even on en.wiki happened. In order to divert your attention from the problem. Please give the right considerations. --Pava (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Rear indicator/turn-signal colour and DOT spec in Iceland

Currently in Iceland all dealerships must sell European spec cars, as in following the ECE headlight pattern and having amber rear indicators(turn signals). But on the other hand, any individual may import North American spec cars that follow the DOT headlight pattern and have red rear indicators(turn signals) and use them in Iceland without modification. Also, you can modify any existing ECE spec car and for example replace the white park lights on the front with amber lights. Presumably I imagine Iceland is the only country in Europe that allows cars to follow either ECE or DOT spec interchangably.

I'm not very familiar with the way Wikipedia works so I'm just wondering how would be the best way to add this to the article? Nammi-namm (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Improve structure.

Today the structure is a bit hard to follow and track down. Especially since it is breaking down the information on where the lamps are located, even if there are lamps carrying the same function both front and rear and therefore carries a lot in common (like the position lights). The designations of the same lamp also differs depending on country and even standardization organization which makes things even more awkward.

Also see my comment under "Merger Proposal".

I have made a few images (Euro style weighs in because that's where I live) that links the various lamps to locations in order to make it easier to connect a designation with a specific lamp.

• 
  Exterior lighting car
• 
  Exterior lighting car (Made as a drawing since trucks have a huge variation depending on use)
• 
  Exterior lighting Bus
• 
  Exterior lighting trailer (Caravan used to get the max-scenario)

Ehsnils (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have refreshed the Swedish pages sv:Fordonsbelysning and broken the page up into sub-pages to make it easier. Ehsnils (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Structuring and Splitting proposal

I find this article monstrous from a length perspective. It is unnecessarily broad and deep at the same time. I think many sections should be split off and this article reduced to strictly emphasize breadth at the expense of depth, and link to related main articles as needed. Here are two proposed changes (personally opinionated): split off "4 Conspicuity, signal and identification lights", link to it via a Main article entry, and provide a short summary here instead; also, "7 Light sources" to be migrated to a page titled "automotive lighting technologies" or similar. Skl (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Monstrous"...? That is an extreme idea! What, it is taking too many pages for you to print it out, and then the stack of paper is making too heavy for you to carry on the cross-country plane trip...? It is the giant, hulking, towering mountain of article that is causing the browser to become crashed and is bringing the computer to the grinding halt and causing the ISP to bill you with the surcharges and throttle the bandwidth for attempting to download such massive article? Your smartphone has exploded in balls of fire? What??? I'm being sardonic, but please come on: what real issue this article is causing for you? What objective standard you are using, please, to judge this article as being "unnecessarily" broad and "unnecessarily" deep? Maybe we shall be taking away the "unnecessary" breadth and depth by removing facts...then you are happy with it? Another way how to describe the article, but with the positive spin, is that it is covering the subject matter thoroughly. At least one of the Wikipedia's length guideline documents says, "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". How you are sure this is not one of those? I am not.

As for your proposals, yes, I agree like you say, they are "personally opinionated". I go further: they look like the random and arbitrary suggestions to me. They would shorten this article, but they would also create the new need for the readers to go to multiple articles instead of one. I don't think that's necessarily improvement. So: I disagree. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Skullydyvan, I have just restored the text you removed from this talk page in this edit. You are permitted to remove or edit your own comments on a talk page (though this should be done within the guidelines at the link), and it looks like you thought better of the personal attack you posted to this page and removed it. That's good, but you are generally not permitted to edit other users' comments except in certain very specific situations, none of which was the case here. If you have a disagreement with 24.87.84.143 (or any other editor), there are many effective ways of resolving it. You can discuss it with the other user on your talk page or theirs, and if that fails there are many other steps you can take. 174.21.168.24 (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevant

Off-topic sections:

3.2.1 Driving lamps, paragraph two: Matters of etymology are discussed. Proposal: creation of an "Terminology and etymology" section or addition of a wikitionary link or something, for less jumping back-and-forth throughout the article between matters of description, regulation, etymology and terminology.

3.2.4 Spot lights: Historical matters are discussed. Proposal: content to be moved to History.

4.1.3 Dim-dip lamps: Historical matters again

4.2.1 Side marker lights and reflectors: History (this one's minor though) Skl (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Add "opera lights"

Add "opera lights" 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.40.50.215 (talk)

Add rear deceleration lamps

In the US within the last ~15 years I’ve seen higher-end commercial tour/commuter busses equipped with dedicated rear-facing deceleration warning lamps. These rearward facing amber lamp pairs are tied to the electric retarder, and are intended to warn vehicles behind the bus of an impending stop based on deceleration, rather than actuation of the brake pedal itself. When activated they either use the short-multi-flash-burst and transition to steady, or go directly to steady-burning "on".

Unable to locate good citation for it at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.84.132 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

California Vehicle Code VC 25251.5 covers them, but CA DMV site down for maintenance.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc25251_5.htm

Selfish revert of reasonable edit?

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Automotive lighting and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Hans Haase (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I find this edit by "Hans Haase" kind of un-kosher. It's a wholesale "undo all" revert of what looks to me like a good faith effort to tidy up and improve the article, just casually tossed aside with a cryptic, dismissive, 3-word edit summary. In fact, it's a revert that makes it hard for me to assume "Hans Haase"'s good faith, because it looks like just a reflexive revert to "Hans Haase"'s pet version. It's possible "24.87.69.125" and "Hans Haase" are having some kind of large-scale or long-running quarrel, but (1) I don't see any evidence of it beyond [[4]] equally cryptic (but more prickly) nastiness "Hans Haase" threw at "24.87.69.125" on an article of a subject related to this one, and (2) it doesn't matter if it's an old feud or a new one, I still don't think it's OK.

Can we get some eyes on the actual "meat" of the edits to this article to help sort out which part(s) of which version(s) should stay, please? 207.8.179.21 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the two schematics are a very obscure way of presenting the differences between how American and European turn signals and brake lights are connected - it would be better to describe the differences in plain text, rather than expect the reader to deduce the difference after scratching her head over the unnecessarily detailed schematic. Not everyone reads wiring diagrams as their native script. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is useful for understanding basics of automotive lighting. Today, puls width modulation and CAN bus is used. This information is part of a good article. It gives the answers in differences in international standards and behavior in operating it. Equivalent information can not be explained in several sections of text. Understanding written information, a diagram confirms the given information for the reader. We can begin with a historical part, countnued by redundant light bulbs, inrush current limmiting, what the europeans use inside flasher only. The result: a failed turn signal increases the flashers frequency, but it does not indicate the attempted turn. Would you really double the articles text by interpreting a circuit diagram in text with minor sources of information? We would be straight on the way of WP:OR. Within the diagram more details are shown. Marked with colors makes it easy to understand for people who are not familar in read large circuit diagrams. Wikipedia collects the worlds knowledge an should be easy to understand. These diagrams are made to bring it to interested readers in no matter of their skills. The given information ist reviewable in several service manuals. I prefered GM but took a look on VW as well. Brake lights can be operated without ignition is a typical VW feature. On the other hand I am warning each who is trying to cut knowledge due interests about TTIP and cross atlantic automotive export on false information about any benefit in regulations in current use, savety in operation, functionality and traffic savety against sales interests. If you wish to change the symbols to the ANSI/IEEE standards, I will create new diagrams. If you see any mistake, tell me, I will fix it. Pimp my tail lighs is not a really encyclopedic detail of the article. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The diagram is encyclopedic, noteable, exists in millions of vehicles, it is interesting, useful, harmless and it is valid information. If we have people who cant read, we would not delete the project. So do not desturb or WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, WP:PLEASEDONT, it took time to create it. --Hans Haase (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As 2 opinions send by IP came from Vegas and I did a edit showing critisism of an organisation which is based in Germany and Nevada and several arguments are here focussing on my name, I startet a 3O. --Hans Haase (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The article has been reported. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wtshymanski. The diagrams seem to confront the reader with very arcane, non-intuitive information, and there is no WP:V support for the claim that the one diagram accurately represents a "European" setup and the other represents an "American" setup. In fact, there are numerous different vehicle lighting system and wiring configurations, both in Europe and in the United States. It is misleading (and unsupportable) to claim that there is any single wiring setup that is characteristic of "European" or "US" specification vehicles. There's a lot of overlap, because (as we can read in this article and verify by checking the citations that exist) lighting items such as side turn signals and amber rear turn signals and white front position lamps and rear fog lights that are mandatory in Europe are allowed in the US, and items such as side marker lights that are mandatory in the US are allowed in Europe. I can appreciate that the diagrams took time and effort to create, but that doesn't justify their presence in this article. Neither does their creator Hans Haase's unsupported insistence here on the talk page, that the diagrams are "encyclopedic". I'm not sure what to make of Hans Haase's insinuation that there's some kind of evil plot at work on this article; the administrator notice he posted is strange. There is also the matter of Hans' combative, acidic edit summaries and addition to the article of rambling, incogent repetition of material already covered (and supported by references #7 and #18). I didn't think Wikipedia was a competitive sport or a race to see how much of our own content we can force into an article, aren't we supposed to be cooperating? 24.87.69.125 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@24.87.69.125: If you dont read manuals, showing exact these diagrams, i can help you. The next revert will be reported as vandalism. You have liked to commerical pages where can't find any useful information. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, Hans, this angry, belligerent tone of yours isn't endearing you or your edits to anyone. Going around accusing other users of vandalism, trolling, bizarre conspiracies, etc...why are you doing this? There is no trolling going on, there's no vandalism going on, and I don't see what you seem to see with regard to some kind of dark conspiracy about Nevada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Your administrator notice went nowhere because it had no merit. I'm also not seeing the "commercial pages" you claim have been linked. Could you please just take some deep breaths, relax, and consider that Wikipedia is not a competition? 24.87.69.125 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversing lights and illumination

Article currently claims that it is a fallacy that reversing lights are for illumination, but The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 Part 1 defines "reversing lamps" as "A lamp used to illuminate the road to the rear of a vehicle for the purpose of reversing and to warn other road users that the vehicle is reversing or about to reverse". This example seems to disprove the allegation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good reference you found, thank you. It uses basiscally the same language (mentioning both the illumination and warning functions) as ECE Regulation 23 and SAE J593. I have added your reference (and those other two) to the reversing lights section of the article, hopefully that will stave-off further squabbling over what these lights are for. 24.87.69.125 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who's driven a car backwards at night can judge for him/herself if the backup lights provide useful illumination. But that's not a permissible observation here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Global point of view to be added

Hans Haase, you are adding (and I am deleting) a lot of unsupported claims that just don't stand up, as well as random incoherent text that doesn't seem to belong, especially not where you put it. Examples from your most recent edits:

"The 1977 Oldsmobile 88 has no rear side marker and was equipped with tail lights over corner"

Bull. The 1977 Oldsmobile 88, like every other 1977 (and 1970...and 1980...and 1990...and 2014) vehicle built to USA or Canada specifications, was -- in accordance with the mandatory legal requirements of Federal/Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- designed and built with front (amber) and rear (red) side marker lights and reflex reflectors. These do not have to be separate, discrete items, they can be integral to the tail lights (rear) or parking lights (front). The split between integral and separate side markers is roughly half and half, and there is nothing unusually notable or special about the lighting system configuration on a 1977 Oldsmobile. Legally there is no difference between integral and separate side markers; they must meet the same requirements no matter which type they are. The fact that a tail light is visible to the side does not make it an acceptable side marker light; just wrapping the red lens around to the side is not legally or technically sufficient. "No rear side marker" has not been a legal option for vehicles built for sale in the USA or Canada since January of 1970. So, where is your reliable support for your claim the 1977 Oldsmobile 88 has no rear side marker?

REMOVED ANSWER by IP

No, its no BS at all! When using dedicates turn signals, even red ones, often single bulbs were used. Conbined ones are likely redundand, but less before the 1960es, more to present. It would require a list of vehiles.

"1977 Toyota Hiace, 1983 Mitsubishi L300, Volvo 240 and 740 in European version had the white front position markers placed over corner."

For one thing, there is no such light function as "front position marker". There are front position lamps and there are side marker lamps. Those terms are clearly defined (with good quality citations to primary-source documents) in this article. Encyclopedic writing must be precise, so why are you trying to introduce terms that don't actually exist? Number one. Number two...even if there weren't a terminology issue...where's the relevance of this ungrammatical comment about the white "front position markers" being placed "over corner" on the 1977 Toyota Hiace, 1983 Mitsubishi L300, Volvo 240 and 740? So what if it was? The European versions of those vehicles did not have side markers, and these vehicles are hardly alone (i.e. not notable) in having their front position lamps located at the right and left corners of the vehicle. I'd ask where your support is for these claims about these vehicles, but it doesn't matter because these claims are not relevant.

"Vehicles with combined red stop and turn lights often use redundant bulbs."

Bull. Some do, but many don't. I challenge you to come up with reliable support for this bizarre claim.

"Only vew models had redundant amber tail turn signals installed, like Mercedes-Benz W140 and V140 or Daewoo Espero/Aranos in the trunk lid."

There is no such word as "vew", I guess you mean "few". There is no such light function as "tail turn signal"; there are tail lights and there are turn signals. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so if English isn't your first language, please get some help with it. More important, where is your reliable support for any of these three claims (only a few models have redundant amber turn signals, the Mercedes W140 and V140 has redundant amber turn signals, the Daewoo Espero/Aranos has redundant amber turn signals in the trunk lid)?

"When side markers in the Europan Union were no longer prohibited, the Volvo S80 was one of the first equipped with dedicated markers."

This contains a kernel of some good encyclopedic information, but it's half-baked and it looks like the rest of the material you put in (i.e. it looks like something you think you just know). Please cite your source for this assertion that the S80 was one of the first cars to have "dedicated" (what do you mean by this?) side markers in the European Union, and also please cite your source for the statement that side markers were prohibited in the EU.

When you are being serially reverted...when your 3O request comes back against your opinion...when your AN/I report is ignored...when your request for a block on the user reverting you is ignored, that means EITHER all of Wikipedia is ganging up against you, OR you're doing it wrong and your complaints don't have merit. Obviously the correct answer is #2. Now please stop crudding up the article with word-soup and let's figure out -- here on the talk page -- what it is you're trying to say, how much of it is supportable in accordance with WP:RS, and work together to improve the article. Thank you. 24.87.80.234 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The 8th generation of Oldsmobile 88 (1977–1985) was equipped with tail lights over corner substituting the rear side markers, see pictures and service manual

The common platform Chevrolet Caprice required side markers.

The Ford F Series is also referenced by pictures, only. The Olds 88 solved this with 2 redundand bulbs only. Used for stop, turn, position and markers.

Click to enlarge! Toyota Hiace

Mitsubishi Delica = L300, 2nd Generation 1977

Volvo S80

We cant write about how useful it is to know about a failed turn singnal instead having already installed backup for it. The automotive lights manufacturer Hella refered to an EU regulation permitting SMLs since 1996 without quotation title number or reviewable. "Sicherheit in Gelb" (=Savety it yellow) 30 NOV 2000 . Europe had never been open, publishing regulations and especially specifications on the web. In the 1970s to middle 1990s imported US vehicles to Europe required to uninstall side markers and center stop lights, their cabled to be cut and sometimes brackets and supports to be removed as well to revent reinstallation.

As pregnant the article was written, I carefully contributed a diagram of practical use, showing some details in different and in common. As you discussed, to rm the diags, we agreed to write plain text and you are continuing to revert every of my edits. I see you are trying to integrade the missing information, but this is broken down to a single detail. The symbols in the diag were linked and described in imagemaps. Even children would understand in by moving the mouse over. I already predicted, the substituded text would inflate the article or giving minor information of it. It appears you to solve this by edit war. So again: redundant aber turns signals are very rarely, but have been built. Combined turn and stop signals often are redundand, but not indicated on failure. An european side turn signal is 5 watts only and also unindicated without CAN or similar bus systems. A question for the reader should be: Why do I need indication of failures instead having redundacy as backup? The other little detail on redundant bulbs is the phyicals effect we know from the Centennial Light. Whenever you had a failed light bulb, did it fail in operation or during power up? Bulbs share their inrush current. The voltage is beeing dropped on wires fuses and switches. Turn singals are limmited in inrush current by the shut inside the flasher. Do you want to search sources for all this or keep it as it is in a nice little diagram, referenced by service manuals, for readers who want to see and go deeper into details? It may result, the american engineeing ha(s/d) many useful product attributs ahead.

I see we return to discussion. Some reliable information is here [5] (german)

See a practical use f.e. Volkswagen Golf Mk2s Europan confuguration is "dead" of side markers. Turn asnd stop was over corner only. Tail light and stop were dedicated chambers and single wire bulbs only.

It is not to reduce the article to the american regulation only and use finding a theory to associate some vehicles as it already is. It is to verify and add a practical part to a high-importance automobile article to give it a high quality. Here is another cherry: At 30 JUN 2010, the EU allowd red tail markers when the marker is intgrated into the tail light by an Update of regulation no. 91 from 15 OCT 2008. When it is a dedicated unit, it still requires to emit amber light.[6] --Hans Haase (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Um...no. You're mostly wrong. First of all, for god's sake, do not crap up the talk page by interspersing your comments with existing comments (mine or anyone else's). We use THREADED conversations on the talk page. Your comments go UNDER mine, all in one block, then my response goes UNDER yours, all in one block.

As for your comment itself, it's mostly wrong, too. Looking at cars (or pictures of cars) and deciding you know and understand what you're seeing correctly and well enough to put it in an encyclopedia is a non-starter. It's a direct violation of WP:NOR. Your interpretation of what you think you see on a car or in a picture (or what you claim to have seen in an unspecified service manual) is not reliable. If you can find WP:RS compliant support for your claims, great! Otherwise, no. Speaking of supporting assertions: if there are no rear side markers on a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88, how come this reliable source says there are? Same for the 1983 Delta 88. So much for your claim to have "looked in the service manual". The rear side markers are built into the tail lamps, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent!

As for your "pregnant" diagrams (whatever you think that means): They were inaccurate, unsupported, arcane, and even the 3rd opinion you sought said they shouldn't be in the article. Even if the diagrams had been accurate, nobody ever said they would be replaced element-for-element by text.

You write Combined turn and stop signals often are redundand, but not indicated on failure.That's the second or third time you've made this claim. It's not accurate, and you can't support it reliably because you made it up. Likewise you made up these supposed "reader questions". This is not the place to write a school report about car lights, and it's not the place to write up your version of a service manual, it's an encyclopedia article and whether you mean to or not, you're damaging it by inserting factually incorrect material that isn't supported (because it's not supportable, because it's wrong and/or made up).

You also write again: redundant aber turns signals are very rarely, but have been built. Well, again, repeating your claim doesn't verify it. Say it ten times, say it twenty-nine times, it's still unsupported. If you can support the assertion with a reference to a valid primary source, great, do so. But continuing to put it in the article just based on nothing but your personal beliefs of what you think you know will probably continue to get it deleted. And you haven't bothered supporting your claim (if you even can) that iIn the 1970s to middle 1990s imported US vehicles to Europe required to uninstall side markers and center stop lights, their cabled to be cut and sometimes brackets and supports to be removed as well to revent reinstallation, either.

Also, when you're digging up support for your claims, try to do a proper job of it. You claim At 30 JUN 2010, the EU allowd red tail markers when the marker is intgrated into the tail light by an Update of regulation no. 91 from 15 OCT 2008 Look at the correct regulation (Regulation 48) and you'll find the allowance for rear side markers (no such function as "tail markers") to be red if they are grouped, combined, or reciprocally incorporated with another rear lighting function dates back many years before the 2010 date you think you found in Regulation 91.

You also write We cant write about how useful it is to know about a failed turn singnal instead having already installed backup for it and It may result, the american engineeing ha(s/d) many useful product attributs ahead. This word-soup doesn't mean anything (and neither does the babble about the Centennial light), so please try again in actual English that's actually relevant. Same with your thing about It is not to reduce the article to the american regulation only and use finding a theory to associate some vehicles as it already is -- What? This article contains a huge amount of coverage of international (=European) practice, there's no way a reasonable person could claim it's been "reduced to the American regulation only".

And you write The automotive lights manufacturer Hella refered to an EU regulation permitting SMLs since 1996 without quotation title number or reviewable. Side markers have been allowed in Europe a whole lot longer than just since 1996. Do more and better research. And you write Europe had never been open, publishing regulations and especially specifications on the web. Oh really? Then how come I had such an easy time finding all the European regulations right on the web, downloadable for free in multiple languages, and with historical versions, too?

Seriously, dude, there's plenty of work to be done on this article without making new problems. You're making new problems. 24.87.80.234 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First: Why you have removed some of my answers?[7]

Second: Keep headings neutral is in WP:INTERSPERSE, also Don't praise in headings, Random factoids being added is biasing the section for 3O.

Further REMOVED ANSWERS

---

Yes, I mean "few", sorry. Click to enlarge, I refered to the best pictures, I found. More information requires to refer parts lists and service manuals. I confirm I have seen this configuration only.

• 
  Mercedes-Benz W140 and V140 [1]
• 
  Daewoo Espero/Aranos in the trunk lid [2][3]

We cant write about how useful it is to know about a failed turn singnal instead having already installed backup for it.

---

Next REMOVED answer

---

Automotive_lighting#Front position lamps (parking lamps, standing lamps) here it is!

Regulated with some special exclusions in § 51 German StVZO.[8] de:Standlicht required front white (often 2,5 watts) backup to headlight failure, optional park position. Do not be confussed, most of the pictures on the web are not for use in road traffic. Some patch the turn signals to markers and offr this. A regular use is here: See btw. the turn signals integrated to the head lamp on VW Golf 4 ( = Volkswagen Golf Mk4) caused the turn signal to be less visible when head lamps turned on, it was called the "egg a la sun in the sky effect" (= Spiegelei-Effekt, use google translator). It was solved by moving the 2,5 watts "Standlicht" to the sights reflector and add a second turn signal instead. A typical patch sharing the white position "Standlicht" with the amber turn signal is most usen in Mercedes Benz vehicles [9].

---

Unspecified service manual(s) Doing the diagrams, I refered some manuals and reviewed by functionality of VW, GM in EU and US to cover most commons and differents. In refering them as source. These manuals could not be that wrong to mislead technicians.

Side markers on a 1977 / 1983 Oldsmobile Delta 88. So much for your claim to have "looked in the service manual". The rear side markers are built into the tail lamps, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent!. There was an second version. The vehicle targeted several markets. The link to OSRAM supports the other version, like this: [10] 1979 and 1983 were face lifts. If uses 1156 1157 and dedicated marker. The most common version used two 1157 (or 1157A) lamps only. The law required markers, but not dedicated ones. It is not to use a special bulb, it is to emit light. So even the marker was redundant.

We faced some guidlines and usage of sources, beginning with books. As you may not own such, you should have access to it. I do not tend to use a product offer from a lamp or bulb manufacturer, only. In case of supporting the Olds 88, OSRAM did not cover the cars variations. Hella was less precisely to refer regulations, but meet the truth.

Qute: I think the two schematics are a very obscure way of presenting the differences between how American and European turn signals and brake lights are connected - it would be better to describe the differences in plain text, rather than expect the reader to deduce the difference after scratching her head over the unnecessarily detailed schematic. Not everyone reads wiring diagrams as their native script. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So you tell me I would make problems? Quote: Seriously, dude, there's plenty of work to be done on this article without making new problems. You're making new problems. 24.87.80.234 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) No! Really I am rid of discussing about guidelines if you, I guess so, only collect some garbage from the web, removing my answers, biasing section titles of discussion. The only characteristic in common is to removed my contributions. I already explained to give pregnant information, I refered from books. This way would comply all WP:RS and other guidelines. An IP started a talk to remove this information under minor argument WP:UGH. When comming up with Wtshymanski's option, the IP reverts and reverts and reverts. When coming back to the discussion, I found my answers restructured and even the WP:RS complaint references removed and furter declared as Bull and crap up. The contrib I prefered first was to prevent all interpretation and origin resiearch. The plain text enforces such or ingores several facts. I never would read an article about and chemical substance and remove formula or diagrams as WP:UGH. Finally stop the libricide! The diagrams still were imagemaps. By moving the mouse over, it told about the symbol you are over. All else is following wires, achievable by analphabets as well, means not too complicated. I finally as you one question: Are you with the wikipedia or are you against it? --Hans Haase (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

An other opinion and review was asked here. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Automotive lighting

Cyberbot II has detected links on Automotive lighting which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-cts-consumer-compact-v7-en-may-2012.pdf

  Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The need of knowledge

Simplified circuit diagram of european automotive lighting system

Simplified circuit diagram of american automotive lighting system

As the article does not contain practical knowledge, and I am not sure to talk with a single opposing party, after the death of Sandra Bland and the shooting of Walter Scott, the videos do not show to proof on malfunction but still the drivers have been blamed. I guess it is time to start a discussion to bring information to the article instead of copy of laws text only that can be found somewhere else and combined with political or sales interests. The idea of Wikipedia from Jimmy Wales differs totally from that. Wikipedia should provide knowledge, not detain it from the public. In the videos, the right turn signal of Sandra Bland's car has never appeared, but she gave way for the police car. The officer did not order her to turn on turn signals of hazard flasher to test functionality. The right stop light of Walter Schott's car was not in the view of the camera when the left stop light appeared. A question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 March 7#Automotive lighting with the request for review was not completed. There was a mistake causing the hazard lamps to turn permanent.[11] It was not found by the reviewers.[12] I think, it is time to make new decision and stop longer taking about "forum shopping" or "UGH". --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of your bizarre, rambling jeremiad—Sandra Bland, Jimbo Wales, etc—has no relevance to this article. The rest is just more of your same old willfully-oblivious whinge. The answers you previously got right here on this page (and in your disingenuous little forum-shopping escapade are still the answers, no matter how often you whine about it: Your drawings don't fit in this article because they aren't correct, they aren't representative, and they aren't otherwise helpful. Kindly please cut it out (again). —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)