I suggest the reason is contrast.
Three lights as opposed to three brighter lights is little contrast. If you
aren't looking at them the second the brake lights come on, you might not
realize that they are actually on and that they are brighter than they would
be with just tail lights. If you look at the tail of the car and four
lights are bright and two are dim, you would likely assume that the bright
lights are brake lights.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McDonald" <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re (2): IML: Fixing Govt mandated 68 bulbs
They are now, but have they always been?
This is beating a dead horse, but now I have to echo Chris's question:
why? If it was not to insure that there would always be a working
taillight, what was the reason? Why are 3 lights working as a brake
light unsafe, but 2 are not?
If I'm not mistaken, if one bulb goes bad in a chain, then that "kills"
the lights in that chain. If you had 3 lights working as a brake light
on the L, and 3 on the R, then that would mean 6 bulbs in the chain-- 2
more chances at bulb failure, possibly resulting in no brake lights???
I'm just trying to figure this out now that you've got me curious.
Mark
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network