Aren't here some rules in Europe that lead to the placement of lights in the rear bumpers of SUV's. This is because rear lights and indicators must be visible when a tailgate is swung open.

Believe so, but haven't a reference to add. There have also been some odd laws about how far a "high-level brake light" (in the rear screen) must be from the main brake lights. The saga of the lights on the 1994-97 Land Rover Discovery highlight this well, with at least five different configurations being tried in that short timespan. (Four of them in the 300Tdi-era models!) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these mandatory in countries like Canada and Sweden?

In the Nordic countries it has long (late 1970's and early 80's) been mandatory to keep the lights on (even on a sunny day), as of today separate forward oriented DRL lamps are not allowed on their own, taillights etc. must also be switched on. As far as I know much of Europe is considering to adopt the policy of DRL or headlights always switched on. Scoo 11:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regulators from countries signatory to ECE R48 (installation of lighting and light-signalling devices) cannot yet agree on a DRL specification as far as photometry, electrical connection and other stipulations. For now, regulation of this function is on a country-by-country basis. Scheinwerfermann 21:14, 16 December 2005 (EST)

Some countries require US lights to be modified to local standards and in some it seems to be permissible to drive around with red turn signals on US imports.

-> red turn signals lamps are usually allowed when a car is imported as a household good (normally free of charge) when persons are moving to other countries. When buying a car for importation, the color must be modified to amber (yellow). This is usually done by putting an amber bulb where the back-up bulb is, or by drilling a new hole for an additional socket in that lens (rewiring required).

It is often claimed that cars using HID lights (xenon gas) also must have headlight washers and an automatic levelling system (for the lights or the rear axle). Are these EU requirements or UN/ECE requirements only? These refer to ECE rules, but no details are given: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/1976/en_1976L0761_index.html

This is mentioned in the Headlight article. I added a paragraph recently saying "HID headlamps are subject to the extra ECE regulations for any headlamp brighter than 2,000 lumens; a headlamp cleaning system must be fitted, and any beam level adjustment must be automatic rather than manual." This is in paragraph 6.2.9 of UNECE Regulation 48. --KJBracey 17:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page it is which is doing the crying. It's crying out for illustrations! This writer it is who can't do the illustrations, because it's European stuff. --Sobolewski 18:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: the "voluntary switch" to amber in 1963, it was not so voluntary as some *states* mandated that the front directionals be amber. Some of them even mandated that the *lenses* be amber; brand new cars were failing safety inspections at least in 1964 for having clear lenses with 1034A bulbs. There was a service letter from Studebaker addressing this issue; I think they had to release amber lenses as a service part for use in those states until it was all straightened out.

Not sure if this is really worthy of inclusion in the main article, just an interesting historical footnote. Besides, I can't document this as I only borrowed the service letters to read and did not photocopy a set for myself (they were fragile enough I didn't trust them to an autofeeder)

The chronology probably doesn't support this recollection. While it's true that lighting regulation was left entirely as a matter for each state prior to 1968, it could not have been the case that "brand new cars were failing safety inspections for having clear lenses with 1034A bulbs", for the 1034A (and other amber bulbs) were first introduced in 1966. I have considerable information regarding the evolution of state lighting regulations, but nothing concerning any state's requirement for amber front directional indicators beginning in 1963. It's certainly possible, but from this end it looks unlikely. Can you tell us a little more about these service letters you read? Who printed them, when, and where did you find them? Scheinwerfermann 10:55, 11 March 2006 (EST)

These were Studebaker service letters that were printed by the factory and distributed to dealers; a friend of mine had acquired a collection of them while buying up old dealer stock in the 70's and 80's when most of the dealers sold out. I know that the amber lenses were introduced pretty much across the board (for Studebaker) for the '63 MY; they switched back to clear for '64 and while I don't feel like arguing about the date of the introduction of the 1034As (because you probably know more about it than I do) I can only assume that they were using some sort of amber bulb. Supposedly someone in the Studebaker club is working on scanning the service letters and burning them to CD and I have already requested a copy; if/when I get it (the service bulletins literally took years to get together, and this is a project of similar magnitude) I will certainly try to find the one I'm thinking of so I can verify this. ISTR it even named specific states where they were having issues. StudeCommander 03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do post here if you get your hands back on those bulletins! Scheinwerfermann 10:55, 11 March 2006 (EST)

The photos added by Scoo are a good start, but there are fairly significant problems with them:

• The ECE Dipped / Low beam picture shows low beams that are misaimed (too low). They may well be within a particular country's allowable range of aim for vehicles in service, but this photo is not representative of intended illumination characteristics of correctly-aimed ECE low beams.

• The more-or-less driver's-eye views, without greyscale targets placed along the road edges at regular intervals, are not very illustrative of either beam reach characteristics or comparative traits of different beams.

It is very difficult to show anything useful with photographs of beam patterns, due to the extremely large difference in dynamic range between the human visual system (much larger dynamic range) and any kind of photographic system (much smaller dynamic range). The best that can be achieved with photographs is a gross, rough comparison of the formation of different beam patterns. This is best achieved with photos of the beam pattern projected onto a vertical wall. Calibrations added either to the wall or to the photo, indicating the horizontal and vertical axes of the lamp, add greatly to the information conveyed by the photo. Another useful type of beam pattern photo is the bird's-eye view, taken from a vantage point well above and parallel to the road surface along which the beam is projected.

Much more informative than photos of beam patterns are isolux or isocandela diagrams. These, however, may be difficult for the layman to understand. Scheinwerfermann 21:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the organisation of some of the subsections on signalling lamps. Emergency-braking display systems (flashing brake lamps) aren't limited to vehicles equipped with LED brake lamps, so the info on flashing brake lamps belonged as a subsection of stop lamps, not of LEDs. The two automakers who are pushing these systems are each eager to have their own system adopted as the one and only legal implementation, so they have been releasing lots of propaganda on system effectiveness. Numerous independent, scientifically-rigourous, peer-reviewed and published tests and studies of vehicles so equipped, operating on real roads, has so far shown no safety benefit to such systems.

I've also moved the variable-intensity information so that it's a subsection of "light sources and technology", which now also contains bulb and LED information. Brake lamps are not the only signalling devices covered by regulations permitting variable intensity. Scheinwerfermann 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cars (the BMW 5-series (E60) is actually the only car I know of that has this) with break lights that have two areas of illumination, the first lights up under normal breaking, the second lights up along with the first under hard and sharp braking, the effect is that there is an enlarged brake light area when the driver brakes sharply. Scheinwerfermann you may know more about this than me, so make edit if you do. thanks (PS nice job with above edits). --JCW 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Last night when I was editing the brake lamp info, I couldn't bring to mind what the operational differences were between the Mercedes and BMW systems—and all my info was at the office, while I was posting from home. You've reminded me, and I've confirmed it, so I'll rework the section to make the difference more clear. Thanks. Scheinwerfermann 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that what were formerly a number of separate articles were merged into this (e.g. Center High-Mounted Stop Light, Sequential turn signals). What concerns me is that sources, references, and external links seem to have been lost in this process, leaving this article poorly sourced. I'm also concerned by the extensive use of bare inline external links for what sources have been provided; these offer little information about what the link contains.

To start correcting this, I've started a References section and have begun changing existing references to the <ref></ref> syntax. I would like to encourage everyone working on this article to help me in this effort. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on their name in other countries (or other parts of the UK) but anyway having read the article i cannot see any section about side repeater lights, they are normally placed just in front of the doors of a car and before the wheel arch but are now sometimes part of the side mirror assembly like in the new VW Golf. I'm not totally sure where they are required and where not (thats why i came to look at this article) but from my trips to the US they don't appear to be required there but also don't appear to be banned as some cars have them but as far as i can tell they are required in the UK and Europe. Here's a picture of one so that you can understand what i' talking about [1] . TheEnlightened 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are discussed in the third paragraph of the Turn Signals section. Scheinwerfermann 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i appeared to have missed that, sorry but that thanks for showing me. TheEnlightened 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct to say that StVZO calls for single-side parking lamps. All countries that have acceded to ECE R48 are required to accept vehicles that carry all lighting and signalling equipment required by R48. There are many instances in which specific such nations have lighting and signalling requirements not contained in R48: German parking lamps, French selective-yellow headlamps, UK dim-dip lights, Swedish headlamp wipers and perception lamps, etc. In such cases, the requirement is preëmpted by R48's provisions, but automakers may choose to incorporate such devices on their cars in countries whose regulations require or permit them. It may seem a fine distinction, but Germany's accedence to R48 did not change StVZO's requirement for single-side parking lamps. Therefore, it is not correct to say that StVZO "allows" this system, but rather that it is called for. Scheinwerfermann 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of users have edited this section, changing "...no especial control of light" to "...no special control of light...". The two words (special and especial) come from the same root, and have a fair amount of denotative overlap, but are not fully interchangeable. In this context, "especial" is the better choice. I'd like to avoid a long etymological dissertation, but here's a quickie illustration of the difference, in real-world terms: If someone asked you if you'd like to lend him $150, you might say "not especially", but you wouldn't say "not specially". English boasts a broad and rich vocabulary; it's a shame to refrain from using a perfectly understandable and well-chosen word simply because it's not encountered everyday. Nevertheless, if we must adhere to a lowest-common-denominator doctrine, perhaps we'll have to replace especial with particular. Scheinwerfermann 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Parking lamps and StVZO" above; a similar regulatory interaction is at work here between ECE Regulations and various national regulations. Yes, some countries' national regulations still permit yellow headlamps. In those countries that permit yellow headlamps and permit the daytime use of low-beam headlamps, then effectively a yellow DRL function is allowed. However, this does not mean ECE regulations permit yellow DRLs; they do not. This already-lengthy article would grow intractibly large if we were to discuss each and every national/international and state/Federal regulatory interaction, because there are so many such interactions. The reason why it's critical to convey that ECE doesn't allow a yellow DRL is because the US regulations do allow a "yellow" DRL function not permitted by ECE ("Yellow" is the name applied to what ECE calls "Amber", i.e., turn signal color). This is the subject of some contention in the international regulatory community; OICA is pushing for ECE to permit US-style amber DRLs, which is not likely to happen (Germany's position, for example: "We've spent years pressuring the French to get yellow off the front of cars, and we're not about to sign on for amber DRL!"). In the US, every state has its own vehicle equipment installation and usage regulations, but an article like this isn't the place for them; rather, this is where to discuss the large-scale regulations that apply throughout the whole jurisdiction. The same applies to ECE vs. individual-country regulations.

Also, there is no such a thing as "gold" or "super gold" light. Those are marketing terms applied to certain kinds of automotive bulbs. The terms carry no scientific or regulatory weight and so do not belong in an encyclopædic article.

I agree with you it's a shame that selective-yellow light has been effectively deleted from international regulations and is no longer in use. But, my vote on the matter carried as much weight as yours, and we need to not allow our wishful thinking to creep into Wiki articles. ECE regulations do not allow yellow headlamps or DRLs. Scheinwerfermann 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know when (and if) the UK law was repealed which said one should always illuminate sidelights (a.k.a. parking lights etc.) when parked after dusk on the "wrong" side of the road, facing against traffic? I think it'd be an interesting point to add in to the article – although my note that it was ever the case has just been rapidly reverted out of the article. Perhaps fair enough since I used mildly ambiguous wording since I can't say if it's still true; but then again an interesting historical note to add to the reasons why the lights existed and weren't phased out. (Along with the theory/reason about the width of the car remaining visible in the event of a main light failure.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a question of local lighting usage laws, which—due to the proliferation of such laws in various jurisdictions—are tricky to incorporate into an article such as this without making the article overly long. I have thought for quite some time that there might be call for an article dealing specifically with lighting usage laws that are in one or another way peculiar to specific jurisdictions, but as yet there is no such article. --Scheinwerfermann 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I'd felt this to be a worthwhile note because firstly there are a few nation-specific notes (especially for the UK and Germany) and secondly this one had the particular value of hinting at one reason why these lights still exist in some modern cars. The justification of position marking in the event of main light failure seems weak given modern road speeds. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to regulations worldwide, the lamps in question have two functions: To visually mark the vehicle when it is near traffic and not parked up, but also not in motion (i.e., standing), and to maintain the vehicle's visual signature as a double-track vehicle (rather than e.g. a motorcycle) in the event of a headlamp bulb failure. I'm not following your logic regarding road speeds; the latter function is important whether the vehicle is travelling at low or high speeds. I am sure your note regarding vehicles parked against traffic is correct, but I don't see how it is special relative to the first function described above. Scheinwerfermann 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, at modern relatively high speeds, by the time one has seen a very dim light, one will be so close that it's too late to do very much about it. I'm presuming that back when the UK legislation was made which rendered sidelights compulsory, the average vehicle speed was rather less, partly due to road surfaces and partly due to car technology.

Out of curiosity (and honestly not meaning to be argumentative ;) what evidence is there of the "regulations worldwide" showing the reason why sidelights evolved? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kierant, can you please document your assertion that "parking lamps" is a term officially used to refer to front position lamps in the EU? ECE and EU regulations reserve that term for the single-side-of-vehicle function discussed in the position lamp section of the article. I have reverted, because if we stray from official terminology, we cannot possibly hope to provide a comphrehensive, suitably concise and accurate list of all the colloquial terms by which each function is called. --Scheinwerfermann 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in 1980s-era Volkswagen owner's manuals (in English for various markets); I can try getting the publication number and dates and stuff if you like, I just hadn't considered it worthy of a reference, especially given that it's not available online. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need...VW has always used mildly amusing English in their owner's manuals, reminiscent of the old Schprockets sketch from Saturday Night Live. Scheinwerfermann 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True – and for comedy, you should see the stick figures in the diagrams! Nevertheless, do you see why I wanted to avoid the current implication that the term is only used in North America? I'm not fixated on any particular wording, but I'd prefer to see the article not make specific claims if they can't be shown to be really so specific. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not agree with you, no. The terminology as enumerated in the article is in line with the official regulatory terminology, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Vehicle owner's manuals, especially those produced by automakers headquartered where English is not the native language, cannot legitimately be said to supersede official terminology. Consider: Many automakers sell cars with fog lamps in North America. These lamps are described in owner's manuals variously as "fog lamps", "fog lights", "driving lights", "driving lamps", and "fog/driving lights". The only truly correct term for the device is "fog lamp". "Fog light" is acceptable even though technically not correct. None of the others is even slightly applicable to the devices in question. Functionally and per regulations, a fog lamp is not at all the same as a driving lamp. Just as we wouldn't include "driving lamp" as an alternate name for "fog lamp" in this article (because that's not the case, even though some automakers print it in their owner guides), we shouldn't add to the already confusing application of a common term ("parking lamp") to two different functions. --Scheinwerfermann 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any evidence that the "official" regulations (and definitions) which you allude to apply outside certain markets, and therefore, it's not possible to claim that the term ("parking lamps") can't apply in yet further markets; this is basic logic: you can't prove a negative. But that said, I appreciate that you've clearly put a lot of work and thought into this article, and I have no intention of reasserting the claim; if anybody else happens to understand my point, perhaps they'll express it differently. On the specific of "driving lamp" versus "fog lamp", I actually disagree! Wikipedia doesn't define reality, it reflects it. And if some manufacturers have an untidy way of describing things, that's still what an encyclopædia should report. But it's hardly something to lose sleep over. Meanwhile, here's to working together to find other ways to improve WP! Cheers :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...congratulations guys, and first and foremost our Wikipedia automotive lighting specialist :D What it needs is proper references and a history section and we've got an FA here! Excuse me for not helping with that, my knowledge on the subject ends in the moment when it comes to distinguishing left from right turn signals, but I hope you will not let such a great article be deservedly FA'd! Regards, Bravada, talk - 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References: You betchya. Got an enormous stack of them backed up for inclusion, and I agree the next step is to incorporate those references into the article. The logistics of doing so may be a little tricky, though, and here's why: Every subsection will at least contain an inline reference to at least one ECE regulation. All of those regulations are readily available to the world free of charge, as PDFs. It worries me that we'd have an article full of PDF links such that the unwary could wind up with a desktop full of PDF-frass. Maybe I am being overly paranoid, in which case it's simply a matter of taking the time to link to each individual ECE regulation. If my worry is founded, then an alternate strategy might be to link to the ECE regulation homepage. This would be a two-step, indirect link, so I'm not sure this solution is particularly desirable. What're your thoughts? Just for test purposes, an inline link directly to the ECE PDF would look like this: ECE Regulation 1

Or, perhaps, like this: ^[1]

So, I will be keen to read your thoughts on how best to incorporate the references. A history section is also a natural, and again a "How to?" question comes up: Do we want to give a concise history of each individual lighting device or function in that device/function's subsection? Or do we want a separate, parsimonious history section dealing with the whole topic? Maybe a little of both? This article is quite long, and lengthy but concise papers have been written on the subject of automotive lighting history alone. I worry the article might become overly long if we're not careful. So, again, interested in your perspective (and that of others—join in, folks!) on the matter. --Scheinwerfermann 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, do you REALLY need to link to those fabulous ECE's directly? Perhaps there is a source that discusses them all, or at least most of them, in one place, in the aspects you mention? I am asking because unfortunately I have been told by a citation/reference specialist while working on a recent FAC that any link should point directly to the page where the information cited is to be found (be it a webpage or book). Or perhaps I was not that unfortunate that I was told that, it is unfortunate that you have to do that in this case, I think you get my drift...

Also, please use Template:cite web and related (see them all @ Wikipedia:Citation templates), I also think it would be polite to use the Template:PDFlink - this is quite personal, my system reacts quite allergically to pdflinks at the moment.

As concerns history, well, I was actually thinking of a "separate, parsimonious history section dealing with the whole topic", where topics such as switching from carbide lamps to electric lighting, inclusion of light turn signals and in general the changes in the usage of lighting in an automobile would be discussed. On the other hand, given the structuring of the article, each section could have a historic perspective added, but I guess out of this two, this would be more cumbersome, and such sections would belong more in specific articles.

Anyway you will see it fit, do NOT worry about size concerns. A topic that important and broad does require a rather extensive article, and with good structuring like you have here it is quite user-friendly in spite of the size. At the moment, the article is "only" 31k, most FAs like that are between that and in excess of 50k, so there is still quite a lot of room in reserve. Moreover, I always try to promote the thinking that it's better to create a comprehensive and exhaustive article which is too big and then trim it down by "subarticling" and in other possible ways, then to leave out content just because of size concerns.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 23:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no suitable secondary source for the contents of ECE regulations; the links will really have to go to the PDFs themselves, unless we do something completely ugly like link to the Google HTML renditions of the PDFs (yuck, please don't make me do this, it won't work.) The PDF link format is probably our best compromise: Go directly to the information, but warn people they're about to download a PDF. This way, if they wish, they can set their browser to view the PDF in the browser itself rather than downloading it.

Thank you for the article size information. I'm less concerned now and will work up a history subsection along the lines you describe as well as adding some historical technische leckerbissen to various specific-device subsections! --Scheinwerfermann 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]