Green Front Brake Light

Universal Green Front Brake Light
This is an idea I first conceived in July of 2003. Since then I have researched it, studied it and contemplated it from every angle I could find. Ultimately, its potential to significantly reduce the number of traffic collisions and the deaths, injuries and costs associated therewith across the world has become so obvious to me that I must disclose it, or risk an unbearably guilty conscience in the event that I am correct. I believe this idea can save a significant number of lives and for that reason I cannot risk delaying its disclosure. Woe to the reader finding him or herself in a position to implement this idea, for once reading it, failure to act on it may eventually carry a very heavy price in future negligence and wrongful death actions.
Introduction to electronic signaling systems on motorized road vehicles
When motorized highway vehicles were first invented, they were built without electronic signal systems. Since the number of vehicles on the roads at that time was minuscule by today’s standards, signal systems were not perceived as necessary. Signaling was accomplished by hand and driving safely at night was all but impossible. Today, we cannot imagine modern transportation without electronic signaling. Running lights, tail lights, headlights, brake lights, reverse lights and turn indicators are permanent and necessary features for every highway vehicle in North America, and in most other developed countries throughout the world. Together, these lights and signaling devices comprise a universal communication system upon which almost all modern drivers depend for their safety and their very lives.
Millions of traffic collisions and millions of hours of crash analyses over the last 80 years have convinced vehicle manufacturers, insurance companies, businesses, drivers and vehicle safety legislators the world over not only to use modern vehicle lighting and signaling systems themselves, but to make their use mandatory for us all. In North America, driving on a public roadway without the full spectrum of operating vehicular lighting and signal systems will attract fines or other legal sanctions for the mere act of driving without them. Should a driver crash or cause an accident as a result of failing to use or keep his signal and lighting systems operative, he will be found negligent, if not criminally so.
Vehicular signaling and lighting systems are proven to reduce the number and severity of vehicle collisions on our public roadways. And while such systems are good they are not perfect.
It has been estimated that 1 in 4 vehicles will be involved in a collision over its lifetime. With a current worldwide collision rate of 50,000,000 and a fatality rate of approx 1,000,000 per year (joint U.N./WHO number), even a 1% decrease in the worldwide collision rate means avoiding the injuries, costs and property damage associated with 500,000 collisions. It means saving the very lives of 10,000 people per year. The vast majority of these collisions occur within our cities.
While one might attempt to estimate the number of collisions avoided and lives saved through the advent of signal lights, brake lights, reverse lights, etc., using various means, suffice it for these purposes to say that the collision rate has been greatly and obviously reduced by more than 1%. Without such electronic lighting and signaling systems, roadway travel at night would cease to exist; daytime travel would shrink to a crawl. It is the ability to communicate using these systems that makes modern roadway travel possible. Unfortunately no system is perfect. Drivers signal intentions and communicate numerous forms of visual information using these systems, but cannot yet read each other’s minds. Accordingly accidents continue to occur.
Today the search for better vehicle signaling and lighting systems continues apace, bringing us improvements in lighting, durability and signaling. All of these are proven to reduce the total number of collisions on our roadways.
How vehicular signal and lighting systems reduce the number of collisions
Current vehicle signaling and lighting systems reduce our overall collision rate by reliably, efficiently and clearly communicating our driving intentions and activities. Since other drivers cannot read our minds, we must necessarily communicate using hand, eye, and our vehicle signaling and lighting systems. Illuminated signals combine high visibility with efficient, unambiguous conveyance of crucial information to other drivers. They are more reliable and visible than hand gestures, particularly at night. Turning, braking, preparing to advance, reversing - all of these driving actions are made safer by increasing our ability to instantaneously and simultaneously perceive what all other visible drivers are doing, what they are not, what they intend, and vice versa. On our modern roadways, the importance of driver reaction time: the ability to correctly and safely react to roadway events, using various lighting, signaling devices and driving skills to send and receive reliable visual data, cannot be understated.
Driver reaction time has become an enormous field of study, encompassing millions of hours of painstaking research. From it all have emerged a number of expert and informed opinions that are widely agreed as being correct.
Sallama is a Norwegian reaction time guru who, with the help of numerous others in a series of well designed, tested and peer reviewed studies has concluded that the standard average reaction time to expected signals, such as a brake light is approx 1.3 to 1.7 seconds. Reaction time to unexpected signals, such as a stationary object suddenly appearing in the roadway, rises to 1.8-2.0 seconds. In another study Sallama found that driver reaction to a vehicle ahead unexpectedly slowing increased an average further 2.0 seconds when no brake lights were visible. In other words, it takes another driver an extra 2 seconds on average to notice that you are braking if your brake indicator lights don’t work. That’s over a 100% increase.
It should go without saying that any warning time that may normally occur between the time when the brake indicator is lit and the point at which enough braking pressure to visibly slow the vehicle is highly variable: any where from a few milliseconds to many seconds warning of pending deceleration is given. That warning time is lost when brake lights or other signals are eliminated from the spectrum of information normally provided to other observers. Accordingly, lack of a brake signal (at least) not only increases observing driver reaction time by an average 2.0 seconds, it also eliminates any warning time normally associated with a brake indicator. These figures are widely accepted in the literature and where they are not acknowledgment remains that lack of brake lights increases overall reaction time in observing drivers. Particularly at night.
Similarly one can at least anticipate an increased reaction time to vehicles without working turn indicators, crossing paths in an intersection. The lack of any studies on that particular traffic dynamic is a testament to both the danger of purposely enacting such a test, and the obviousness of the anticipated result.
At 110 km/h (65 mph) a vehicle is traveling approximately 30 metres (33yards) per second. Most vehicles can decelerate at approximately 10 metres per second in an emergency. One should require no further mathematical presentation than that to conclude that a few seconds of increased warning and reaction time are crucially important to modern drivers given the potential consequences of a collision. Certainly our North American courtrooms know the difference: failure to have operating vehicle signal and lighting systems most often means a finding of liability against the offending driver.
Furthermore it is not just other drivers who benefit from the increased reaction time, visibility and communication inherent in modern vehicle lighting and signal systems. Every year there are approximately ________ pedestrians killed by vehicles in collisions worldwide. This number is likely outweighed by the number who are saved by working vehicular signal and lighting systems. However the true number is largely irrelevant. With the increased reaction time inherent in lacking such items as turn signals, far more pedestrians would be killed and injured as they "guessed wrong" about turning drivers intentions. This would be especially so at night when visibility, including their own, is greatly lowered. The point is that modern vehicular lighting and signal systems work. Why then do pedestrian and left turn accidents remain 400% higher than they should be?
Why modern vehicular lighting and signal systems work
New drivers don’t automatically understand all of the rules with respect to operating and interpreting the operation of vehicle lighting and signaling systems. Accordingly they are first educated and then allowed to practice under mandatory supervision. This is as it should be: we don’t want them killing themselves or anyone else while learning to drive. Ultimately the operation of the vehicle and its signal systems becomes "second nature" for most drivers. Like walking, it starts as learned behavior and evolves into an almost unconscious motor skill. Hence we see the relatively high reaction times of 1.3-1.7 seconds for the average driver confronted with a recognizable and pre-programmed signal such as a brake or indicator light on a roadway where such signals might normally be expected to occur.
Proper instruction in lighting and signal systems is certainly advisable, but was not always a common practice amongst new drivers a generation ago. Fortunately the systems themselves are designed to be as universal, obvious, unambiguous and as intuitive as possible. Running lights advertise our position and speed. Yellow turn signals flash to the left or right of the car indicating that we have triggered them and possibly intend to turn in the direction indicated. Red illumination indicates the back of the vehicle. Brake lights are also always red, reacting in unison with traffic signals and Stop signs when the driver has his foot on the brake signaling he. Brake lights show when he intends to slow or stop his vehicle, when he does not, and can even show when he intends to start or accelerate again. White lights on the rear of the car mean he’s prepared to back up- brake indicators and car movement will communicate the rest. These signal and lighting systems are so efficient at communicating that a modern driver is able to receive and distribute messages to and from all in sight, practically simultaneously. Of course, vehicle collisions and pedestrian/vehicle collisions continue to occur, albeit at much lower rates thanks to their modern signal systems.
Modern vehicles accelerate and decelerate (thanks to ABS), much faster than those on the road 30 years ago. Improving and evolving vehicular lighting and signal systems, taken in conjunction with modern high speed roadways and controlled intersections have vastly increased both driver reaction time and the speed of traffic flow. With ever increasing numbers of vehicles navigating our crowded roadways comes increased collision numbers, injuries and deaths. Accordingly, the search for new, intuitive, unambiguous signal systems that further increase the state of communication and reaction times amongst drivers continues unabated.
Kenworth has recently started equipping its new trucks with forward indicator lights that signal by illuminating when another vehicle is traveling too close in front. Cadillac embeds yellow turn indicators into the back of its side view mirrors for greater signal visibility. Foreign and domestic automakers continue to increase the number and visibility of rear brake indicators making them all but commonplace at present. Many vehicles now come with satellite navigation systems and computers - a mute testament to just how important information and communication systems have become to our safety, driving behaviors and our vehicles.
While the current state of our vehicular signal and lighting systems is good at communicating numerous crucial pieces of information to observers, there appears to be a gaping hole in the available data stream.


It seems so obvious...
It seems so obvious that we need turn indicators on all 4 corners of our vehicles. Just two on the front or two on back, even when placed right at the corners are simply not as visible as all 4 corners. In fact, if you cause an accident because your turn indicator could not be seen, you are at fault. Same with brake lights. If someone hits you from behind because your brake indicators are not working, or cannot be seen, you are liable at least in negligence. I will profit nothing to argue that the following or turning driver should have been paying closer attention to your vehicle movements. Those communication systems are crucial for everyone on the road. If yours are not working, you should not be driving.
Consider for a moment the case where a vehicle with a working reverse light but non-working brake lights suddenly signals that it will back to the left, does so, but in the process accidentally backs up into another car or over a pedestrian. Again, holding all other variables equal, the driver without working brake lights is at least contributorily if not solely negligent in law.
Suppose an automobile manufacturer decided one year to make a reverse light system that automatically disabled the brake indicator and reverse lights anytime the vehicle was in reverse gear. As a consequence of depriving drivers and observers of that crucial braking and reversing data stream, the manufacturer would likely be sued in a class action for making an obviously unsafe reverse signaling system. Deliberately withholding an obviously beneficial lighting and signaling system such as rear turn indicators, or reverse and brake lights, from the driving public would be just as actionable as deliberately putting in a faulty braking or steering system. Any traffic safety legislator who allowed such a vehicle or rescinded laws requiring working vehicle lights would similarly pay a heavy price indeed for such foolishness.
It seems obvious that we need headlights on the front of our vehicles and red taillights on the rear. It seems obvious that we want drivers behind us to know in advance when we start braking, turning, accelerating, or any combination thereof. We also want other drivers and pedestrians in front of us to know in advance when we start braking, turning, accelerating, etc. Finally, we must want to know in advance when drivers either traveling in front of us or coming toward us, intend to brake or turn across our path.
If we truly do want oncoming drivers and pedestrians to know when we are braking and turning, and if we want to know that information about them, we have a backward way of showing it: we put turn signals on the front of our vehicles, but keep the brake indicators hidden in the back where they cannot possibly be seen, day or night.
No one should ever propose putting a Red brake indicator assembly on the front of their vehicle. Though it would visibly and reliably communicate braking data, the potential for confusing the front of an oncoming vehicle for its rear in low light conditions, coupled with the potential for deadly collisions, is more than sufficient reason to discard Red as a front brake indicator color. However, other than the color, just exactly what objections can one have to a simple, instantly recognizable front brake indicator ?
Why on earth would I want a Front Brake Light?
There is nothing so obvious as that which we perceive in hindsight. If a careful reading and consideration of the above discussion has not yet convinced you of the potential for universal front brake lights to decrease the number and severity of collisions on our roadways, then I expect you are against most forms of vehicular signal lights and safety systems, including seatbelt and helmet laws. The mere fact that a front brake light assembly appears on the surface to be at least as important as front turn signal indicators, should motivate those seriously interested in reducing traffic collisions to further inquiry.
Given what has already been established in the literature concerning increased and decreased driver reaction time to rear brake lights and front turn signals, a front brake light assembly immediately suggest itself as a reliable, easily understood and highly important additional signal system. Knowing when an oncoming driver who is signaling to turn across your path has his foot on and off the brake is important. Unfortunately, we cannot see his braking information. It is at least as important, if not more so, as knowing the same information with respect to a slower moving vehicle ahead traveling in your same direction.
State of braking information is crucially important to pedestrians as well. From behind, we see that information, as traffic brakes and prepares to slow or stop for a pedestrian. The pedestrian currently sees no such thing. The same holds true for oncoming vehicles. In short, the lowly pedestrian and oncoming vehicles must guess as to the state of any one or more facing vehicle’s braking information and driver’s intention. Therein, perhaps, lies a clue to the seemingly higher rates of left turning and vehicle pedestrian collisions.
Will a front brake light confuse people?
A front brake indicator assembly is unlikely to harmfully confuse those who see it in operation for the first time. Unless it illuminates a color which the observer has previously come to know as communicating something different, it should not be any more startling or confusing than any other vehicle lights. Red brake lights flashing on the front of the vehicle could confuse observers to the point that they mistake the front of an oncoming vehicle for its rear, despite the fact that braking information is still being communicated. This is particularly so if the vehicle has not turned on its headlights.
Flashing blue and red lights are typically associated with police and emergency vehicles, again raising the spectre of confusion. Seeing blue or red brake lights in ones rear-view mirror gives rise to the real possibility that the observing driver will slow down to let the vehicle pull him over or pass. White or yellow lights could be too easily confused with emergency flashers, or high beam flashing to warn other drivers of danger, blockades or passing manouvres. Purple might suffice as a non-confusing color, since it is not currently used in any road traffic communication systems, but therein also lies its obvious weakness.
There is another color, however, which is already widely used in traffic control devices, is instantly recognizable, and can confuse only to the extent that it brings the observer to the appropriate conclusion. In short, if it caused any confusion, it would confuse an observer to "go". The color is, of course, Green.
Green on the front, red on the back
When a pedestrian intends to cross the street and sees green lights illuminate from the front of an approaching car, if they are unfamiliar with a green front brake light and do not immediately recognize it as a sign that the driver’s foot is on the brake, they are likely to pause and take caution. It is also possible that the pedestrian could reflexively interpret the signal to mean that he or she may proceed. If so, they’d be correct. The driver has placed his foot on the brake and is slowing to stop. If the driver lifts his brake, the light goes out.
So too, when a driver first encounters an oncoming car signaling to turn left across his path which then illuminates its green front brake lights as it slows or stops at the corner. It is possible (though unlikely) that the driver might be confused into thinking the light means go ahead. Again, he would be correct: the left turning driver has his foot on the brake and is stopped or preparing to stop before turning. If the left turner lifts his brake, the light goes out.
Is it possible that oncoming drivers and pedestrians could be confused if green front brake lights were only found on half or some of all vehicles? Consider the current state of front braking indicators: they don’t exist. While an observer can understand more clearly what the driver of vehicle with front brake indicators is doing behind the wheel, he is left in the same sorry current state with respect to vehicles without: he must observe closely, guess, and hope that the left signaling vehicle stopped to turn is not just then taking his foot off the brake before hitting the accelerator to cut across. If he sees no green brake light, then he must hope for the best. If he sees one, near, far or intermittently spaced throughout a line of traffic he will be happy to knows what the green front brake light driver(s) are doing. If he cannot understand the green lights, they remain as unintelligible to him as any other light in his field of vision.
We cannot just start putting green front brake signal assemblies on vehicles without first testing them
This is entirely reasonable. It is also worthwhile considering that brake indicator lights are not a new concept. No one would seriously suggest that we need to exhaustively test front turn signal or rear brake light concepts before allowing people to use them. The actual lights yes, but not the very concepts themselves.
We know from long experience that multiple vehicle signal systems save lives and lower collision rates. Drivers use the data contained in vehicle lighting and signaling systems to inform their driving decisions and reactions. Traffic flow itself is made significantly more efficient by using such systems. While green front brake indicators do not suggest themselves as a foolproof solution to pedestrian and oncoming vehicle accidents, they can be expected to provide at least as much of an improved communication and safety factor as rear brake lights and other signal indicators currently do. And while there may not be any law which requires brake indicator lights to be placed on the front of a vehicle, there are none to prevent it.
The greatest difficultly in deploying a universal green front brake light signaling system lies not in any lack of the ability to confidently predict its benefits. Rather, it lies in the fact that no vehicle is currently manufactured to feature such lights. Green lenses alone are not currently made in sufficient quantity to outfit existing vehicles with them, and aftermarket front brake signal assemblies suited to the task are manufactured nowhere in the world. Thus, in order to make a green front brake indicator assembly a reality, we need the following:
1. Preliminary studies indicating with a high degree of reliability that universal green front brake indicator lights will lessen the total number of collisions;
2. Privately and publicly funded green front brake indicator pilot projects and educational campaigns;
3. A inconspicuous, inexpensive, durable, universally adaptable, permanently affixable, aftermarket, LED green front brake indicator assembly, designed to splice into or work precisely in conjunction with vehicles’ existing rear brake indicator assemblies (see Appendix "A").
4. Incorporation of the GFB concept into all new vehicles on the assembly lines worldwide;
5. Transportation and safety legislation ultimately making green front brake lights mandatory.

If the green front brake indicator concept reduces collisions and is ultimately adopted worldwide, authorities who dismiss it or work against it now, may ultimately have to answer for their mistakes when it one day becomes as obviously necessary as rear brake lights. It’s originators and supporters will be considered visionary, and as having effected a minor revolution in traffic safety. If the idea proves imprudent and never amounts to anything, it’s supporters can certainly never be accused of attempting to withhold lifesaving communications technology from the driving public. If it proves useful, its detractors and obstructors certainly could be so accused.
It is important for our Governments and their transportation and safety legislators to have this information in their possession as soon as possible. It starts the clock ticking concerning the date upon which they first knew or ought to have known of the emergence of the green front brake indicator concept. The same is true for vehicle manufacturers and their in-house legal departments. Auto insurers also seemingly have every reason to be interested in this concept. Fewer collisions means fewer paid claims regardless of the premiums collected.
It may also be incumbent upon Government , automobile manufacturers and insurers to at least test the concepts set out and developed herein. Doing so now and finding out that the universal green front brake indicator concept would have no positive effect on collision rates is a relatively quick and inexpensive exercise. Failing to do so, and finding out later that the concept is workable, could prove far more expensive by a variety of measures, including tens of thousands of lives lost. Testing now and finding out that the concept saves lives and reduces collisions will make heroes of those who make the system a modern reality most quickly.
The annual cost of accidents
Safety now at forefront
As the sole originator of the green front brake indicator system and assembly concept, I claim international copyright herein and hereby offer any recipient of this material a non-exclusive license to use it freely in exchange for $1 per green front brake indicator assembly you may ultimately sell or incorporate into any vehicle’s design, for profit. Researchers, academics, experimenters, designers and not-for-profit users may use it fairly and freely, subject only to such continuing rights as I may have and retain in such intellectual property as may be contained herein.
Should any reader wish to contact me with respect to the matters contained herein, My name is Mark Edward Lesniak, (B.Sc., LLB), and I can be reached by telephone in Canada at (780) 923 3733, or by email: macdoc400@hotmail.com