The *Ultimate* Aerodynamic Car? Dave Cloud's "Dolphin"

[freebeard]

Returns diminish:

Effective with the 1986 model year, the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Transport Canada mandated that all new passenger cars come equipped with a CHMSL. The requirement was extended to light trucks and vans for the 1994 model year. Early studies involving taxicabs and other fleet vehicles found that a third, high-level stop lamp reduced rear-end collisions by about 50%. Once the novelty effect wore off as most vehicles on the road came to be equipped with the central third stop lamp, the crash-avoidance benefit declined. However, the crash-avoidance benefit has not declined to zero, and a CHMSL is so inexpensive to incorporate into a vehicle that it is a cost-effective collision avoidance feature even at the long-term enduring crash-reduction benefit of 4.3%.[95]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automo...p_lamp_(CHMSL)

The funny part:

The 1952 Volkswagen Bus was equipped with only one stop lamp, mounted centrally and higher than the left and right rear lamps which did not produce a stop lamp function.[citation needed] The 1968–1971 Ford Thunderbird could be ordered with optional supplemental high-mounted stop and turn signal lights integrated into the left and right interior trim surrounding the backglass.[92][93] The Oldsmobile Toronado from 1971 to 1978, and the Buick Riviera from 1974 to 1976 had similar dual high-mounted supplemental stop/turn lights as standard equipment; these were located on the outside of the vehicle below the bottom of the backglass.

The first time I was pulled over was because the traffic officer didn't see a front bumper so he turned around and pulled me over. Turned out that the front license plate was there, and the bumper wasn't a requirement. So he made a snide comment about how fast I got it going downhill and let me go.

[Piotrsko]

I have found that the FIXIT scenerio is just a ruse to find something to write up when the officer can't write up a moving citation for technical reasons.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Tahoe_Hybrid

yes they will just point out it does not meet Federal DOT requirement to be on the road. (for that model year of the chassis) falls under negligence and failure to maintain vehicle..


just like if someones brake lights were not working and someone rear ends you, you would be at fault 100%

Well, that's not necessarily 100% true. Say somebody is driving 115 mph with a BAC level of 4 times the legal limit, without suspended driver's license on probation rear ends my car with a broken brake switch. I'm pretty sure my misdemeanor doesn't trump his 3 felonies. Also say you were rear ended in a way where the lead car wasn't braking at all. Then it didn't matter if the brake lights were functioning properly or not.
Just saying it's not 100% your fault if your brake lights don't work. Only if the collision was caused by the fact that your brake lights weren't working, then rightly so I's your fault.