An Automobile’s Tail Lights: Sacrificing Safety for Playful Design?

Abstract

Objective The counterintuitive “Union Jack”-inspired turn signals on versions of BMW’s Mini vehicles was investigated to reveal potential impacts on human performance. Background When some Mini drivers indicate a change in direction, they do so with an oppositely oriented arrow. This conflict, between the task-irrelevant spatial shape and task-relevant location of the signal, mimics a “converse” spatial-Stroop effect that, in combination with the ubiquitous use of arrows on road signs, may be confusing. Method Participants ( n = 30) responded—via right and left keypresses—to the directions of road signs and turn signals in both pure and mixed blocks. Reaction times and accuracies were recorded to determine performance in each condition (compatible, neutral, incompatible). Results Performance suffered when the location and direction of the stimuli did not correspond. When responding to turn signals the cost to performance was especially salient in mixed blocks. Thus, when driving on roads where the meanings of arrows on road signs is important, turn signals pointing in a direction opposite from the directional intention indicated by the signals’ location are likely to be confusing. Conclusion The design of some Mini’s “Union Jack” style taillights opposes well-established principles of cognitive functioning, caused confusion in our laboratory study and therefore may be a safety hazard—a possibility that ought to be explored in more realistic (e.g., driving simulator) situations. Application BMW designers should consider universally adopting the neutral, “horizontal line,” illumination style that is currently available in the aftermarket.