> I don't doubt that for manufacturing costs, but how do lifetime costs
> compare?  Won't an LED last longer than a bulb, improving replacement
> cost and don't forget the time & trouble to dig out the old bulb.  Isn't
> an equivalent brightness LED more efficient, translating into fuel
> savings?
>
> But there is another interesting issue that I read about a few years
> ago; I'm assuming its true... An LED comes up to full brightness faster
> than an incandescent bulb, something like a couple of hundred
> milliseconds faster.  Doesn't sound like much, but at 60 MPH, that's an
> additional 18 feet of reaction time and stopping distance for the bozo
> that's barreling down on you from behind.

Here in Orlando we have a public transportation system that use LED read
lights, for flashing turn signal, break, and so on.  It is much brighter
than regular bulbs, and the flashing is solid and call much more
attention, since the speed of the light transaction is much faster than
regular bulbs.  I belive that as most of the animals, our visual sensors
are also based on movement and light changes.  It really works much
better than the old, hot, lazy, power hungry filament bulbs.

A regular break bulb consumes how much? 6 Watts? or it is  10W?   A
regular bright LED consumes 30mA x 2V = 60mW, so you can use 100 bright
LEDs to keep the same power rating, what I think would not be necessary
to reach the same irradiation level.  Cost? well, if you only think
about cost, a horse cost much less than a 2000 Convertible Mercedes
350se, and probably a pair of candles at the horse's rear would cost
much less than a pair of 6W 12V bulbs.

Wagner