Mazda's implementation of mirror-mounted turn signals

[Victorminator]

This concerns Mazda's implementation of these on the 3 and CX-5. They don't reveal any light if looked at from the front like the majority of competitors (and some of their own models), they merely extend the ability to see for people behind the car.
This is a bit odd because I've always see it as a benefit for on-comers just as much.
Does anyone know if there's a reason why they're implemented that way?
It's not so much a knock against them as being a bit confused by the design/engineering decision, not knowing what they intended.
Personally I wish they had lights at the front of the mirror housing because (and I'm being vain here) it has a bit of a luxury bent to it and is nice to show off. I'm well aware though that we can now get those on measly Hyundai Accents.

 

[lowincash]

I've always thought those side mirror turn signals are so that cars coming towards you from the left or right can see them. Front signals for oncoming and rear signals for cars behind you. That's what I've always thought it to be lol

 

[ceric]

I also think that lights on side mirrors are for the side traffic to see, not for the front.

 

[Victorminator]

Yeah I suppose that is for the most part true especially when remembering those old GM < > style signals heh.
But I've found a lot of value from seeing front facing lights too because sometimes it helps when a car's front is masked by another on the opposite direction lane.

 

[SayNoToPistons]

They're specifically for side traffic. It is true entirely. Hence the reason you have the front turn signals and rear turn signals for the front and rear view...