Looks funny to me to, offends my delicate sense of symmetry. I'm a little puzzled by the discussion here as it concerns the confusion between the rear fogs and brake lights. Both my '88 740 and my '96 850 use amber lamps for this function. Where's the confusion? I hadn't noticed particulary what is being used on later models, but I'm assuming that some of the vehicles mentioned are using a red lamp for the rear fog. I find it terribly annoying when manufacturers muck with something that works perfectly well, namely amber lamps (front and rear) for visibility in fog. It has always been my understanding that the wavelength that we see as amber is less prone to reflecting off of the moisture droplets that form fog and mist. My own experience has shown this to be true. Amber lamps could never be mistaken for brake lights. Having said this, I fail to understand why it was seen as nessesary to limit the rear to one lamp. As for one being visible enough, as opposed to two, the same would hold true for brake lights - one would do the job, why have more? The answer is that two provides a "fail safe" feature; if a lamp fails while you're driving, those behind will still know you've applied the brakes because there is another lamp signalling that. I maintain that the same is valid for the rear fogs - two is better than one in the event, unlikely but not impossible, that one bulb fails on a foggy, nasty night.

Just my opinion, take it as you will.