There are like 10 different things wrong with this comment. The whole point of agencies is that they make their own rules based on very broad statutory criteria.
I hate these so much. Even worse when you can’t see front or back turn signals when looking at the vehicle from the side so you have no clue the person is going to turn.
Saw ( almost didn’t ) one of these the other day. I don’t understand why it’s become a thing. It’s safety for crying out loud. < pardon me while I shake my fists at clouds >
I also hate this. Been in auto industry for many years. I believe Mini does this too as well as some other models. Kia I think?
But yeah, we are trained to look where we always look for brake lights. When you first look at the back of this car, you immediately recognize something is off. So in an emergency stop situation, that 1 second delay from the brake lights being in a different location could be the difference in hitting them or not in my opinion.
I hate when manufactures try to redesign the wheel. They only did this to be “stylish”
It’s not “stylish”, it’s government regulation. Rear brake lights cannot be on a movable part of the vehicle like a tailgate or rear hatch. Some car companies figured this out by only lighting the rear tail lights with the tailgate closed, but cheaper cars don’t do this. I actually had to code my Mini Clubman to use the rear fog lights as brake lights because it looked so out of place having brake lights on the bumper.
I think that makes it notably worse. If there was nothing there, I'd subconsciously be looking elsewhere for the for the brake lights. But the fact that the housing do exist, but don't contain the brake lights as expected would likely add a fraction of a second to the time it takes my brain to process them being activated.
They can be on the tailgate/hatch, but need an extra set of lights under the tailgate/hatch for when it is open. Audi has an SUV like, but not common at all.
Of note, the el Caminos also had tail lights on the back bumper so it isn’t the first time a car has the lights low down
This is only partially true. Most SUV’s use the quarter panel as the brake light. There’s no reason the brake lights can’t still be part of the tail lamp in the quarters.
Just an FYI, this law in the US is a direct result of minivans in the 1980s. Minivans had the lights on the back hatch and when the hatch was closed it would vibrate over time and cause the brake lights to fail. Therefore the US banned the practice.
Do you have a source for any of this? Which minivan, in particular, had this issue? What minivan on sale today has lights in the bumper to mitigate this?
I can't find anything that backs you up. Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth minivans have never had tail/brake/turn lights that move with the tailgate/hatch. The 80s included legislation to begin requiring a center high-mount stop light, but that was not specifically for minivans (and minivans classified as light trucks were initially exempt).
The rule is about safety when you're stopped on the side of the road, presumably with the tailgate or trunk open while you access the spare tire or other tools. If the only lights are on the tailgate or trunk then you can't seem them at all when they're open.
There are still cars that have the lights in the tailgate (or trunk). That's not prohibited, you just have to have another set of lights somewhere else that turn on when tailgate/trunk is lifted.
It's completely kosher to use the lights on the moveable bodywork as long as it is matched closed, thus making it non-moveable. Tons of OEMs do it and use the bumper lights only if the latch is open
I hate all the US only turn signal/ break lights that are just red and don’t have amber for turn/ hazards. It makes it slows your reaction speed because you need to determine if they turned on their hazards, are turning, or breaking. If sombody does drive with their hazards on even temporarily it makes it impossible to know when somebody is actually breaking.
I ain't a fan of it either but I'd at least rather them seperate the bulb entirely and stop doing the 1 light does everything shortcut. Regardless of how people see it the bulb or relay breaks and screws up how everything in it functions half the time.
So many trucks I see have one taillight out that does random things or just nothing because of that
It's a GM thing for certain recent years, Bolt EUV had this as well.
It's to copy Tesla. There's been a full decade of "We've subtracted all the wire from here to the moon that used to be in your car saving us money but you $0!" competitions and this is one of the results.
GM has made some overall stupid decisions with the rear lights. My other favorite, let's turn on the reverse lights when a person unlocks their parked vehicle from the keyfob. There have been countless times when I thought a stupid GM vehicle was going to back into me because their reverse lights are on and their brake lights are off.
Exactly that. I will say it has been handy for me a handful of times in the country unloading my truck at night but that has been the only time. It should absolutely be something you can turn off.
Its because of regulation, but its the laziest way to do it. The rule is signal lights cant be on moving parts of the car. That way if someone was riding around with their hatch open because they had something too big in the back, or stopped on the side of he road, the signals would still be visible to people on land instead of aircraft.
But they could just use the outer signals, like my BMW hatch has for decades.
Yeah. I have a car with similar rear light arrangement. Brake light, position light and turn signal are on the outet stationary lights. The inner trunk lid mounted lights have reversing light and rear fog light.
The Hyundai Tucson is like that. I honked at some lady because I thought she cut me off in slow traffic, only to realize that I had no idea her turn signal was on.
Reason for that is, regulations say tail lights can't be on the tail gate and be invisible if it flips open.
Some cars and SUVs use additional lights in the bumper which activate as soon as the tail gate is open but if manufacturers cheap out on that, they only do a single set which they put in the bumper.
Audi Q models come to mind, they have regular tail lights and those in the bumper are just backups.
Don't even get me started on the LED DRLs that are just as bright as normal headlights, so idiot drivers have no reason to think their lights aren't on when in reality they're driving around at night with no tail lights...
Car companies discovered that they can make the same blobby SUV in slightly different sizes with the price on a sliding scale based on the size and people will buy them.
Yeah, this is where I first saw it and it looks like shit. You can't see it unless you're looking for it. It's not "normal" for where brake lights are supposed to be.
you won't believe it but those brake lights are also the indicators! the top lights are effectively decorative as they just light up as running lights when the parking lights / low beams are turned on.
And I assume they do the same shit the other Chevy/GM parent cars do and run the reverse lights when in park/post exit/entry so it looks like a bunch of cars are backing up but they're actually empty and parked poorly.
I think this is one of those unintended consequences of poorly-considered regulations. Relatively recent rules added that the bumper corner lights must illuminate; previously these only had to be reflectors. At the same time, old rules about having a minimum of 2-rear-facing brake lights and a center brake light (during daytime, the rules for night-time are different) were not updated. Also, there is a rule that says the illuminated brake light must be visible even if the trunk is open. Always looking to save a buck, the car companies realized they can comply with both the old and the new rules by combining the brake light into the bumper corner lights.
The issue is the rule that signal lights cant be on parts of the car that move, so some ahole cant run around with their hatch open and nobody knows whats happening.
Why they dont just put those in the OUTER lights is just stupid, all GM cars do this shit.
My BMW has the brake and turn signals on the outside, fixed lenses and just puts parking lights on the inner portion, easy.
This is an issue with the Chevy Bolt EV and EUV. I have a 2023 EUV and hate where the brake lights are placed. I beleive the reason for it was that the brake lights need to be on a fixed part of the vehicle instead of the tailgate. Annoyingly, the Bolt EV design needs them down there but the EUV has a fixed brake light but they kept the same wiring as the EV for cost cutting reasons.
It's one of the reasons why I did not consider the 2nd gen Bolt when I looked to replace my 1st gen Bolt. I've been rear-ended so brake light location is something I look for in cars.
US DOT guidelines dictate size/location of where brakes lights can be located, with one major restriction being that your main two brake lights cannot be located on a movable panel (in this case, the hatch/trunk lid). Not sure why they couldn't use the out edge of the lights that are fixed to the side/rear panels, but I'm willing to bet this DOT restriction had something to do with whatever their thought process was.
I knew someone who used to have a Ferrari California, and the brake lights were just like this. The big round lights on the trunk lid couldn't be used, so their brake lights were down on the bumper too. He got pulled over all the time by the police thinking his taillights weren't working correctly.
They can be on a movable panel - they just also have to have tail lights that can be seen when the panel is open. Ironically, Buick was one manufacturer that did the "secret tail light" thing on the Cascada. You see this on some Minis and BMWs as well.
The cars in OP's photos have a light mounted on the fixed panel next to the hatchback, but it's not used for a brake light as you expect it to be used for.
What's particularly obnoxious is that the lights at the intuitive height are the rear running lights, so at night that is the area that is already lit up and where you would expect brake lights to be, but no, we hid them in the bumper.
It's not that I can't see the lights but anything that adds ambiguity to vehicle lighting and safety equipment is stupid.
Love when cars with low signal lights like this are beside me while im driving my truck, and get SO mad when I dont see their signal to let them into my lane. My truck is completely factory too
My parents had a 2018 kia Sportage, and one time I had to follow them 2hrs one way to the airport because we had to pick up family that was visiting.
The turn signals are down near the bottom, like where the brake lights are for the photo OP posted. I stayed far enough back that I could see where they were going, but good golly it's crazy that those designing vehicles come up with these placements. thankfully my folks got a different vehicle that had the turn signals up where you'd actually expect them.
I'm now just thinking about all the giants trucks that probably couldn't even see the top ones with how close most people drive to me in my equinox with regular heigh lights. They would have to be sooo far back you could fit like 3 of these in between.
Well, in theory, you should always see the bottom of the rear tire of the car in front of you (in Quebec at least I don't know about other provinces/states laws) but in practice that never happened and still make these lights placement plain stupid and dangerous
While we’re talking about this can we talk about why the hell GM has been getting away with throwing in reverse lights anytime a car unlocks.
You know how many times I’ve driven through parking lots thinking someone is backing out and they didn’t even get to the car yet and just unlocked it but the reverse lights on
Can't have brake lights on the hatch anymore. They have to be affixed to an immovable body panel. Why they are so low, probably to allow for styling up top.
This is what most manufacturers do. Both my car and my mom’s car have the brake lights on the trunk/hatch, and then secondary brake lights inside of the hatch/under the trunk opening. Buick is apparently just too cheap to do the logical thing.
Literally HALF of the rear lights are not on the boot part. The fuck they do?! This shit pisses me off on Hyundai Kona and Tucson so much. The blinkers are all the way at the bottom on the bumper. Placing brake lights there is even worse.
I'm driving a hatchback and I basically can't see them coz they are so low, imagine someone in SUV which is basically everyone because everyone drives stupid SUVs these days.
Buick has been killing it lately. For the current market, their vehicle are way at the top of reliability charts. They've also been praised recently for cost/value ratio.
Not shilling, just a car guy who pays attention to that kinda stuff
Also like to add, Buick was not one of the several brands that GM sold/killed off like the others during their bankruptcy rebuild phase.
Buick was saved for various reasons, but a big one was due to the sales in China that I remember reading from news back then. Unlike the U.S. population, Buick was sold more in China, obviously with a population of over 1 billion is hard to ignore.
Yea, it was what pushed us to pick up a cpo 2 yr old one for our daughter. Good gas milage, cheap maint, decent safety and visibility/sight lines. I fucking hate the thing but that's because I like pressing the gas pedal and being pushed back in my seat.
Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Saturn all suffered because in the end GM decided to strip them of everything they were known for in favor of turning them into rebadged Chevrolets.
Buick maintained itself as a luxury brand in China, and even in America GM did enough work on Buick to make it stand apart from the Chevrolet counterparts.
Since GM acquired it Buick has always been marketed as a semi-luxury car positioned between Chevy and Cadillac. A middle class luxury car.
Add-ons make up the bulk of profits on vehicle pricing, so gross margin on a Buick will be more than a Chevy. That alone made keeping Buick around worthwhile.
Pontiac was basically Chevy 2.0. Cut for redundancy.
Oldsmobile was basically Buick 2.0 Cut for redundancy.
Saturn was an economy car a step up from Geo. It wasn't super profitable, despite it's very strong cult following that it developed. However, sales for Saturn slowed because by the end of their life, ONLY their cult following was buying them as regular consumers realized they were just cheap plastic cars.
Buick is one of the few manufacturers that actually makes a decent mid suv for families, so while you think that these people are boomers it's really just people with children, which would start to include some of the older gen Z now lol
The new Kia’s reverse lights are just as low. Had a Kia reverse while I’m reversing in a parking lot and almost hit me and honked at me. Had no clue he was reversing because I couldn’t see the lights. This and when car manufactures decided to make turn signals the break light and flash red instead of amber really infuriate me..
It's because laws in the US around cars are primarily focused on cars, not "Sport Utility Vehicles" which are used as a means to circumvent many regulations and fuel economy standards. The issue here isn't just taillight height, it's that every other car is so high up compared to 30-40 years ago that now these lights look like they should be against regulation.
Instead, I feel like we really should bring back cars. They're far more fuel efficient, have better bumper to bumper crash alignment regulations, and handle better in most on-road situations (many SUVs are tippy and/or fail the moose test).
Its wild to me that my 1996 Honda Accord was a 2.2L full size sedan with a 4-speed auto transmission that regularly got 32mpg; yet a brand new CR-V from 2026 (after 30 years of improvements!) has a 1.5L engine and CV-T transmission gets only 33mpg.
After 30 years, we should be seeing far better fuel economy than a standard vehicle from the 1990s
Modern CRV is more than a 1000 pounds heavier and has three times cargo capacity, it's actually quite impressive that it achieves similar or better mpg.
A much better comparison (especially for your point) would be a modern civic: about the same size, like 100 pounds heavier and gets 36 combined without hybrid while offering not that many more horsepower (130 vs 150).
They handle great and you can put stuff in them. I did like the Subaru Outback as it had a bit of clearance but still handled well with little body roll. Also has good AWD but the new one is more SUV than wagon.
The CRV is producing more power with a smaller displacement and better efficiency. That’s what technology is getting you. Same reason V8 engines are going by the wayside. Manufacturers are getting similar power out of smaller and more efficient engines. It’s sad and it sucks but it’s true.
Edit - I forgot to add that modern day engines are also doing this with stricter emission standards.
I’m fighting tooth and nail to keep my car. I’ve had mostly sedans. One compact truck, an S10, one SUV, a Grand Cherokee from the 90s, and I ended up back at compact or midsize sedans. They’re fine.
My wife wants a third row SUV but doesn’t want it to be hers and isn’t interested in driving a bigger vehicle. So the obvious answer is to eventually trade my normally sized, relatively efficient sedan for a behemoth. Which means she’ll take her Subaru Outback to the airport and I’ll drive around the bigger one. Which I don’t need. Or want.
It’s especially annoying because I like a particular type of car, because I enjoy driving. I spent very little money on it. It’s ten years old and has 105k miles on it. Somehow, it wasn’t a worthwhile purchase simply because it’s a goddamned Cadillac and it’s a crime to like that. Imagine if I got another one and drove it for another ten years….what a goddamned nightmare!
It kinda makes you wonder what did all the R&D go into for decades !!?? They could have literally kept the same engines which would have reduced cost and brought car cost down a killed the market based on price and prolly also had a better than the competition warranty on drivetrain. And dominated the market sales. Really makes you think.
It kinda makes you wonder what did all the R&D go into for decades !!??
Things like, standard AC, backup cameras, stereos that connect to your phone, power windows, ABS, Traction control, standard airbags, roofs that don't flatten your head and let you get out after a rollover and generally killing and injuring passengers and pedestrians less.
Mildly off topic, but my 1999 Corvette gets 34mpg on the highway if I'm not an ass. 5.7l V8 without the cylinder deactivation BS. But also it's so aerodynamic and the motor is hardly running at 70mph in 6th gear.
So the trunk lights are parking lights... but what about the lights fixed to the rear of the vehicle that are next to them - the ones that one would expect to be the primary signalling lights? Are they just running lights?
I was just behind one of these the other day and was annoyed they weren’t signaling when they turned… turned out the blinker light is just down low and I didn’t see it (there was a car between us)
Sadly I almost rear ended this style of Buick the other day. I'm high enough in my Jeep to usually see lower styled brake lights. But alas, I was almost to late when they slammed their brakes. Only got lucky because I tend to look about a block ahead of me while driving. Learned that when I was a tow truck driver, and it's saved me quite a few times.
Some cars have turn signal lights at the bottom which is definitely as confusing as the brake lights. Just imagine how unpredictably you sometimes need to react when these cars are about to turn or brake.
Agree! Hyundai/Kia and some German models have this as well. It's TERRIBLE and don't know how it's legal. It's unsafe, imo. I think Kia has turn signals down below bumper line as well!
In reality whenever I see complaints about brake lights, as valid and true as they are, people should not be relying solely on brake lights. Keep a safe following distance and pay attention. I say this cus I daily a small manual car and do a lot of engine braking. I have been rear ended THREE fucking times 2 of which had “no idea” I was braking one of which tried to allege my brake lights didn’t even work and the semi truck driver actually had no excuses but yeah
I agree, with a safe following distance, you should be able to see the entire back of the car and the road between your vehicles.
I get that these lights are low compared to other cars, but if they're so low that you can't see them, the real issue is that you're too close already.
You've got a point that people shouldn't solely rely on brake lights.
At the same time, drivers rely on brake lights because they are not able to give all of their attention to calculating the speed of the car in front of them. They are also having to scan all of their surroundings and assess what other vehicles and pedestrians are doing, and be thinking about and anticipating and making adjustments for those, too.
My son got rear-ended in his Mustang while engine braking on an uphill slope before turning left onto a side street. The person who hit him was focused on a broken-down vehicle just ahead of them, with an obviously hysterical driver who was walking around their car, paying no attention to traffic, and getting dangerously close to getting hit by passing vehicles. My son paid no attention to it because he knew he wasn't going past that car. The car behind him *was* and had no idea my son was breaking and preparing to turn left because he chose not to communicate those intentions.
You never know what other drivers are alerting to. The car behind them might be tailgating them. The car in the lane next to them might be riding the line too close. There might be a hazard ahead you haven't noticed yet.
I can understand your frustration, but the fact that you've had this happen three times should be a wake-up call to you to reduce your reliance on engine braking and better communicate your intentions to the drivers around you.
One of these days it'll be an accident that you or someone you love don't walk away from.
This is a North America issue only. In other jurisdictions the "higher" mounted lights are the brakes/ turn signals. We can't have brake lights on moving/ lifting panels. Stupid but true.
True, but those outer pieces of the lights above aren't on a moving piece of bodywork, they could've put the brake lights up there if they really wanted to I bet
I fixed this nonsense on my Chevy Bolt EUV by running a wire from the center stop light to both higher-placed rear lights, where one expects to see brake lights. This makes those regular rear lights light up when you brake.
Just make sure you put a Zener diode in that wire to ensure one-way current, so that the center brake light doesn't turn on when you turn on the car's lights in the evening.
Cost cutting. Cheaper to put a little halogen in the bumper than integrate into the taillight. Part of why the Envista was $23k when initially unveiled.
When I was looking at cars a few years ago I REFUSED to buy any that had lights like this because I live in Canada, and you KNOW that snow is going to get kicked up on them, and since the other lights LOOK like the real lights, it felt like a safety hazard to myself if people behind me couldn't see my brake lights.
If you’re driving in a pack/line of vehicles, if this Buick was in front of the vehicle directly in front of you, you could not get any brake light visuals.
Yes, it’s taught to see the tires of the car in front of you at a stop, but these brake lights are still very low
I’m not a fan of the trend of low mounted brake lights or turn signals.
Seems like Buick, Kia, and Hyundai are the biggest recent offenders.
My 03 RAV4 has the front turn signals mounted in the lower bumper where fog lights usually are, but they seemed to learn pretty quick as 01-03 had them low mounted, and for the 04/05 facelift they moved the turn signals to the headlights.
Wow that is annoying, especially considering how tall vehicles have gotten in the last ten years. Seems like a hazard for the driver and everyone around them.
Man if you hate Buick come join me in hating Kia/Hyundai. 100% support being creative but when doing a quick blind spot check I am looking at the headlights for a blinker not the bottom of the bumper.
If it was a car in the traditional sense, your eyes would then immediately know where to look and see them just fine, but on this fuck-ass design, you look at the pseudo tail-lights, get confused for a second, then look down— because you’re a normal human that has looked at normal headlights for their entire fucking lives while this shit design has only become prominent in the last few years.
I bet the turn signals are red too. Turn signals should always be yellow (in my option) and tail lights should be high enough to be seen not at bumper level.
I hate that Kia turn signals are like that thankfully they have fazed that out of their designs I have it on my car I can understand how some people don’t notice my turn signal on
947
u/LazyEmu5073 10h ago
Hyundai Tucson turn signals, too...