Animated Cylon-Like Taillights Are Here So Let’s Come Up With Some Reasonable Rules For Using Them

I think it’s pretty clear that we are currently living in an age of explosive taillight-related creativity and exploration. Taillight-focused clubs, bars, gyms, and bathhouses have never been more popular, and a lot of that has to do with this renaissance of taillight design. New technologies like LEDs and more advanced plastic-molding techniques and embedded taillight computers have all pushed the boundaries of what was once believed possible for taillights, and we’re starting to see that more and more.

But for what purpose? Are we advancing the taillightic arts, or are we simply making things needlessly complicated and ridiculous? It’s not easy to tell, when you’re in the middle of it all, and the best we can do, I think, is try and remember to take moments to pause and evaluate things and really think: are these taillights making my life better? After all, that’s all we can really ask of a taillight, right?

I started thinking about this when I saw this tweet:

What, and I can’t stress this enough, the actual fuck is this bullshit ?
???? pic.twitter.com/0dUjRTAbpw

— Paul aka The “Yorkshire legend” (@YorkyLegend) February 9, 2026

Hmm. What are we looking at here? That’s a Leapmotor C10 – an (optionally) range-extended EV crossover from China that seems to be selling in Europe for very appealing prices. It’s not a bad-looking vehicle, a little generic maybe, but certainly looks up-to-date, and the lighting design is a big part of that.

In fact, the taillights on these seem to be award-winning:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Leapmotor New Zealand (@leapmotor_nz)

But that’s not what that fellow with the trousers-mouth was talking about in that tweet above. He was noticing that the Leapmotor C10’s wide, full-width taillight was moving back and forth as the car was sitting there, something that, of course, has been noticed by many others:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tom Shorrock (@tomshorrock)

That gentleman didn’t seem to react with the same sort of wrath and rage that Paul, the man who tweeted and the, I’m told, Yorkshire Legend, did. This guy seemed delighted, though I was surprised he didn’t make a direct reference to what I think most people think of when they see this sort of bouncing-red-eye thing, which is a Cylon Centurion from Battlestar Galactica:

Well, either that or the front of KITT, the sentient Trans Am from the ’80s TV series Knight Rider:

This guy makes the Knight Rider connection right away, of course:

Now, my big question here is one of context. Animated taillights are not new; they’ve been around, in mechanical, cam-operated form, since the 1960s, where they were used as more exciting turn indicators on cars like the Ford Thunderbird:

There are still a number of cars that use these sorts of animated turn signals today, and I’m a big fan of them. Indicating turns feels like a good context for animated taillights, as the direction of travel of the lights reinforces the basic message of the turn signal, which is a way to communicate an intent to turn in a given direction.

But when is the Leapmotor C10 showing this animation? In that initial tweet, I think the car is parked? It has a ladder on the roof and seems to be being used as a sort of work vehicle, and I think it’s on the shoulder? But I may be wrong; there are cars in front of and behind it, and the brakes are clearly on. So is it just in traffic? Does that animation just appear while driving?

Comprehensive reviews of the car’s lighting system don’t exactly make it clear; It does seem it’s not for turn signals – which are amber. It may be part of the brake light system, at least for the initial application of the brakes, as you can see in this video:

Maybe that would help draw attention to the car when braking? Or is it just more confusing? And it does animate when the car is parked, too. I tried looking through the C10’s owner’s manual to try and find the contexts and use cases for the animated taillight, but I couldn’t find anything specific, though I did find this evocative illustration that I’d like to think is used in a section titled How Not To Park:

So, I think the question is: how do we feel about animated taillights, overall? I think that as we move forward, animated taillights can definitely become a valued part of the Grand Taillight Vocabulary, but we need some parameters to follow:

1. When stationary, go nuts. Animations when parked are fine, provided they don’t go on too long and become distracting. But for greeting, locking, whatever, I think these can be pretty open.
2. When in motion, the animation must be used to convey a specific goal or action. For example, turn indication can be animated, provided it animates in a way that emphasizes the direction of the intended turn. Animations for braking should be a way to escalate beyond the normal brake lamp, and the animation should not favor one direction or the other. The goal should be to capture attention.
3. Animations should not be used for normal running-light use, as that adds unnecessary visual noise that detracts from the impact of purpose-oriented animations and the overall ability of the taillight to communicate.

How’s that sound? I don’t want to stifle taillight creativity, but we have to remember that fundamentally, taillights are communication tools, and we don’t want to make them worse. I think these three rules give plenty of room for animated taillight expression while preserving the basic taillight functionality.

I’ll see how these ideas fly at my local taillight bar soon. It’ll probably start a small riot, but that’s just how we live in The Red Glow, am I right?

Top graphic image: Universal Pictures