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
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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
As for the proposed rules: Follow the KISS rule: “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (or a nicer variation if you’re so inclined).
I’m for whatever motion would force gm to stop using their reverse lights as courtesy/locator lights or whatever, and also have to recall every single one they’ve made and permanently remove that function.
Brake-light-wise, I could see an argument for an animated light that starts as a single light in the center, then splits and moves to the corners of the vehicle. Such a light would give the optical illusion that the back of the car is getting closer faster than it actually is, which would be attention-getting and provoke a prompt response from any trailing vehicles.
I’ve never been to a bathouse (bath house?) of any sort, but if there were a tailight (tail light?) themed one near me, I’d be tempted despite my post-50-year-old spread.
Since we’re discussing animated taillights, can we talk about rapid flash brake lights? I know I’m in the minority, but I can’t stand the things. I’ve never encountered a case where they appeared to be signaling rapid braking; instead, the car is puttering down the road, then suddenly there’s a light show because the driver had to slow down. The flashing light makes me think the driver is pumping the brakes…are they losing control of the car? Are they trying to signal something to me? Or am I about to see some fantastically erratic driving?
Rapid-flash lights are most commonly stealership upsells. They’re technically in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), reference 12.9.5 declaring high-mounted stop lamps must be “steady burning”. Unfortunately compliance isn’t properly enforced.
They’re more distracting and disruptive than effective, especially in rush hour.
Dickbutt. I want to show the person tailgating me that they are a dickbutt.
So like. Some kind of mirror showing them their own horrible taillights?
… It’s just crazy enough to work!
I guess I’d say there needs to be a reason for the lights to do whatever they are doing. The example in the article is confusing, even if it looks kinda cool. Why is it doing that? Is it trying to tell me something? Do I need to react in some way? Is this a sentient CUV that is fighting crime, or is this just a party trick?
If like brake lights to dim slightly after a couple of seconds of coming to a stop
Nah – in bimodal indicators this means “my lights are on but I am no longer on the brake, i.e., I am moving or about to be moving again.”
As far as I know, flashing/animated taillight behaviors aren’t allowed at all in the US outside of a few specific functions — normal turn signal and hazard flash and animated sequential direction indication for turns. And when Ford first introduced the sequential turn signals, they found out the hard way that they were illegal in multiple states and had to get the US DOT to weigh in on a blanket approval.
As it is, things like rapid-flash for hard braking or momentary rapid-flash CHMSL kits are in a legal gray area. Even the LED brake lights that flash briefly before staying on that are used frequently on fire trucks and ambulances are technically not approved as regular brake lights. All flash patterns of red lights except the approved 4-way hazard and turn signals are technically only allowed as emergency lights for fire/ambulance/police vehicles. (Which is why the modified flash-before-steady-on LEDs is sort-of legal on emergency vehicles, but technically should only happen when the rest of the emergency lights are on.)
The short answer for the US, is if you want fancy flashing light patterns on your car, they should be yellow and only in use when parked or when moving slowly or irregularly, as in snow plowing and rural mail delivery or similar.
This is why we can’t have nice things. Or fun taillights.
I guess at 58 I’m still kind of fun, I say if stationary go for it. Who cares? (I’ll stay off your lawn if you stay off mine.)
I’d say omit #1. Bets not to add confusing/meaningless lights at all.
I’m all in on #2 and #3.
Agreed. Leave #1 to the aftermarket. West Coast Customs has to have a reason to exist, after all.
This seems like the ability to speak when it’s more powerful to be quiet. I believe the flashing lights will be distracting at first, and people will eventually become blind to the random blinking, which will cause us to ignore the main purpose. Just like I ignore all the alerts on my phone, and end up not noticing the important alerts.
The light used on the Cylon helmets and KITT/KARR has a name, it’s called a Larson Scanner. Named for Glen Larson the originator of both series for television and the “Creator” of this effect. You can buy DIY kits from https://www.evilmadscientist.com/
I’m in the just no camp. It could just be because I’m old and cranky but I feel like at this point people already have enough distractions while driving.
Some reasonable rules for using them:
1) Don’t.
2) See above.
Animated taillights with sequential activation may progress from the centerline of the vehicle toward the side, when indicating for a turn. All other animations are unnecessarily confusing and distracting. When in doubt, default to simple on-off modes for all indicating purposes.
Just when you think the Toyota Tundra had the only Cylon thing going out there.
I think banning them outright would be a reasonable rule.
I find that a bit harsh. Animated blinkers and fast-flashing brake lights (when braking hard) can be quite useful IMHO.
The thing the article about isn’t that though. That Gamer PC nonsense that the car in the first Twitter post shouldn’t exist as part of the exterior lighting of a car, nevermind when it’s just sitting there at a light.
True, but Jason explicitly asked for our input on animated rear lights in general.
I seem to recall a proposal where the harder the braking, the more rapid the pulsing. And I am curious how regenerative braking interacts with brake lights.
Personally, I do like the CHMSLs that flash three times initially, but I read that technically they are not legal in WA state.
If it makes you feel better they’re technically illegal in the entire US and its territories. Reference FMVSS 12.9.5 requiring CHMSLs to be “steady burning”.
Thanks. It wouldn’t exactly be the first time lighting regulations in this country conflict with actual real-world safety.
I think having brake lights be able to get brighter with harder braking is reasonable and could be effective, and complies with the existing standards.
I also think if manufacturers want to include a “panic braking” signal it should require separate lights, and/or adding the hazard lights to the signal (which I think is what Volvo and Mercedes have done in the past when such tech was introduced on modern cars, not sure if they still do).
I believe the biggest lighting-related opportunity that the FMVSS has is for pixel-based lights, though IIRC there’s already some motion on that front.
We already have animated blinkers – they’re just called blinkers. They blink on and off to draw your attention to them. They have worked just fine since ever, and I can’t recall any time that a regular old blinker was not animated enough to catch my attention.
Any additional scrolling/fading/sequencing is, to me, incredibly distracting and annoying, and that’s with only a few cars on the road using it (Audis, Mustangs, etc). Can you imagine if every car on the road in 10 years has their own “cool” animation for turn signals and brake lights? Busy intersections would look like raves at night.
Hard pass for me, I hope this gets nipped in the bud fast in the US.
The thing is: a regular blinker only tells you something useful if you can see the vehicle it’s attached to and where it is attached. An animated blinker shows you the direction it’s indicating in by its light pattern alone. I like the idea better.
Yes, usually you can see the vehicles, but an extra indication can be useful at times.
In what scenario, when driving, are you…
1) able to see a blinker
2) but not the vehicle it is attached or where it is attached
3) and also you have no spacial context telling you where the unseen vehicle is such as a turn lane
4) and also no speed context to tell you if it is coming at you, going away, or stationary
5) and that an animated blinker would make points 2-4 irrelevant because of extra information it provides?
Sorry, I’m not understanding the value you are describing. I have not once in my life seen a blinker and been confused about what it was or what it meant or how I should consider it in how I operate my vehicle. Could you give a real-world example of where a visible blinker provides too little information and an animated blinker provides enough information to make you safer?
Any situation where any combination of fog and darkness makes it difficult to see the vehicle, but you can clearly see the illumination. Even if you can see the vehicle, it just requires extra mental effort to analyze the situation if the illuminated signal requires context.
Also, it looks cool. And I don’t think there is a reason not to have illuminated blinkers.
I’m trying hard to stay civil here, as this is a place we should all get along, but your responses are getting sillier each time 🙂 Humans have been driving in fog and at night for decades, and somehow no one at any point has thought it was necessary to have animated signals for safety. Cars have headlights and tail lights on both sides. They have side markers front and rear. They also have reflectors in case those lights are out. It is almost impossible at night to not know the orientation of a car on the road that is within your view. There is absolutely no real-world reason why animated blinkers are necessary. If there was one, they would be required by federal regulations.
I guess we will agree to disagree in the end. I just hope that your thinking does not prevail, or interesections will look like this eventually. But that’s totally not a reason to not have them, it would be very safe and not distracting at all!
https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExa3YzcGV1bjFxd2hzbXdndGtqNjg1bGxudm93bmwycDJpamJuaGc3bSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/edUQEshZLII3iGo6AQ/giphy.gif
The fact of the matter is that more and more cars on the road have them, if you like it or not. I’d say that ship has sailed.
Extra brake lights or the hazards coming on with panic-braking is fine, but they should not replace normal brake light function, and the primary brake lights should never hyperflash.
> When stationary, go nuts. Animations when parked are fine, provided they don’t go on too long and become distracting
Not sure about that. Animations suggest something is happening or is about to happen (e.g. turning, merging into traffic, turning the car on), or that the state of the system is somehow remarkable (e.g. there’s an unexpected stop ahead, or the car is disabled or stopped in an unexpected spot). If the car is parked in a normal spot, immobile, and not signaling danger, then nothing should draw attention to it, which animations definitely do.
Similarly, it still bothers me that Chevys still use white light as parking lights. I’m walking through a parking lot and suddenly what look like backup lights are right next to me, scaring the crap outta me
That’s flapping absurd. I don’t know who OKed that at GM but they need a sitdown with Adrian.
This seems like a good place for this: hey! Do you ever pull over on a busy street and pop your hazard warning lights on while you drop off your dry cleaning/buy a coffee/check your phone because it pinged? Well you idiots all look like you’re indicating to pull out except for the one at the back, so maybe leave the hazard lights off.
“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.”
Since these are clearly attempts to gain the attention of strangers accept the fact that attention will more likely come from random exceptionally unattractive mouthbreathers, religious zealots, smelly homeless, multi level marketing hucksters and Karens rather than anyone you’d actually WANT to interact with.
Yeah I doubt they could get that past the US laws since the brake lights need to stay lit and if some of that comes on it needs to stay on until the brake pedal is released.