You’d think after all these years of interacting with turn indicators — this important and vital cooperation between humankind and flashing lights that goes back all the way to 1939 — we’d have it all figured out. And yet, right here, right now, smack dab in this eternally-fleeting present, we’re confronted with a certain turn signal design that is deeply, perhaps even tragically, flawed. I’m talking about in-bumper rear turn indicators, a phenomenon that I’m pretty sure precisely zero turn-signal operators like. In fact, at most of the taillight bars I’ve been to recently, anyone showing up with such a setup would be pantsed, vigorously and with undeniable glee. Let’s look at this stupid design choice, figure out why it exists, and complain about it, lavishly and loudly.
In case you’re somehow unaware of the tragedy about which I now speak, here’s an example of a car with bumper-mounted indicators:
Pretty straightforward, right? All the normal taillight elements are in place, it’s just that some of them have been re-located down to the bottom floor, on the bumper.
It’s not immediately clear why such a decision would be made, of course, because there are already parts of the taillights in the more expected location up on the beltline of the car, too. That division between having a set of upper taillights that look like they should do everything but actually don’t, and a lower set that handles some of the functions is one of the big flaws in this taillight setup. It’s confusing.
It helps to know where to expect to see taillights, so you can be ready for the important information they need to convey, often on very short notice. That’s part of why the bumper-indicators suck; you’re always looking for them in the wrong place.
Some older bumper taillights, like on 1980s Chevy Malibu wagons and El Caminos, were less of a problem because the entire taillight was set into the rear bumper:
Sure, they were really vulnerable to damage because they’re set into the part of the car designed to smack into things/be smacked into, which is still a baffling issue on the modern designs, but at least you wouldn’t be confused as to where to look, because they were the only taillights on the back of the car or truck. Also, in the case of the El Camino there, they became pretty invisible with that tailgate down.
So, if they’re confusing and vulnerable to damage, why put them on the bumper at all? The reason why this happens can be best explained visually:
The bumper-mounted indicators are simply a way to allow for taillights to be visible even when driving with a tailgate or trunk lid open. By law, the brake, turn indicator, and the rear position light (you know, the basic taillight), must be visible even when things are open. There are three ways to deal with this: design trunk lids or hatches that do not include the taillight assemblies (the most common way), stick the crucial functions on the bumper, or add an extra set of little taillights inside the trunk or hatch.
The secret taillights method is by far the most fun an exciting, treating you to a surprise extra set of lights that get revealed when the trunk or hatch is opened, and that’s always a treat. But, this method is expensive. So, if you want to be cheap and yet still have a trunk lid or tailgate that takes up the full width of the rear, all you can really do is locate – or, significantly, duplicate, like the Audi Q5 does, so it only relies on the bumper lights when the hatch is open. Here, look:
That’s a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, most of the cars with bumper indicators today, like the Chevy Bolt and a genuinely alarming number of otherwise excellent Hyundai-Kia designs, don’t do this. The indicators are just there, down low. And that’s a problem, especially in modern traffic.
Why’s that? Well, perhaps this little conversation I had with Autopian contributor Emily Velasco will help:
Okay, if that’s too small to read, it basically tells a gripping tale of how Emily’s dad was fuming about some jackass in front of him not using his blinker. As I guessed immediately, it was a bumper-mounted indicator, and in Emily’s dad’s Toyota Highlander, he simply could not see the indicators at all over the tall hood. With so many trucks and SUVs on the roads today, I’m pretty certain Emily’s dad is not alone: bumper indicators are too damn hard to see.
They’re in a confusing location, and they’re invisible in traffic behind the wheel of so very many SUVs and trucks. That’s a safety problem, and there’s no reason we need to stand for it. It’s been known that mounting turn indicators high, where eyes are, is a good idea; Citroën did it (albeit for interesting reasons) back in the 1950s! And, we all decided that high-mounted brake lights are important, hence the Center High-Mount Stop Light (CHMSL) laws.
So why should we have to deal with dangerous and stupid bumper-mounted indicators? The answer is we shouldn’t. We can make our preferences known to auto designers with a variety of methods, from a directed email campaign and online petitions to chaining yourself to Hyundai-Kia’s design offices and threatening to set yourself on fire, screaming, until your needs are met.
Paying attention, taillight designers?
I hope the title is a reference to Ocarina of Time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN1WlLVoHSQ). I enjoy the mental image of Jason as the taillight fairy. Hey, Listen!
As the owner of a last-gen El Camino, I completely agree. Having the signals mounted low does not build confidence that the Instagram feed-obsessed twit behind me will have any clue that I’ve signaled a turn or hit my brakes. They (the twits, that is) are attention-challenged to begin with, so having the lights down low just makes things worse. I’ve been looking for a CHMSL solution that I’d be happy with (read: doesn’t look like hot garbage), but that wouldn’t solve the turn signal problem. I’ve never understood why Chevy didn’t design a fender-mounted set of lights for the El Camino. I mean, I know it’s because that meant the EC could share tail lights with the Malibu wagon of the same era so it was cheaper. But surely there was a better solution for both cars.
That is one thing I love on Volvo wagons- the turn signals are up so high nobody can miss them- except the idiot who rear ended me when stopped for a left turn because he had no idea what I was doing
Thank You! Ive noticed this more and more and it’s awful in traffic. I have honked a few times at Hyundais before realizing they just had blinkers in places you can’t see in traffic in an SUV.
I agree, it’s an ineffective and ugly location for turn signals. My assumption, therefore, is that this is a car designed for international markets and as such there must be some market that requires lights in that location. Surely a designer didn’t think it was a good idea. Even if you look at no-longer-available-in -the-USA Ford Focus, it had reflectors in that location in the US market which I assumed would have a lighted signal in whatever market requires that location. Perhaps my assumptions were incorrect and it’s just crummy design.
The secret taillight wont work though because no one drives with their truck fully opened. Its always partially tied down.
I also hate these new Range Rover taillights. They’re too skinny. They make the whole back of the car look weird and they don’t give off enough information.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/96-land-rover-range-rover-2021-official-reveal-images-rear-lights.jpg
They could have divided those skinny Range Rover lights into 3 segments for running, stop and turn (w/a clear backup light inseted into the running light). They look fine and if always in the same location, will perform their designed functions just fine.
It was around 20 years ago that the EU insisted on high mounted, strip brake lights in all new cars. Now there are mutterings about the same being done for indicators.
There is an obvious reason why car makers put lights in bumpers. Replacing a broken light unit, off bumper is now probably €150 or so. Replacing bumper with light unit in it, is a good €400. A 10% margin for the maker is €15 for the light unit and €40 for the bumper…
With the EU and lights, about 10 years ago, the EU introduced a rule that all cars must have running lights in the front, which turn on when the motor starts and off when the motor stops.
In France bikers threatened strikes and associated mayhem because they had, after much debate, had it accepted that having you bike headlamps on at all times was a good thing, safety wise.
They predicted rivers of blood flowing in the streets if all cars had their lights on as well because the argument went, drivers would not know if it was a car or a bike.
The change went ahead as planned, and guess what? Biker deaths fell because they could see cars better.
I certainly agree that bumper-mounted turn-signals suck terribly. I will say though that I do enjoy a taillight where the lighting is not quite where I expected it to be. The third generation Range Rover, for example, had red, amber, and clear light housings on its taillight assembly, but the brake lights lit up in the amber housing where you’d expect the turn signal to be and the turn signals lit up the clear housing. Made for a nice little surprise.
(That said, the cars with places on their taillight assembly for separate turn signals to comply with other country’s regulations but are left inoperable in the states, combining the turn signal with the brake light, are trash.)
Yeah, that’s a pet peeve of mine, I feel like it’s predominantly Hyundai/Kia that does this. I almost got into an accident the first time I saw it because I didn’t notice the indicators.
You can lead a horse to a turn indicator, but you can’t make them use it.
Yes!!!! With all the government meddling in the automotive industry, how are these Even legal??
Emily made a very good observation when she noted that those bumper mounted lights were invisible unless the car ahead is at a distance.
It’s close up where they disappear. Perhaps Darwinian consequence of tailgating?
Of course, they’re not a problem if you drive a Lotus Super Seven.
The world would be a better place if more folks drove Lotus Super Sevens.
I too hate bumper mounted turn signals, always thought they were very unsafe. So, I decided to make conversion kits for vehicles that have them, if anyone is interested let me know, but we have conversion kits that put the signals BACK in the belt line tail lights of the following vehicles:
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Carnival
Kia Sportage
http://www.lockdownsecurity.ca for more info.
Looking at your site, there’s no way anyone could ever find these kits. They do not not show up in vehicle lighting and search is useless with the impressive number of various adapters you sell.
There was a good solution that Honda and Volvo had and used for a long long time that nobody ever seems to have copied. The brilliance of it is that regardless of whether you have a split tailgate design, lifting hatch, or barn doors, there’s a part of the car that’s never going to rotate and will still be visible.
That part being the top of the roof and the back of the rear pillars.
Sidenote, has anyone noticed that with modern cars shipping from the factory with such deep window tinting that it’s become almost impossible to see the CHMSL? Unless it’s a truck which has the standard practice of mounting it on the roof at the back of the cab, I can barely see or straight up cannot see most CHMSLs these days.
“Emily’s dad’s Toyota Highlander, he simply could not see the indicators at all over the tall hood.”
Three problems here.
1. Bumper mounted lights suck.
2. The hoods on trucks and SUVs are too damn high.
3. Emily’s dad is a crappy driver. Everyone learns that you don’t stop that close to the car ahead of you. You should be able to see their tires.
3. Emily’s dad is a crappy driver
No need to be rude, and it says that the car “cut in”, which could easily mean her Dad was driving in his lane as normal and the Hyundai pulled up on the right .
Real surprised this is allowed by DOT. They have headlight height requirements, and these would seem to violate whatever rule they wrote in 1961
They also allow DRLs that turn on the instrument panel but no tail lights, though, so I don’t know what they’ve been doing lately.
I agree as well but in practice this has a very small impact given how few people actually use their turn signals…
I’ve decided that people may use the tap on the stalk and get 3 short blinks that people won’t see if they aren’t staring at the car when it happens. I’ve coded my cars to blink 5-6 times w/ a short tap on the turn signal. Anyone who doesn’t see that is NOT paying attention.
That said, I’m disappointed that BMW and Ford have abandoned the amber turn signal they once sported and the Japanese seem to have totally abandoned the amber signal.
I agree with this completely. I’m in the market for a new minivan and the indicator situation on the carnival is a significant knock against it in my mind. It just seems unsafe, especially for something that’s main function is transporting kids. It may be unforgivable.
Are you listening Kia? No? Bueller?
Hyundai and Kia seem to do this more than other makers. It is really frustrating if you can’t see the lower bumper lights.
Yep, I’ve almost been in a few accidents in the Bolt due to people trying to pass when I’m turning (on the right as well as the left), likely because they don’t notice the turn signal down low. It has boggled my mind since day 1 why chevy was too idiotic to have the normal brake light flash too. As a bonus, driving in the snow cakes the bumper lights way more than the higher up taillights, making them even more invisible.
ONE
HUNDRED
PERCENT
AGREE
It’s just f**king stupid. Especially on cars which *really* don’t need it- a good example is the Hyundai Tucson in the article. The outer portion of the proper taillights is fixed, and is plenty big enough to have a brake light, indicator, and a tail light in it.
I’d add low down front indicators as moronic too. I saw an Ioniq 5 earlier today and the front indicator was low down in the bumper. I could have sworn that the Ioniq 5 used the cool ‘pixel’ DRLs as the indicator like a lot of modern cars, but no, at least not this version. I wonder if that’s only on the higher spec models or something.
I’ll also include the North American practice of red indicators or sharing the indicator and the brake light.
Vehicle lighting is there for safety. Adding potential for confusion to this is not a good idea. You can have something that’s safe and stylish, but I wouldn’t say this fits either of those!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1lZ9n2bxWA
^Excellent video from Technology Connections on YouTube, and I completely agree with everything he says.
The 2012 generation of Escapes had the same issue, with front turn indicators down low where I would expect a tail light. I use a number of intersections a day where there is one lane of travel before and after the intersection, but there are two lanes at the intersection. They are not defined as left-turn or right-turn only lanes, but people filter into them based on what the cars in front of them are doing. As a result, if I’m first in line going straight in the left hand lane (leaving the right open for people turning right on red), I want to know if the guy behind me is turning left. If he is, I need to watch for people going straight on my right and trying to merge. If I can’t see their indicator, it makes everything less predictable.
For the low-down rear indicators, you have a similar issue, where I can’t see if one of the cars sitting in the left lane is turning left or not because their indicator is masked.
Love that channel
It also wouldn’t suprise me if they are putting lights in the bumper to break up the vast amount of real-estate on the back of the SUVs and crossovers. They have been looking bulbous for several years.
Interesting thought. Perhaps we need more taillight-equipped pants too! I can’t wait to see some Altezzas Pants.
It wouldn’t be too hard to just put a reflector in the rear bumper, though, rather than indicators. If it was strictly an aesthetic choice.
It still baffles me that carmakers are allowed to do anything other than simple plastic over the bumper – it bears mentioning that these plastic covers have become so bulky, we’re referring to them as the “bumper” when it simply isn’t the bumper. There’s a government-regulated steel bar underneath that plastic that can withstand a low-speed impact without taking damage. Why is any carmaker allowed to put anything over top of that bumper that would rack up repair costs in a 5mph collision?!
Turn signals are bad for the exact reasons you put forth here – you can’t see them – but let’s call out the whole practice. These plastic bumper covers now commonly include turn signals, marker lights, brake lights, cruise-control sensors (and other sensors), a useless continuation of the grill, and I’m sure I’m missing a few other things.
Insurance companies lobbied for impact-resistant bumpers (and got them) in 1973 because the damage done in low-speed crashes was too costly. Now here we are with bumper covers that can rack up thousands of dollars in repair costs even though the bumper underneath can prevent frame damage.
Yeah, design would suffer, but we can still have impact-safe cars with aerodynamic bumper covers and move all the expensive or breakable components off the part of the car that would get hit.
From a pedestrian safety standpoint, softer deformable bumper covers make sense vs. anything metal.
I agree on the stupidity of anything extra being added to these besides basic reflectors or front fog lamps (my JSW has a pair of red reflectors down low and I think cost $40 to replace). Taillights and electrical components that’ll cost $100s+ to replace? No thanks.
i read all the comments to make sure: Sid’s is the ONLY comment about cost of repair due to this crappy design element.
surprising…
yes, lights, cameras and sensors on surfaces intended to be the first contacted when vehicles collide is in$ane.
yes, their function is greatly impaired down on the bumper, but the cost to repair is the worst part of it for me.
relying upon insurance companies to affect the market doesn’t seem like a short enough feedback loop to affect OEM design cycles.
fwiw, i do not recall anything in FMVSS108 about visibility when trunk/liftgate open.
Stuff like that absolutely affects my buying decisions – I don’t want to replace $2000 in LED lights and trim when someone rear-ends my $5000 car, when it could have been a $300 junkyard replacement or even just a dent I can live with. But as we all know, the average Autopian’s used car buying preferences hold no weight in automotive board rooms.
The Feds rolled back the impact standard to 2.5 mph back in the 80’s (or 90’s, but definitely 2.5 mph)
I miss chrome bumpers that were actually bumpers. The technical term for the rubber skin is “bumper cover” which if you think of it is rather dumb.
Big Chrome has entered the chat.
There is of course a fourth, little used way of having visible tail lights when the trunk is open. Have the lights remain in place, like the first and second gen Mini Clubman.
There’s at least one more method than that. I’m not sure if it’s ever been used…
Make a single lamp housing visible from the rear regardless of whether the gate is open or not.
Put a lens on the rear, but extend that lens around the bottom and to the inside of the gate. 180 degree visibility in the vertical plane, around the bottom of the lamp.
Or roof-mounted indicators, like Jason posted about a while back. There are taxi indicator manufacturers in Japan who would be glad to get the work.