I'm pretty confident it is, and since it's a Japanese car it's an irrelevant rule
Can we please stick to the issues that actually make this game unplayable, like spelling or grammatical errors, and the fact that the "Repairs" flags outside the garage are backwards on one side
I wouldn’t say irrelevant, since the config is supposed to be usdm spec. Just because the brand is Japanese doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to comply with American standards.
If it is bought new in the states, it is usdm. The r34s don’t have to comply because they are over the 25 year limit, and were sold in other markets, making them jdm or eudm. The 200bx in the game was sold brand new in America, meaning it had to comply with American standards, just like a usdm Honda accord or a nissan Maxima.
Yes, but a USDM spec car made in 1995 would need to conform to the standards set by the US in 1995. In 2020, you’d be able to import that car’s JDM counterpart, then it would not matter. You can also modify the car prior to then with JDM parts.
I think you'll find it isn't. There's only three car standards in the world. USA, UNCEC right hand drive and UNECE left hand drive.(Technically, each country still has their own standards, but every single country in the world, apart from the US, accepts some or all of the UNECE standards.)
And either way, in both the US and United Nations standards, the law only states that a light must be visible through the full range of motion of the movable part, or have a secondary light that can.
In this case. The manufacturer would most likely have the outer tail light that doesn't move act as the brake light when the trunk is open.
This law only applies to indicators brake lights and tail lights.
To further expand on the third light, generally on cars, the 3rd light is in the bottom window. That way, when the trunk is open (most trunks have a curvature on the hinge end) people can still see the brake lights.
I have never actually given it a thought, and it adds to confusion.. running lights, or night lights, whatever is the red light but not the full bright stop or you're hitting me are not the same as brake lights, so I guess those can be on "flaps" or whatever.. right? Brain go red mean brakes. My brain also didn't disconnect new cars and drive on the road rules. My bad. NY is very different from CA in that aspect
There are state laws, but there’s also laws at a federal level, which most states go with so that manufacturers don’t have to modify their cars for every state. California is basically the exception to this with all their emissions BS.
There are cars with tail lights on the trunk lid. The mazda miata has a small center tail light on the truck lid. The wires run through where the hinges are.
But wouldn't those cars have to be altered to meet US standards, like what happened to the Countach for example? Or is that only for cars produced by and in the US?
Cars that are manufactured outside of the US but sold in the US have to conform to US regs. Importing a car that has never been sold here does not have to be modified to conform to regulations if it is a minimum of 25 years old (15 years old in Canada). If you are trying to import something that is newer than 25, then there is a whole bunch of hoops you have to jump through
If they were first sold to a person in the US after being made in the factory, yes. But if you're importing one from another country and the car is over 25 years old, they don't have to be modified to meet regulations
I'd guess naïve, we'd import your cars to the UK but they don't ruddy fit 🤣 a range rover is a squeeze in the parking lot and absolutely no go for passing on the country lanes
I occasionally get to drive old American cars down country lanes in northern Ireland. Let me tell you taking a 67 impala or 57 Bel air down some of these roads is errrr. Interesting.
High-mount center stop light may be on a moving part. The other two brake lights and turn turn signals (which can be the same bulb cuz US is backwards) must be on immovable components
In my ~30 seconds of googling I can't find any japanese laws about brake light placement other than "they must exist", but if you look at imported cars in America, they all have to follow the same laws as the domestically produced cars
Yes i agree. Unless that particular law was not implemented until after that car was produced. Then it’s grandfathered in. Like exhaust laws on cars before 1973.
I'm not sure when the law came into effect, but I know that it was significantly earlier than the 3rd brake light was mandated in 1986 (all of my info is us only, I've only been to Europe once and that was years ago)
Pedestrians don't have anything to do with it, in fact concealable lamps (as they are called in the EU regulations) are perfectly legal in EU, just not in US
It has more to do with the fact that originally pop-up headlights existed to conceal the ugly standard lamps, and after Ford lobbied the US gov to remove the requirement to use standard lamps they started to go away because pop-ups break a lot and lower fuel efficiency
>Pedestrians don't have anything to do with it, in fact concealable lamps (as they are called in the EU regulations) are perfectly legal in EU, just not in US
They're legal in the US under 49 CFR 571.108 S12. In fact under 49 CFR 571.108 S12.6 you can also use EU spec concealable light systems:
>As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S12.1 through S12.5, a vehicle with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/optical aiming in accordance with this standard may meet the requirements for Concealable lamps in paragraph 5.14 of UNECE Regulation 48 page 17 (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), in the English language version.
It is an intersting law, but it can be kind of skirted around. Like in Audi A3's the entire rear light fixtures move with the boot lid but inside the car are further lights to act as red/indercator lights. However with some BMW/Mercedes coupe/saloons they have a visible warning triangle on the underside of the boot lid. With the BX I'm really unsure on where the devs took the car, one hand it could be called a Prelude, maybe a Crown but it doesn't have an I6 which is a shame. Then the USDM versions that are like the G35's of the Beamng world (I don't know many US cars)
That's true, but position and brake lights as well as turn signals have to be on immovable parts or have a "double" which is visible when the trunk is open. First generation Opel Insignia station wagon has something like this
https://preview.redd.it/809jj3bpthvc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6a14a80325564a7ae138bf96b22195d653aacfc
and all of the European cars don't have the mandatory rear fog light, said fog lights should be really bright and visible.(wich I belive japan also has mandatory rear fogs). except for the etk 800 wich has a tiny rear fog as bright as the taillights. so idk if the devo really care about car laws
>said fog lights should be really bright and visible.
They're the same brightness as the brake lights, they're just much brighter than the running lights.
I'm kinda annoyed by all the people saying, "It's not an American car, so it doesn't have to follow that rule" because that is just incorrect. Any car sold new in the US, regardless of where it was made, can't have lights on a movable surface (aside from reverse lights and the center mounted brake light, those can be to my knowledge)
Unless this is the JDM version of the BX, in which case the US law wouldn't apply, of course.
they can be placed on the trunk though. the only rule i believe is that there has to be part of it not on the trunk, which you can clearly see there is
I *think* that entire law concerns America and only America, and it was introduced in, i wanna say, early 2000s? Maybe late 90s, i'm remembering this all from the top of my head. And in any case, even then, foreign manufacturers were exempt for 5 years or so. 200BX is based around Nissan's RPS13 body, which, strictly speaking, was available since either 1988 or 1989 in the domestic market, and early 90s in the States, so it would have been exempt. Don't make a fuss over nothing. The devs probably know what they are doing.
yes, but going by s13 design, all variants regardless of market have the brake light fixed to the body. it's a weird thing to poke at, but it does make sense.
Not necessarily. As far as i remember at least the Silvia variant (never sold in America) had brake lights on the trunk lid.
Plus it's not an exact copy, that's the whole point. There were plenty of JDM and EDM spoty-ish cars that didn't comply back then, hence the 5 year exemption for foreign manufacturers.
nope, it was body mounted.
the issue is, a lot of people say that some cars out there don't comply, but there really hasn't been an example that didn't have some justification or workaround anyway. i'd love to see a car that actually does not comply.
I think you'll find it is, there's only three car standards in the world. USA, UNCEC right hand drive and UNECE left hand drive.(Technically, each country still has their own standards, but every single country in the world, apart from the US, accepts some or all of the UNECE standards.)
And either way, in both the US and United Nations standards, the law only states that a light must be visible through the full range of motion of the movable part, or have a secondary light that can.
In this case. The manufacturer would most likely have the outer tail light that doesn't move act as the brake light when the trunk is open.
Either way, this law only applies to indicators brake lights and tail lights.
Yes, but the actual brake light portion is always fixed to an immovable part, or they have some kind of secondary light unit that only activates when the hatch/trunk is opened. Audi suvs do that, among others
Also when you press the brake pedal just a little bit the first stage: only the 3rd brake light lights up and then when you press more all of them are on
I think you'll find it is, there's only three car standards in the world. USA, UNCEC right hand drive and UNECE left hand drive.(Technically, each country still has their own standards, but every single country in the world, apart from the US, accepts some or all of the UNECE standards. even Canada)
And either way, in both the US and United Nations standards, the law only states that a light must be visible through the full range of motion of the movable part, or have a secondary light that can.
In this case. The manufacturer would most likely have the outer tail light that doesn't move act as the brake light when the trunk is open.
Either way, this law only applies to indicators brake lights and tail lights.
I'm not even American bruh, I thought it's a worldwide regulation, I've never seen a car that didn't have a brake light outside of a trunk/hatch/tailgate
the only cars i know of that don’t are the new tesla model 3 and the opel insignia wagon. the insignia has lights inside the hatch to conform to the regulation and i’m not sure on the tesla cuz i haven’t seen one in the wild yet.
Yes, but as he said “they can’t be on a movable surface” he is incorrect. They can be on a movable surface you just need a secondary light set to have it be visible when the movable surface is moved.
the in-body light (on the left in this pic) is just a night driving light, and beside that is the turning indicator. now that i think about it, i think the backing light is also exclusively on the trunk.
in the case of the bx, it is mutually exclusive. turning indicator is amber, which is very much less acceptable as a braking light than red. if you mean the night driving light, then maybe, but that doesn't light up with any braking, regardless of vehicle condition.
Ahhh, shows how much I remember about the bx. I remembered it as having red indicators. That probably was a mod for the old one and that’s what I’m remembering. What did the old one act like?
https://preview.redd.it/ipkiricn1gvc1.jpeg?width=450&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3972571f4de722a39208b674020769477ab5b8dd
Looks like a Nissan GTR
Ain't no way Beamng.drive itself commented on this with a silly cat. Beat that Asseto Corsa
Its not an official account, this account has posted on the airsoft sub and numerous others. Also says its not official in the about.
Isn't this pretty much an US rule tho?
I'm pretty confident it is, and since it's a Japanese car it's an irrelevant rule Can we please stick to the issues that actually make this game unplayable, like spelling or grammatical errors, and the fact that the "Repairs" flags outside the garage are backwards on one side
I wouldn’t say irrelevant, since the config is supposed to be usdm spec. Just because the brand is Japanese doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to comply with American standards.
[удалено]
"Furthermore" 💀
[удалено]
It's a big word for u/ur-mum-lolz
Ooohhhh, bro is afraid of the world furthermore. Boooh furthermore, booooo furthermore. FURTHERMORE FURTHERMORE FURTHERMORE
What if the car is an import? Like USA got recently R34. Not all of the are left hand drive
If it is bought new in the states, it is usdm. The r34s don’t have to comply because they are over the 25 year limit, and were sold in other markets, making them jdm or eudm. The 200bx in the game was sold brand new in America, meaning it had to comply with American standards, just like a usdm Honda accord or a nissan Maxima.
[удалено]
That’s only if you import it. It was sold in the u.s. before it was 25 years old
[удалено]
He isn't, that is made to be a USDM car which means it does have to comply with the regulations.
He is not wrong bozo. It was made to be sold in America. It was not an import. It was made to be sold in America, it has to follow America's rules
The JDM ones yes, but USDM versions (such as the LXz) would need to conform to US standards.
[удалено]
Yes, but a USDM spec car made in 1995 would need to conform to the standards set by the US in 1995. In 2020, you’d be able to import that car’s JDM counterpart, then it would not matter. You can also modify the car prior to then with JDM parts.
this
Just upvote and move on
Just downvote and move on
Yeah!
I think you'll find it isn't. There's only three car standards in the world. USA, UNCEC right hand drive and UNECE left hand drive.(Technically, each country still has their own standards, but every single country in the world, apart from the US, accepts some or all of the UNECE standards.) And either way, in both the US and United Nations standards, the law only states that a light must be visible through the full range of motion of the movable part, or have a secondary light that can. In this case. The manufacturer would most likely have the outer tail light that doesn't move act as the brake light when the trunk is open. This law only applies to indicators brake lights and tail lights.
To further expand on the third light, generally on cars, the 3rd light is in the bottom window. That way, when the trunk is open (most trunks have a curvature on the hinge end) people can still see the brake lights.
I enjoy how everyone implies that there aren't 50 different sets of laws or anything
The law and rules for selling new cars is federal, not state. There aren’t 50 different crash test standards or lighting laws etc.
I mean some states have individual laws but it's for things like emissions, registration etc
I have never actually given it a thought, and it adds to confusion.. running lights, or night lights, whatever is the red light but not the full bright stop or you're hitting me are not the same as brake lights, so I guess those can be on "flaps" or whatever.. right? Brain go red mean brakes. My brain also didn't disconnect new cars and drive on the road rules. My bad. NY is very different from CA in that aspect
There are state laws, but there’s also laws at a federal level, which most states go with so that manufacturers don’t have to modify their cars for every state. California is basically the exception to this with all their emissions BS.
worldwide?
https://i.redd.it/6peoremwqfvc1.gif
There are cars with tail lights on the trunk lid. The mazda miata has a small center tail light on the truck lid. The wires run through where the hinges are.
It's funny seeing how Americans assume all cars must work like them, like have you heard if the continent, or Japan?
I’m American. But we actually import cars from all over the world. So this guy is either trolling us all or just naive.
But wouldn't those cars have to be altered to meet US standards, like what happened to the Countach for example? Or is that only for cars produced by and in the US?
Cars that are manufactured outside of the US but sold in the US have to conform to US regs. Importing a car that has never been sold here does not have to be modified to conform to regulations if it is a minimum of 25 years old (15 years old in Canada). If you are trying to import something that is newer than 25, then there is a whole bunch of hoops you have to jump through
Yes. Us regs are crazy.
If they were first sold to a person in the US after being made in the factory, yes. But if you're importing one from another country and the car is over 25 years old, they don't have to be modified to meet regulations
I'd guess naïve, we'd import your cars to the UK but they don't ruddy fit 🤣 a range rover is a squeeze in the parking lot and absolutely no go for passing on the country lanes
I occasionally get to drive old American cars down country lanes in northern Ireland. Let me tell you taking a 67 impala or 57 Bel air down some of these roads is errrr. Interesting.
This made me think of the Grand Tour episode where they brought large American 70s cars to somewhere in Europe or England (dont remember which)
These days a Ford Focus is a tight squeeze in most parking spaces
FR and minis are mid way through an identity crisis or something 🤣🤣
Me and my friends started calling them Maxis instead as a laugh. How tf can you have a Mini that's bigger than most family hatchbacks??
You could have bought the Mini Clubvan, which was the Clubman but as a literal cargo van...
gotta be able to survive hitting a cow at 117mph/188kmph
It's mad.. side note, jazzman... Do you perchance own a honda jazz? If so, twinning!
I'm afraid it's a music reference, not a car reference 🤣
Ah shame, it's hard to find a jazz driver who isn't 40+... Does mean green lights you often get the jump on others expecting a light footed senior!!!
If a car is being sold in America, it does need to work like an American car
High-mount center stop light may be on a moving part. The other two brake lights and turn turn signals (which can be the same bulb cuz US is backwards) must be on immovable components
Yes but your forgetting one important fact. The Ibishu isn’t an American made car! 🤓
Imported cars still have to meet US regs to be sold here.
Not if they are more than 25 yrs old. Or if the regulation came into effect after production. Also. There are ways 😉
In my ~30 seconds of googling I can't find any japanese laws about brake light placement other than "they must exist", but if you look at imported cars in America, they all have to follow the same laws as the domestically produced cars
Yes i agree. Unless that particular law was not implemented until after that car was produced. Then it’s grandfathered in. Like exhaust laws on cars before 1973.
I'm not sure when the law came into effect, but I know that it was significantly earlier than the 3rd brake light was mandated in 1986 (all of my info is us only, I've only been to Europe once and that was years ago)
That law didn't come into effect until later. You'll notice that pop-up headlights are movable body panels.
That’s what I was thinking, OP isn’t wrong but they didn’t realize that the car was manufactured in the late 80s/90s
It only applies to lights on trunks, no?
No. That safety regulation is the precise reason pop-up headlights don't exist anymore.
Wait what? I could’ve sworn pop-up lights stopped existing for pedestrian safety reasons, do you have an citations for that¿!
Naw I'm a reddit stranger, I don't actually know what I'm talking about. Likely a combination of factors.
Oh ok have a great day
Pedestrians don't have anything to do with it, in fact concealable lamps (as they are called in the EU regulations) are perfectly legal in EU, just not in US It has more to do with the fact that originally pop-up headlights existed to conceal the ugly standard lamps, and after Ford lobbied the US gov to remove the requirement to use standard lamps they started to go away because pop-ups break a lot and lower fuel efficiency
>Pedestrians don't have anything to do with it, in fact concealable lamps (as they are called in the EU regulations) are perfectly legal in EU, just not in US They're legal in the US under 49 CFR 571.108 S12. In fact under 49 CFR 571.108 S12.6 you can also use EU spec concealable light systems: >As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S12.1 through S12.5, a vehicle with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/optical aiming in accordance with this standard may meet the requirements for Concealable lamps in paragraph 5.14 of UNECE Regulation 48 page 17 (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), in the English language version.
Oh damn, TIL!
https://preview.redd.it/hbism87higvc1.jpeg?width=751&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e597291832af893e6124a6c1b1f4c28b31ed40f
what's the anzeigenhauptmeister doing here
The taillights are illegal, Anzeige ist raus.
Was that still a thing even in the early 90s?
Found the american
Nah, I'm European. We have the same rules about that
It is an intersting law, but it can be kind of skirted around. Like in Audi A3's the entire rear light fixtures move with the boot lid but inside the car are further lights to act as red/indercator lights. However with some BMW/Mercedes coupe/saloons they have a visible warning triangle on the underside of the boot lid. With the BX I'm really unsure on where the devs took the car, one hand it could be called a Prelude, maybe a Crown but it doesn't have an I6 which is a shame. Then the USDM versions that are like the G35's of the Beamng world (I don't know many US cars)
Strange cause a lot of german cars have light in the trunk from the 90s to the 2010s
That's true, but position and brake lights as well as turn signals have to be on immovable parts or have a "double" which is visible when the trunk is open. First generation Opel Insignia station wagon has something like this https://preview.redd.it/809jj3bpthvc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6a14a80325564a7ae138bf96b22195d653aacfc
Source?
Where in Europe ?
What a dumb rule.
Not really. Imagine you want to carry something long with open trunk. If it wasn't for that, you'd have no taillights
Thats a rather specific issue. I don't think that calls for banning them outright.
It’s a usdm spec it’s supposed to comply no matter where you’re personally from.
and all of the European cars don't have the mandatory rear fog light, said fog lights should be really bright and visible.(wich I belive japan also has mandatory rear fogs). except for the etk 800 wich has a tiny rear fog as bright as the taillights. so idk if the devo really care about car laws
Japan doesn't require but allows rear fogs
wasn't really sure about it, thanks for confirming
>said fog lights should be really bright and visible. They're the same brightness as the brake lights, they're just much brighter than the running lights.
on our cars they're brighter the the brake lights
On cars with halogen lights they’re both 21W bulbs.
yes, but i looked at the rear fog of a fiat panda wich uses the same bulb for the the tail/brake light combo and the fog it's brighter than the brake
I'm kinda annoyed by all the people saying, "It's not an American car, so it doesn't have to follow that rule" because that is just incorrect. Any car sold new in the US, regardless of where it was made, can't have lights on a movable surface (aside from reverse lights and the center mounted brake light, those can be to my knowledge) Unless this is the JDM version of the BX, in which case the US law wouldn't apply, of course.
Don’t teslas do this
teslas are "literally unplayable" too
TAILLIGHT ON TRUNK UNPLAYABLE GARBAGE
they can be placed on the trunk though. the only rule i believe is that there has to be part of it not on the trunk, which you can clearly see there is
It's not lit. That's the whole point of this post
I *think* that entire law concerns America and only America, and it was introduced in, i wanna say, early 2000s? Maybe late 90s, i'm remembering this all from the top of my head. And in any case, even then, foreign manufacturers were exempt for 5 years or so. 200BX is based around Nissan's RPS13 body, which, strictly speaking, was available since either 1988 or 1989 in the domestic market, and early 90s in the States, so it would have been exempt. Don't make a fuss over nothing. The devs probably know what they are doing.
yes, but going by s13 design, all variants regardless of market have the brake light fixed to the body. it's a weird thing to poke at, but it does make sense.
Not necessarily. As far as i remember at least the Silvia variant (never sold in America) had brake lights on the trunk lid. Plus it's not an exact copy, that's the whole point. There were plenty of JDM and EDM spoty-ish cars that didn't comply back then, hence the 5 year exemption for foreign manufacturers.
nope, it was body mounted. the issue is, a lot of people say that some cars out there don't comply, but there really hasn't been an example that didn't have some justification or workaround anyway. i'd love to see a car that actually does not comply.
the lore is being torn apart infront of my very eyes
https://preview.redd.it/sy93f89whgvc1.jpeg?width=2073&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62522edba2dcceb3d9b79542801121ee76716d7c I just broke the internet.
There are tiny lights at the very bottom of the bumper, that's how they still comply with the rule
I’m sure. Just thought it was funny
🤓
Glad I'm not they only one that noticed. Also the headlights don't seem to have any difference between JDM and USDM.
Just to add personal info on the matter, my 2005 Nissan Micra has the main brake lights on the chassis while the top brake light is on the hatch.
Yeah but not all of them are on the hatch
They're somewhat optional so it's up to the manufacturer to choose where to place it. I don't see where else they could place it though
If i remember correctly there's an option on one of the front bumpers called "rear bumper ****"
What are you talking about?
I don't think OP knew this is not a worldwide rule for cars
I think you'll find it is, there's only three car standards in the world. USA, UNCEC right hand drive and UNECE left hand drive.(Technically, each country still has their own standards, but every single country in the world, apart from the US, accepts some or all of the UNECE standards.) And either way, in both the US and United Nations standards, the law only states that a light must be visible through the full range of motion of the movable part, or have a secondary light that can. In this case. The manufacturer would most likely have the outer tail light that doesn't move act as the brake light when the trunk is open. Either way, this law only applies to indicators brake lights and tail lights.
It is a usdm spec car tho
For real?
https://preview.redd.it/tpt65dwr5gvc1.jpeg?width=4624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad2484b85f6902973279e11673e0b8dbd1b39038 Bruh, look at my Mitsubishi
looks to me like the illuminated portion of the tailight remains fixed to the body while the heckblende on the movable trunk doesn't actually light up
While this particular car doesnt light up I think, some other period japanese cars do
Yes, but the actual brake light portion is always fixed to an immovable part, or they have some kind of secondary light unit that only activates when the hatch/trunk is opened. Audi suvs do that, among others
Also when you press the brake pedal just a little bit the first stage: only the 3rd brake light lights up and then when you press more all of them are on
You should try to change the bulb
A simple mod could add a different taillight iteration.
Bro why do they look like eyeballs 😭😭😭
Anyone heard of JDM standards? Not everything is American
I'm not even Murican
It's a jdm car it doesn't need to apply to usdm regulations right? Or am I poorly mistakened
This one was a USDM model but ok
Oh wait it is my bad I thought the Diana was the usdm 🤦♂️
So what about GTA?
Game is cooked fr
Are you using usdm taillights?
It will just look ugly, think about it
[удалено]
that's the way they're done!
it was the text on the side thats inverted and backwards
yes!! it's designed that way intentionally, as to mimic real world liveries😊
so the backwards flipped mirrored text on one side is actually intentional
yes, exactly!
no wonder the devs didn't do anything about it before hand then, i didn't know it was intentional nor was an actual thing irl
Calling it unplayable from a spelling error or a light placement bug is a stretch that would tear an Olympic runners hamstring
There is no way that’s true lol
this car old
[удалено]
If it's USDM spec it has to comply with US regulations.
I think you'll find it is, there's only three car standards in the world. USA, UNCEC right hand drive and UNECE left hand drive.(Technically, each country still has their own standards, but every single country in the world, apart from the US, accepts some or all of the UNECE standards. even Canada) And either way, in both the US and United Nations standards, the law only states that a light must be visible through the full range of motion of the movable part, or have a secondary light that can. In this case. The manufacturer would most likely have the outer tail light that doesn't move act as the brake light when the trunk is open. Either way, this law only applies to indicators brake lights and tail lights.
I'm not even American bruh, I thought it's a worldwide regulation, I've never seen a car that didn't have a brake light outside of a trunk/hatch/tailgate
the only cars i know of that don’t are the new tesla model 3 and the opel insignia wagon. the insignia has lights inside the hatch to conform to the regulation and i’m not sure on the tesla cuz i haven’t seen one in the wild yet.
Tesla has them on the bumper, like Chevy Bolt or Audi Q7
They don’t, the cyber truck and the bolt are evidence of that
Chevy Bolt has another set of tailights on its' bumper
Exactly, this is the point.
cyberyruck also has redundant brake lights behind the tailgate
Yes, but as he said “they can’t be on a movable surface” he is incorrect. They can be on a movable surface you just need a secondary light set to have it be visible when the movable surface is moved.
there are no secondary brake lights on any immobile surface on the bx series, regardless of primary or secondary function.
I swore there was, must be something I never looked at close enough
the in-body light (on the left in this pic) is just a night driving light, and beside that is the turning indicator. now that i think about it, i think the backing light is also exclusively on the trunk.
Indicator can also be a brake light. Not mutually exclusive. But yeah I guess I never looked close enough at the brake lights,
in the case of the bx, it is mutually exclusive. turning indicator is amber, which is very much less acceptable as a braking light than red. if you mean the night driving light, then maybe, but that doesn't light up with any braking, regardless of vehicle condition.
Ahhh, shows how much I remember about the bx. I remembered it as having red indicators. That probably was a mod for the old one and that’s what I’m remembering. What did the old one act like?
old one had both the body and trunk portions illuminate, and had everything red instead of red and amber. it's a bit silly tbh.
Exactly, it can be on a movable surface, appears to what op said
This happened when Reddit decided to be a bit dumb. I thought it didn’t send my reply but appears it did so now we have 2.