Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just a word of caution for all Bolt drivers. This morning my daughter was driving behind my 2018 Bolt in her F-150 and she made an interesting observation. When she was directly behind me at a stop light she couldn't see my rear directional signal due to the fact they were so low. The hood of her truck was blocking her view of the in-bumper lights. If you're at a light or stop sign, and then decide to turn, the driver directly behind may not see your signal. She also recommended signaling well ahead of a turn to alert rear traffic of your intentions for the same reason. I suspect a semi behind you would be even worse. Stay safe out there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
Just a word of caution for all Bolt drivers. This morning my daughter was driving behind my 2018 Bolt in her F-150 and she made an interesting observation. When she was directly behind me at a stop light she couldn't see my rear directional signal due to the fact they were so low. The hood of her truck was blocking her view of the in-bumper lights. If you're at a light or stop sign, and then decide to turn, the driver directly behind may not see your signal. She also recommended signaling well ahead of a turn to alert rear traffic of your intentions for the same reason. I suspect a semi behind you would be even worse. Stay safe out there!

Isn't this only the case when sitting at a stop sign or stop light, and the vehicle behind is tall and/or has a high, non-sloping hood?


Wouldn't someone need to be less than six feet off your bumper to experience this? Not likely to happen with moving vehicles, which IMO is the real concern.


This doesn't seem to be a "problem" with just the Bolt. Countless other vehicles have their rear lights similarly located. I see it as a problem of visibility with the *truck*.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Giant oversized trucks have serious problems with forward visibility, especially so-called 'lifted' trucks. Some months ago, I witnessed a big pickup truck rearend a motorcycle. The truck driver didn't see the motorcycle in front of him, because his giant truck was so tall and the hood so massive. Many of the drivers of these huge vehicles seem to be of short stature (perhaps they are trying to compensate for certain 'shortcomings'), which only makes the visibility problem worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
Giant oversized trucks have serious problems with forward visibility, especially so-called 'lifted' trucks. Some months ago, I witnessed a big pickup truck rearend a motorcycle. The truck driver didn't see the motorcycle in front of him, because his giant truck was so tall and the hood so massive. Many of the drivers of these huge vehicles seem to be of short stature (perhaps they are trying to compensate for certain 'shortcomings'), which only makes the visibility problem worse.

I'd guess that in your example, the truck driver wasn't paying attention to driving as the truck *approached*, when the motorcycle would have been clearly visible. Looking at their cell-phone, perhaps?


The number of people who drive while using their phone is staggering. Watch any motorcycle riding compilation on YT to get the picture. (I like MotoMadness.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Isn't this only the case when sitting at a stop sign or stop light, and the vehicle behind is tall and/or has a high, non-sloping hood?


Wouldn't someone need to be less than six feet off your bumper to experience this? Not likely to happen with moving vehicles, which IMO is the real concern.


This doesn't seem to be a "problem" with just the Bolt. Countless other vehicles have their rear lights similarly located. I see it as a problem of visibility with the *truck*.
Admittedly, she does pull up very close to the vehicle in front of her (which my wife reminds her of frequently!) And yes, it is a problem of visibility with the truck. Just be aware, that under certain circumstances, the vehicle behind you may not be able to see your directional signal because of its location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,462 Posts
The number of people who drive while using their phone is staggering. Watch any motorcycle riding compilation on YT to get the picture. (I like MotoMadness.)
I watched a guy on a dirt bike (thank goodness he had all his gear on, leathers and helmet) with his cell phone resting on his handle bars while looking down at it. The phone started to slide off the bars and he tried to catch it with both hands. Yes, those same hands that were supposed to be on the handle bars. Needless to say, he totally crashed losing both his phone and control of the motorcycle. What I saw in my rearview mirror was him kicking his motorcycle as it lay off in the ditch he ended up in. Figured he was okay if he could be taking out his anger on the poor motorcycle that had nothing to do with his misfortune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Admittedly, she does pull up very close to the vehicle in front of her (which my wife reminds her of frequently!) And yes, it is a problem of visibility with the truck. Just be aware, that under certain circumstances, the vehicle behind you may not be able to see your directional signal because of its location.
...so, since my son has a (non lift-kitted) Ford F-150...I went out and pulled his truck behind my Bolt to the point I could not see either rear tail lights. Got out, measured the distance between the F-150 and the Bolt:
4' 2"

In countries that are not insane with their driving rules, evidently they teach protocols regarding where a driver should stop when behind another car that is stopped in front of them (this is an example from the UK):



Tyres and tarmac is an option taught by the UK police and it means you should stop far enough behind the vehicle in front so that you can see where their tyres touch the road. The benefits are:

  • If you are hit from behind by another vehicle there is less chance you will hit the vehicle in front
  • You can see much more of the road ahead (especially if it’s a large truck you are behind)
  • There’s less likelihood of the vehicle in front rolling back into your vehicle if you’ve stopped facing uphill
  • If the vehicle ahead of you breaks down or stalls you can more easily get around them
  • Pedestrians can more safely walk through the gap between the vehicles
  • A gap leaves a space which a filtering motorbike or cyclist can use – they’re going to get there quicker than you anyway, so there’s no point in begrudging them the space
  • As you will brake slightly earlier to stop earlier, it gives you extra leeway if you hit a slippery patch (especially important when you’re on a motorbike)
  • If a vehicle behind you looks like it’s not going to stop in time, you have a small amount of room to move ahead to give them more room to stop
  • You’ll get less fumes into your vehicle or helmet if you are slightly further back.
However, in rush hour traffic they admit that the above procedure can cause a further slow down of overall traffic and submit another rule:

Therefore there’s another option, which doesn’t have a technical name, but let’s just call it “bonnet hides bumper”, or where the bonnet of your car obscures the bumper of the car in front. You don’t want your bonnet to be obscuring any more than that – definitely not the brake lights!

The advantages are:

  • More vehicles can fit in a particular piece of road
  • When vehicles move away from a green light, there’s less distance between them and therefore more vehicles pass through the light (assuming they’re not blocked by something else).
But since we don't live and drive in a country that "frowns" on vehicle accidents, and to also provide a solution for the other thread about regen related brake lights, I have a "bolt-on" solution:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
I need to check the signals when we have the bike rack deployed and loaded.

As well, this could be a problem w/the cargo platform.

A shame; the taillights are so huge (let alone the entire stupid concept of lights in bumpers, pioneered by chumps buying luxury cars and now inflicted on the rest of us).

Thanks for the heads up (down?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
My employer had a safe-driving course. For stopping behind another stopped vehicle the recommendation was to stop where you can see at least, the rear tires of the vehicle in front. Easy to remember that one. This also allowed for a quick pull-around the stopped vehicle in front if you're able to respond to say, a dump truck coming up fast from behind with brake failure. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Shotel had many excellent points why NOT to stop too close to the vehicle in front. After many decades of driving I have experienced every one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
When she was directly behind me at a stop light she couldn't see my rear directional signal due to the fact they were so low.
My first reaction to seeing where the turn signal lamps were was "that's a stupid place to put turn signals". IMHO the turn signals should be as elevated and as outboard as possible. My Prius C had this right.

Oh well, at least the turn signals are amber (red turn signals are an abomination!) and the rest of the car is worth it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
A shame; the taillights are so huge (let alone the entire stupid concept of lights in bumpers, pioneered by chumps buying luxury cars and now inflicted on the rest of us).
Actually, the taillights including the directionals in the bumper is mandated by law here and in other countries in vehicles where the primary taillights raise up with the lift gate. A secondary set of lights are required in the bumper, or on some fixed portion of the rear end. The idea is so that if some one were to carry cargo with the lift gate up, the car would still have operable tail lights, brake lights, turn indicators and reflectors.

The lights go up with the lift gate on the Bolt to allow us greater unobstructed access to the cargo area as well as being somewhat less expensive to manufacture. It's a design choice. The main taillights in the lift gate could also function as turn indicators by flashing, but since this car was designed as a one size fits all countries and nearly all other countries require the turn indicators to be amber colored, the LED taillights on the Bolt can not be used like that, so we are stuck with just the amber lights in the bumper.

Again it was a design choice. This time just for style and possibly some cost savings. Chevy could have designed the main taillights to have amber turn indicators imbedded in them and we would have had both brake lights, taillights and turn indicators in the main lift gate lights. This is what I would have done, but they did not do that for whatever reasons they had.

Anyhow, that's how we ended up with our turn indicators in the bumper, not because of chumps, or luxury cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Anyhow, that's how we ended up with our turn indicators in the bumper, not because of chumps, or luxury cars.
Heh, there I go, half-cocked. That's very interesting information and makes complete sense. I see that my "you kids get off my lawn" progress is going nicely.

In my defense I'll say that the first time I noticed bumper-embedded lights was on a Jaguar, the model where they ditched the beautifully styled earlier tail lamps for what looked exactly like something from a Chevette (picture here, if you can stand to look at it-- an abomination).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
In my defense I'll say that the first time I noticed bumper-embedded lights was on a Jaguar, the model where they ditched the beautifully styled earlier tail lamps for what looked exactly like something from a Chevette (picture here, if you can stand to look at it-- an abomination).
In the case of that Jaguar, the lights in the bumper are actually the rear fog lights that are mandated by many countries in Europe. They need to be independent of the ordinary taillights because they are more intense and are only to be switched on when visibility drops below 100 meters. Jaguar stuck them in the bumper, but they are also found under the bumper...



above in the trunk lid...



or integrated into the standard taillights.



The regulations over there only require there be one rear fog lamp, so you will see some cars with just one and others with two just for design symmetry and I guess appear more deluxe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Yeah, familiar with fog lights, as an ex-Volvo driver. They were sensibly mounted with the rest of the lighting, not on the bumpers. Meanwhile, the Mercedes appears to be noncompliant w/regard to liftgates and lamps, if fog lamps are included in that edict. Hmm.

As to lamps in bumpers of cars without liftgates, that would appear to be full-blown degeneracy. Not that they are bumpers any more, but in the case of the old Jaguar-Chevette mashup jewelry, that was an notionally energy-absorbing bumper, but with fragile plastic lenses in it. Weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
A shame; the taillights are so huge (let alone the entire stupid concept of lights in bumpers, pioneered by chumps buying luxury cars and now inflicted on the rest of us).

The bumper lamps are there because they need to be on a non-movable part of the car. The lamps on the hatch can become non-visible if you drive with the hatch open (so the red lamps in the bumper then get activated as brake and tail lamps). Since the lamps on the hatch do not include turn signals or reverse lamps, the bumper turn signals and reverse lamps are always used when they are needed. Note that some Audi SUVs and Minis have a similar reason for having bumper lamps.


Of course, it would have been simpler to make the hatch not cover the entire rear end of the car, and put the brake lamps and turn signals on the non-moving edges of the rear end of the car, like on many hatchbacks, wagons, and SUVs, or the Bolt concept car from 2015.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
In my defense I'll say that the first time I noticed bumper-embedded lights was on a Jaguar, the model where they ditched the beautifully styled earlier tail lamps for what looked exactly like something from a Chevette (picture here, if you can stand to look at it-- an abomination).

Anyone remember these cars?


( By Riley from Christchurch, New Zealand - 1982 Chevrolet Malibu Station Wagon, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38922375 )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
Sean Nelson said:
My first reaction to seeing where the turn signal lamps were was "that's a stupid place to put turn signals". IMHO the turn signals should be as elevated and as outboard as possible...
Ditto. It does seem like an odd place to put them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Back in the mid 80's, it was clearly taught in drivers ed that you should stop with visibility of the cars rear tires - in Washington state. This is definitely a problem with the truck getting too close to the car and in no way a reflection of the Bolt. This is just poor driving. Hopefully driving too close is only an issue for her when she comes to a stop and not while driving at any speed where it could truly be dangerous. Regardless, terrible habit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
I hate to say it, but there's an otherwise particularly garish (exactly what emotional problem is the artist behind the grill interpreting?) version of the Cadillac (Escalade, I think) that has near perfect example of tail lamps, an extension of what Volvo did with some of their wagons a few years ago. It has a liftgate but the lamps are simply impossible not to see and are far, far above where they might be gently tapped and crushed. They're dazzling, not only in style but in visual impact and hence utility.

But the Bolt doesn't offer the surplus real estate available on the Escalade (which as Dave Barry says of SUVs in general has a separate zip code at the rear), so if static placement is the requirement, that's what we get.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top