I really don't like the single LED brake light on the new Toyota Rav4

I was behind a new Rav4 today (it's the newest generation Rav4, so either brand new or almost new), and the brake lights are just a single LED on each side, along with a third brake light high-mount stop consisting of several LED's that were noticeable dimmer than each single main brake light LED

It's so bright yet so small, which is my problem with it, especially since the incandescent turn signals are very close to the LED brake light and nowhere near as bright as it.

Since it was daylight, I don't know what the tail lights would be like.

The current RAV4 is one of an increasing number of models that sure don't look like they even come close to meeting the legal requirement for at least 50 square centimeters (7¾ square inches) of effective lighted area, not counting incidental reflections off bezels, stray light through other parts of the lens, and other light that doesn't actually contribute to the beam pattern. The Tesla Model 3, X and Y are also on this list.

NHTSA doesn't seem to care, which is probably why the automakers keep doing it.

haha1234 said:

I was behind a new Rav4 today (it's the newest generation Rav4, so either brand new or almost new), and the brake lights are just a single LED on each side, along with a third brake light high-mount stop consisting of several LED's that were noticeable dimmer than each single main brake light LED

It's so bright yet so small, which is my problem with it, especially since the incandescent turn signals are very close to the LED brake light and nowhere near as bright as it.

Since it was daylight, I don't know what the tail lights would be like.

Click to expand...

But...you SAW it, right? I mean that is kinda the whole point. The stop light was clearly visible. I've seen them as well and I can say that the turn signal is visible. Maybe there will be some modification of the regulations to account for all of these modern lights sometime in the next 20 years or so...like with so much of the rest of the automotive industry.

lightfooted said:

But...you SAW it, right? I mean that is kinda the whole point. The stop light was clearly visible. I've seen them as well and I can say that the turn signal is visible. Maybe there will be some modification of the regulations to account for all of these modern lights sometime in the next 20 years or so...like with so much of the rest of the automotive industry.

Click to expand...

It's "kinda the whole point" that regulated motor vehicle lighting is made to conform to the regulations.

The industry should not be trying to push new regulations by breaking the existing ones.

lightfooted said:

But...you SAW it, right? I mean that is kinda the whole point.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The whole point is conveying a message immediately and unambiguously in a wide variety of situations, without causing glare or other safety hazards. Glare does not imply conspicuity...

Maybe there will be some modification of the regulations to account for all of these modern lights sometime in the next 20 years or so

Click to expand...

...and modernity does not imply compliance, noncompliance, or incompatibility with regulations. Yes, there are some new kinds of automotive lighting systems and components that aren't legal because the regulators are being a bunch of stupid jerks (adaptive driving beam/glare free high beam). But stop lights smaller than the regulation requires, don't fit that category.

What I find more egregious than the RAV4 lights are the rear lights on some current motorcycles. I'm not very familiar with the world of modern motorcycles, so I can't state brands and models (or really know if what I'm seeing are OE or aftermarket lights) but of late I have noticed some bikes with what I consider obscenely tiny rear lighting fixtures/modules. Assuming OE, they are obviously meeting the letter of the law. But I've seen combined S/T/T units that are merely 6 LED wide by 1 high - maybe 150mmx20mm in total lens area. And in my opinion, they are not at all "conveying a message immediately and unambiguously in a wide variety of situations, without causing glare or other safety hazards."

The motorcycle lighting standards are a mess. More or less they equal out to "half of whatever the minimum passenger car requirements were, fifty years ago". And then subtract from there, because nobody likes "upgrading" their lights more than motorcyclists, and the huge majority of what's offered is not even close to meeting the pathetic minimum requirements.

I tend to think it's more like the same thing that has happened before, with the new aerodynamic head lights...that it's not that the new lights are "too bright" but rather that people were used to the insufficient lights used in the older designs and thus think that because it appears brighter that it is somehow exceeding the standards or is blinding other drivers when in fact it is just better aimed or has a better beam.

I have seen the new Rav4 lights and they do not bother me, but I don't stare into the beam either. Better than having them indistinguishable from the running lights.

Alaric Darconville said:

It's "kinda the whole point" that regulated motor vehicle lighting is made to conform to the regulations.

The industry should not be trying to push new regulations by breaking the existing ones.

Click to expand...

Except that that is exactly what they have done numerous times, including pushing for new head light designs every time because the government refused to change. From two 7 inch round sealed beams, then four 5.75" round sealed beams then rectangular sealed beam head lights, then variably sized lights and plastic lenses. If not for the industry we would still only be allowed four 5.75" round sealed beam head lights. How else do you make change when your lawmakers ignore common sense or research specialists and prefer to get kickbacks from their lobbyist pals in the industry that isn't wanting to change?

lightfooted said:

Except that that is exactly what they have done numerous times, including pushing for new head light designs every time because the government refused to change.

Click to expand...

Pushing for the changes, not manufacturing, importing, or introducing into interstate commerce vehicles with headlighting systems that do not conform to the requirements of state laws or Federal law. Such as the 1983 grant (by NHTSA) of the 1981 petition (by Ford) allowing composite headlamps, which subsequently appeared on the '84 Lincoln Mark VII. Similarly, the law changed to allow quad headlighting systems in the late '50s (although at that time it was mostly up to states to regulate lighting (what a mess!)).

There is something of a mess with "headlamp modulators" and CHMSL "pulsers" and whatnot; manufacturers of the aftermarket devices (NOT the automakers) are selling them and then trying to get them legalized in enough states until they become accepted and written into law. This has already happened with headlamp modulators, and the makers of the CHMSL-breakers have succeeded in at least one state in getting it on the books (although Federal preëmption of State lighting laws applies; the lighting is not legal, manufacturing them, importing them, and introducing them into interstate commerce is illegal, and regulated parties installing them can face hefty fines).

lightfooted said:

Except that that is exactly what they have done numerous times

Click to expand...

No, it really is not. You clearly do not know your history on this subject, which is fine; it doesn't make you a bad person or anything, but substituting guesses and fairytales isn't going to fly in a forum like this. Industry and government worked together to bring about the 7" round sealed beams...and the quad 5.75" sealed beams...the rectangular sealed beams...the replaceable-bulb headlamps...the plastic lenses...the visual/optical aim headlamps...the HID headlamps...the LED headlamps, etcetera. The specific "dance steps" were different from case to case, but in no case did industry go, "We're just gonna break the existing rules and wait for the regulators to do something about it". That's what's new this time with the apparently noncompliant (too small) signal lights that are the subject of this thread.

kickbacks from their lobbyist pals in the industry that isn't wanting to change?

Click to expand...

Got receipts for this claim?