Does anyone else think it’s ironic - bordering on stupid - that governments the world over force car makers to spend billions of dollars designing and building car bumpers which can withstand crashes of 5 to 8 km/h without inflicting any damage to the taillights, gas tank, etc., yet they allow owners to install trailer hitches like those shown here?
And with some of the bike racks people install, well, if a cyclist were trying to turn left behind a thus-equipped vehicle heading in the opposite direction and cut it a bit too close, the bike rack would practically decapitate the cyclist.
That's the sort of irony Alanis Morissette would sing about.
Now, for most people in most situations, these bumper regulations are a Good Thing. They reduce the cost of rear-enders - even if everyone pays more to have these bumpers, whether they have a rear-ender or not.
But these regulations have also prevented some pretty neat and exotic cars over the years from being sold in this country, and they still do. There are surely more trailer hitches, bike racks and trucks like those shown here on our roads than there ever would be of the sorts of cars these regs keep off our roads. Shouldn’t the consumer have the right to waive rear-end protection if (s)he wants to buy a cool car that doesn’t happen to have it?
It’s not likely anyone else would ever be harmed by a car not having a crash-proof rear bumper.
Just a thought…