It's what's out back that counts

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?

Bumper regulations are a noble idea. But a solid steel bar like a typical trailer hitch renders a ‘crash-proof’ bumper totally useless.

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.

Then there are the sorts of trucks you see on the road all the time. Geez, if I ran into the back of a truck like this in my Miata, I’d be shish-kebabed before I even got to the truck’s taillights.

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…

Comments

[Larry]

This is why I have a removable hitch on my car and don't leave the hook on when not in use. When I'm biking, I avoid making lefts right behind a vehicle passing in the other direction; in fact, left turns are best executed while keeping well away from oncoming vehicles of any kind.

[Chris]

Hey Jim; Ironically, considering your illustrations, consumers can already buy plenty of cool vehicles without paying for protective bumpers: they are called pickups, vans, and SUVs, to which the rear bumper regs have never applied. These rules only apply to passenger cars. A pickup truck doesn't even have to have a rear bumper, never mind one that can take a hit. And we routinely see vehicles like Toyota RAV4 do very poorly in IIHS low speed rear crash tests, because things like spare tire carriers and styling take precedence over bumper functionality. Consumers can have at it!
However, the illustrated bike racks and trailer hitches mounted to receivers should properly be removed from the receivers when not being used to pull a trailer or carry a bike. People who do not do this are, yes, interfering with their bumper's functionality. But people have always been allowed to do this - you can even take the bumper off your car and drive around if you want to. There is no rule against it, nor should there be. Where else would you suggest a trailer hitch be placed?

[rob]

I'm 100% in agreement with you Jim, especially your point regarding trucks. 10 years ago I was rear-ended by a dump truck with a bumper about 4 feet off the ground. The point of impact was not my bumper but the trunk of my '93 Altima. He hit me so hard the Altima looked like a hatch after the crash and I could read the license plate off what was left of the trunk of my car. I'm very lucky that I wasn't driving something more vulnerable like a hatch. Trucks with elevated bumpers like that shouldn't be allowed on our roads.