Meaning that bumpers should be on all cars and that they should be expected to get scuffed up and lightly bumped. This would mean that if someone bumped into your cars front or rear bumper in a parking lot and scuffed the paint you wouldn’t be able to claim it or sue them because that’s what they’re for.
I say like luggage because airlines state that your luggage WILL get banged up so expect it and live with it. You can’t sue the airline because your suitcase has a big scratch or scuff on it when you get to your destination.
Cars in the US are treated like a rolling house of cards that cant be touched or else it will never be the same and OH NO! I think it’s ridiculous.
Absolutely not! A simple “bump” at low speed may cause minimal visible damage to the bumpter fascia; however, in most cases, the bumper structure itself can be damaged as well. The bumper could be compromised to the extent where it would fail when truly needed. There’s a big difference between a scuff from a shopping cart and a bump from a moving vehicle.
I disagree. If they were designed with utility in mind instead of cosmetics first they could easily make flexing bumpers that could handle someone pulling there car too far into the space in front of you and nudging the car. I’m not tlking about a car thats moving more than a couple miles an hour.
They used to be made like that until industry lobbying got the bumper safety requirements gutted. So blame the industry that a bump which used to mean only a paint scratch now can cost $2000 to fix.
Yeah, well, that’s not gonna change any time soon, which IMO means treating bumpers like luggage is a really bad idea, cause it might cost you a couple of grand out of pocket.
If you scratch the bumper on my car I will view the act the same as if you only slightly slapped my child or punched my wife but did not break her nose.
The idea that you should be able to casually run into and damage other people’s valued property is just amazing. What a lousy driver and attitude.
shrug. I have a car I paid good money for, and I live in the city. My attitude is, my bumpers are going to get scratched. It’s just the way it is, and I’m not going to stress about it. I have countless minor dings and scratches on the bumper of my car, with no clue where any of them came from. So far as I know, the vast majority were not of my own doing. With the tight parking in the city, bumpers are inevitably going to touch when people parallel park, that’s just the reality of the situation. My opinion is that it should just be accepted as part of the price of living in the city. I’m not talking ramming cars and denting the crap out of bumpers; I’m talking little paint scratches. I don’t even notice them unless I’m specifically looking for them.
This. You can always tell people who street-park. All 4 corners of the car will have scratches. It’s just a part of life.
It’s important to differentiate between the bumper, which is a hunk of metal mandated by congress at the request of the IIHS and other insurance lobbyists, and the bumper cover. Giant metal bumpers from the 70s were originally 10mph bumpers – the requirement was that the car should not suffer more than $1500 (est) so of damage in a 10mph collision. Without the bumpers, a relatively low speed roll into a parking post could result in a new radiator, new core support, new fenders, possibly a new windshield… aside from the frame rails, cars were pretty flimsy back then and would get all messed up at the slightest provocation. The insurance industry was sick of paying out big claims for minor accidents so bumper laws were born.
At some point (late 80s?) the requirement was reduced to 5mph and the bumpers got smaller so they could be covered. US bumpers are mainly there to protect the radiator and associated kit, and the engine immediately behind it.
The big plastic, painted bumper covers that are on cars now have nothing to do with the IIHS bumper requirement – rather, they’re necessary aerodynamic pieces. When they first came out, a lot of them were unpainted; the automaker was basically saying, “Look, this thing is going to get banged up.” Painted bumpers were often an upgrade, probably for people with garages. Now they’re standard and everyone treats their silly plastic bumper covers like they’re made of gold and can’t be harmed.
Well, American cars are supposed to be with 5 mph (parked) bumpers, and 5 mph is a pretty jarring bump. That means no damage to the bumper. Typical parking lot scenarios would be at less than walking speed, say, 2 to 3 mph maximum.
I regard my cars as tools and/or machines. While I don’t want some idiot intentionally doing damage out of spite, I’m fully aware that someone may be not be cautious when open their door next to mine, or maybe a shopping cart will run away, or someone may bump me during head-in parking. Heck, even my oldest car with scratches, dents, and dings doesn’t look at all bad until you get up close to it and start actively looking for problems.
Back when my visible bumper was exposed metal with rubber molding (84 Tempo), and even when as steronz mentions, the plastic bumper cover was left dark (91 Mirage), I most definitely didn’t care what happened to the bumpers. Even now I am more annoyed at the fact that the makers design the covers so even a minor rub against a parking bollard leaves an ugly visible mark (Here’s an idea: color the plastic itself, rather than paint it; I’ll pay a premium!). Heck, I drove my last car 9 years with a cracked bumper cover because like hell I was going to pay to buy a whole new one when the breakage did not affect the actual structural strength.
[Garp]“We’ll take the car. Honey, the chances of another plane hitting this car are astronomical. It’s been pre-disastered. We’re going to be safe here.” [/Garp]
If people only scratched my bumper I’d be happy, but my car has a ton of dents in the sides from parking in parking lots and having neighboring parkers open their car doors into the sides of the car. There was even the minivan driver who left some rubber marks and a long scuff in the clearcoat from utterly failing at pulling out of a parking space properly, skimming the side of our (always parked in the lines, evenly) car.
The comparison is ridiculous. Aside from that, the proposal merely looks to move the responsibility for one’s actions to another, without their consent.
You, unlike the airlines, are not providing me with a service by driving your car. The airline is a business, and it offers a product: * Transporting you and your luggage, while slightly scuffing or scratching your luggage from time to time, to move you along as practically as possible. Now, there are some additional things to consider about the product/service, but this is the gist of it. Would you like to purchase this product/service?*
Purchasing a ticket and getting into the process seals the contract.
Now, when you drive your car, exactly what contract did I enter into which gives you the right to damage my vehicle?
Now, even from a social standpoint, where we file it under, “What is acceptable where you live”, it’s already vetted itself out: City cars and cars in congested areas get the crap beat out of them, because it’s not practical to avoid car-to-car contact at all times.
So, the process already works. I suspect you suck at driving. I suspect you can’t afford a decent car anyway. I suspect you don’t like people who like to have nice cars/bumpers/whatever. IMHO.