And you jokers think I'm crazy for wanting bumper regulations??

[Tex Arcana]

Driver injured in school-bus crash (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/LOCAL/61127034)

http://i17.tinypic.com/2u7r5t5.jpg

And there was the story about a month ago about the corvette that ran under the rear end of a trailer up here on 75, which decapitated him. :flaming:

I'm sorry if this will offend anyone (who am I kidding?? OF COURSE THIS WILL!), but something has to be done. Special interestes will just have to get over their "outrage" and remember that it's LIVES we're talking about here, not someone's piddly profits. :nono:

IT's time to decide waht's more important.

[charlie]

Just remember when your pushing for new laws... Who is going to lose what freedom. Yes I know lives are at stake. So are lives on a motorcycle with no helmet. I personally don't wear one all the time. And I don't want some one telling me I have to..... It's my life! I know the example is different. But you see my point right? Besides.... Who's life are you trying to save? The guy too stupid to see a BIG yellow school bus? What if it was not a buss, what if it was a little car, or bike, or your truck with you in it (God forbid) in stead of the buss? It just seems to me efforts would be better spent keeping people off the phone in a car, or what ever, to insure that this person does see the buss or bike when there driving. And no I do not agree or disagree with what your recommending. I have done no research on the subject.

Sorry if this statement offends any one. I just think people should consider everything when trying to pass new laws. And not just go with special interest parties. Wither there corporate, or other wise.

Charlie

[Chris94L]

What am I missing here? In order to wipe out a Hummer to the REAR DOORS the driver had to be driving at quite a high rate of speed, and to miss a huge YELLOW object, just not paying attn. Sounds like Darwin at work

[Mark #2]

The bumpers of a H2 on dubs and a school bus line up very well, look at the rear bumper, I don't think that this was the issue, hitting a school bus at +60mph? no skid marks, look behind the left rear tire.
Darwin and cell phone is my guess.

No more laws...okay no cell phone use while driving is becoming a pet peeve of mine.

Almost ran over a civic today in the K5 while he sat through a green light talking on the cell.
Now that would have been a bumper height issue.:evil

[charlie]

The bumpers of a H2 on dubs and a school bus line up very well, look at the rear bumper, I don't think that this was the issue, hitting a school bus at +60mph? no skid marks, look behind the left rear tire.
Darwin and cell phone is my guess.

No more laws...okay no cell phone use while driving is becoming a pet peeve of mine.

Almost ran over a civic today in the K5 while he sat through a green light talking on the cell.
Now that would have been a bumper height issue.:evil


Darwin was exactly what I was thinking when I seen the pic.

Charlie

[WA 2 FST]

Tex... the picture is sad and I'm sorry someone got hurt. That's unfortunate about the Vette owner as well. But I guess I don't understand what you're proposing, but I haven't researched the issue either.

Certainly you're not saying all bumpers should be the same height are you?

As has been mentioned... that wouldn't have helped in this situation... it looks like the bumpers probably hit square anyway. Do the bumpers need to be regulated so that they are reinforced better? Quite possibly. I claim ignorance on the subject.

[L8 APEX]

That's all I got..
http://www.dejaygold.com/images/RonWhiteCantFixStupid2.jpg

[Moonshine]

Wow! According to the linked "news" article the school bus (that's bus with one "s", Charlie) collided with the SUV. Hmmm, let's see. Maybe the Hummer was stopped and the school bus was backing at high speed. :throw:

[charlie]

Wow! According to the linked "news" article the school bus (that's bus with one "s", Charlie) collided with the SUV. Hmmm, let's see. Maybe the Hummer was stopped and the school bus was backing at high speed. :throw:


LOL The spell checker passed it. I'm dyslexic, I was not going to argue with it.

Charlie

[SVTJoseCuervo]

"""One person was injured this morning when a sport utility vehicle crashed into a school bus on the Near Southside."""

bumber regulations? like....what? lol

I agree with mark on the cell phones :flaming: ...I was stopped at a red the light a few days back when this girl just complety missed the red light because she was on her cell phone and didnt eve realize she did.
Girl with cell phone behind the wheel=dangerous. :D

[03LightningRocks]

The cell phone issue just pisses me off. Nobody...and I mean not one damned person alive is so important that they have to talk on the phone while driving down the road. The latest fad is to use the cell phone for text messages. Yep that's right folks...let's all drive down the fricking highway while we send text messages to our friends. I have started making it a habit to road rage on any focker...no matter how young or old(hope it's not your teens I am focking with) who I see text messaging.

Holy Sh!t!!!! Tex sure knows how to make me mad :flaming:.

[charlie]

The cell phone issue just pisses me off. Nobody...and I mean not one damned person alive is so important that they have to talk on the phone while driving down the road. The latest fad is to use the cell phone for text messages. Yep that's right folks...let's all drive down the fricking highway while we send text messages to our friends. I have started making it a habit to road rage on any focker...no matter how young or old(hope it's not your teens I am focking with) who I see text messaging.

Holy Sh!t!!!! Tex sure knows how to make me mad :flaming:.

The cell phone thing is easy... No need to road rage. Just get the loudest frackin horn you can find and drive beside them honking till they get off the phone.... I hate to say this, but I wish some one would do this to my G/F a few times. I can't brake her of the habit.

Charlie

[03LightningRocks]

The cell phone thing is easy... No need to road rage. Just get the loudest frackin horn you can find and drive beside them honking till they get off the phone.... I hate to say this, but I wish some one would do this to my G/F a few times. I can't brake her of the habit.

Charlie

I was just talking tough because it is the internet...:D. I don't really road rage on people. I am too afraid of pissing off somebody like me...:evil.

[Moonshine]

I was just talking tough because it is the internet...:D. I don't really road rage on people.

I'm relieved to hear that. For a minute I was afraid you might try to road rage on me while I'm responding to an armed barricaded person or hostage situation and getting intel by phone while enroute.

[Mark #2]

I was just talking tough because it is the internet...:D. I don't really road rage on people. I am too afraid of pissing off somebody like me...:evil.
Pansy;)

[03LightningRocks]

I'm relieved to hear that. For a minute I was afraid you might try to road rage on me while I'm responding to an armed barricaded person or hostage situation and getting intel by phone while enroute.


That would suck, I sure would hate to cause you to have to shoot me...:cool:

[Silver_2000]

Pansy;)
LOL

+1

[03LightningRocks]

LOL

+1


Yeah...that's the ticket. Let's all gang up on Rocks. What the hell???? Tex started this stupid thread....somebody pick on him.:Bullshit




:d............;)

[Mark #2]

Yeah...that's the ticket. Let's all gang up on Rocks. What the hell???? Tex started this stupid thread....somebody pick on him.:Bullshit




:d............;)
I already posted how wrong he was on the bumper issue very early in this thread, the pansy thing you started.:evil

Now back on thread, kind of, no cell phones in cars and road rage everyone is...except Moonshine.:D
SO gets on me when I RR in the K5 on the "you can't fix stupid" drivers.

[SVTJoseCuervo]

Pansy;)


:rll:

[03LightningRocks]

I already posted how wrong he was on the bumper issue very early in this thread, the pansy thing you started.:evil

Now back on thread, kind of, no cell phones in cars and road rage everyone that does except Moonshine.:D


Works for me. Moonshine should be required to have a sign on his car. It could say........"Don't fock with me, I am on my way to a hostage situation."

[Mark #2]

:rll:
Stop picking on Rocks this was a personal jab, and I may need AC/heat jobs done.
As Rocks pointed out the original poster is the one at fault.:D

[Moonshine]

Moonshine should be required to have a sign on his car. It could say........"Don't fock with me, I am on my way to a hostage situation."

Don't I wish. Invariably, you're responding to some callout, driving, working at least one, maybe two radios, and a cell phone, and that's when some yo-yo wants to street race with you. :hammer:

[my2002lightning]

Speaking of cell phone use while driving, check this out: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/woman_is_sentenced_for_bicyclists_death

Woman is sentenced for bicyclist's death

By Mary Schenk (http://www.news-gazette.com/news/reporter/mschenk/)

Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:38 AM CST


URBANA – Jennifer Stark wiped away tears and nodded that she understood the maximum sentence a Champaign County judge gave her Wednesday for improper lane usage.


The 19-year-old Urbana woman appeared in court, flanked by her parents, to plead guilty to a petty offense and be sentenced for actions that led to the death of Matthew Wilhelm.


The 25-year-old former Champaign resident, a University of Illinois mechanical engineering graduate working for Caterpillar in Peoria, died on Sept. 8 from head injuries he received Sept. 2 when Stark hit him with her car because she was downloading ring tones to her cell phone instead of paying attention to driving. :hammer:


What a tragedy.:(

Ronald

[Tex Arcana]

Mark, Rocks, coors: I agree with y'all, it's time to regulate cell-phone usage in cars, mainly because of accidents like this, or one I just heard on Leno tonite: man in Croatia drove off the road and into a 700-ft canyon, was able to call on his cellphone for help; problem is, the accident was caused because he was talking on said cellphone and wasn't paying attention!!:hammer: I use a wireless headset, and I interrupt the conversation if I have to pay attention to my driving, and I'll hang up if I feel I need to.

AS for that accident: Mark, notice the tail of the H2, it's elevated some; also, note that the bus's butt was moved over the sidewalk, almost like the tires went flat.
Check this pic:
http://www.theindychannel.com/2006/1127/10404958.jpg

Yeah, the nose of the H2 went right under it.

http://www.pearsonbus.com/images/new_products/gallery_vision_chassis.jpg

here is a picture showing the basic chassis. Any car that has a bumper below the bus bumper is going to get ripped open from the top. The distance from the bus bumper to the differential (where the car will stop) is enough to kill the rear passengers in even a really long car.

Wes: the laws are on the books, or at least used to be until recently. Once upon a time, they actually enforced them. [:ron:]Back in '94, I rear-ended a Ford pickup in my '80 Supra: my front bumper missed his back bumper my less than half an inch, had they actually met there would've been no damage, or very minor damage, because I was doing less than 15mph; instead, my hood, radiator, condenser, and radiator support were destroyed. Oh, and I wan't on a cell phone: it was a wet, nearly-freezing day, and I slid on what was left of a cardboard box, that had been ground into a slush, and it was like I was on ice.[/:ron]

It really isn't rocket-science, people: it's a simple fix. If I had a lifted truck (why I would, I have no idea: if you see me driving a lifted truck, call the FBI, it means I've been abducted by space aliens :tex:), I'd be considerate enough to extend my bumpers down enough to minimize the problem--no, I take that back: I wouldn't hoist a truck ten stories into the sky for any reason, I can get better ground clearance in other ways. :hammer:


anyway.. thanks for the discussion, and letting me rant. I needed to vent.

[Tex Arcana]

I already posted how wrong he was on the bumper issue very early in this thread, the pansy thing you started.:evil


:hammer: If I'm so wrong, then let's get rid of ALL bumpers--I mean, they're totally useless anyhow, especially since they never actually hit each other. :hammer:

[charlie]

OK now I get it.... You had a wreck and messed up your car. OK lets pass a law. ALL bumpers must match... All must be raised to match the school bus bumper hight. Or your bumpers must match mine. (It's an inch from the ground). You see where I'm going with this? How would you even start to determine how the law should read? Who's freedom would you dispense of? Mine for wanting to be inch off of the ground? Or the massive auto industries for building the buses and semi trucks the way they do? Who do you think would loose there way of doing things if this really made it to the process of becoming law? Lets just say we would all look real funny with cars/trucks lowered with bumpers higher than the windshield.

Oh, and by the way. When your stepping on the brakes hard, the front bumper will go down and possibly go under the bumper of the other truck, even if they match.

And if this sounds a little sarcastic... Sorry. And I'm sorry you had bad luck with your car.

Charlie

[Tex Arcana]

OK now I get it.... You had a wreck and messed up your car. OK lets pass a law. ALL bumpers must match... All must be raised to match the school bus bumper hight. Or your bumpers must match mine. (It's an inch from the ground). You see where I'm going with this? How would you even start to determine how the law should read? Who's freedom would you dispense of? Mine for wanting to be inch off of the ground? Or the massive auto industries for building the buses and semi trucks the way they do? Who do you think would loose there way of doing things if this really made it to the process of becoming law? Lets just say we would all look real funny with cars/trucks lowered with bumpers higher than the windshield.

Oh, and by the way. When your stepping on the brakes hard, the front bumper will go down and possibly go under the bumper of the other truck, even if they match.

And if this sounds a little sarcastic... Sorry. And I'm sorry you had bad luck with your car.

Charlie


It's not *just* my car: it's the LIVES LOST due to major mismatches like that. I ask again: what's the cost of a person's life?

Your bumper isn't actually 1" from the ground: measure from the ground to the CENTER of the actual bumper. Once upon a time, that number was supposed to be 24"!! And if you look on the other side of the pond, they EU is enacting and enforcing new regulations that not only enforce bumper-height regulations, but also forces automakers to RAISE THE HOODS, because a significant portion of auto-pedestrian accidents over there result in death for the pedestrian. And guess what?? US makers will follow suit, if only so they can continue to sell cars over there.

There's little we can do about our trucks, or existing cars; on the other hand, existing semi-trucks and trailers CAN be made safer, existing school-buses and city buses, and even existing lifted trucks as well. And anything built tomorrow and in the future, the same way.

One of my pet peeves is the guys who put a ball hitch in their hitch reciever for no other reason than to fock up the guy behind them, if they get hit. Personally (and I almost did this), I"d rather have one of those step/bumper bars in there, at least then I might not get some Civic up my truck's butt totally wrecking the frame and axle.

[sonicbluetommy]

If I remember my Dept. of Transportation (DOT) rules correctly all trucks over a certain weight rating must have a bumper or bar at a height of no more than 18" to prevent exactly such a situation. Most buses I have seen do not have anything that low.

Guess our public school system doesn't have to comply with normal DOT regs including the use of seat belts. How can you put that many kids in a bus on some of our crazy streets and not have seat belts?!?!?!?!!?


Check this pic:
http://www.theindychannel.com/2006/1127/10404958.jpg

Yeah, the nose of the H2 went right under it.

http://www.pearsonbus.com/images/new_products/gallery_vision_chassis.jpg

here is a picture showing the basic chassis. Any car that has a bumper below the bus bumper is going to get ripped open from the top. The distance from the bus bumper to the differential (where the car will stop) is enough to kill the rear passengers in even a really long car

[L8 APEX]

I removed the low impact bar from my F250 just to spite those who are below me:evil . If I had the money I would get a 6" lift kit and run quarter inch steel armor bumpers. Survival of the fittest is alive and well:cool:

[charlie]

OK I decided. (without doing research) I'm on the side of no new law. Since there seems to be one all ready in place. And also on the side of Darwin, and using common sense when driving and not hitting Terry's truck. Cheers to all! :beer:

Charlie

[my2002lightning]

For comparison, my brother's lifted 4x4 Dodge 1/2 ton (not sure of the suspension lift) with 33"s or 35"s next to my dropped '02 L.

I've driven the Dodge to our stands off-road and through creeks and it's definitely a night-and-day difference from the L. :cool:

I catch all kinds-of-hell for the L's lack of off-roadability.:rolleyes::tongue:

Ronald


http://www.svtgalleries.net/gallery/data/500/MVC-898F.jpg


http://www.svtgalleries.net/gallery/data/500/MVC-900F.jpg

[dboat]

And if you look on the other side of the pond, they EU is enacting and enforcing new regulations that not only enforce bumper-height regulations, but also forces automakers to RAISE THE HOODS, because a significant portion of auto-pedestrian accidents over there result in death for the pedestrian. And guess what?? US makers will follow suit, if only so they can continue to sell cars over there.

Tex, I was along for the ride until you said this one.. The US is the largest auto market in the world. They (everyone other than US) change their stuff to sell here.. WE generally dont do the opposite and WE really wont change all of our stuff because of that rule.. honestly...

I understand your issue, but the reason it isnt enforced is because of what Charlie said. Frankly, with all the other expensive safety equipment in cars now, it just wont happen..

Hey, I am all for bringing back the metal dashes that we used to have on cars, drum brakes, etc.. lets get our cars back to the good ole days when hot rods were cheap... :evil

[dboat]

I removed the low impact bar from my F250 just to spite those who are below me:evil . If I had the money I would get a 6" lift kit and run quarter inch steel armor bumpers. Survival of the fittest is alive and well:cool:


:tu: :tu:

[PUMP]

OK I decided. (without doing research) I'm on the side of no new law. Since there seems to be one all ready in place. And also on the side of Darwin, and using common sense when driving and not hitting Terry's truck. Cheers to all! :beer:

Charlie
I'll take this one more step. We only need one rule, "Do not run into anything (a body is a thing) with your vehicle. IF you violate the rule, you get whacked just like the deer at the feeder"

[Tex Arcana]

Tex, I was along for the ride until you said this one.. The US is the largest auto market in the world. They (everyone other than US) change their stuff to sell here.. WE generally dont do the opposite and WE really wont change all of our stuff because of that rule.. honestly...

I understand your issue, but the reason it isnt enforced is because of what Charlie said. Frankly, with all the other expensive safety equipment in cars now, it just wont happen..

Hey, I am all for bringing back the metal dashes that we used to have on cars, drum brakes, etc.. lets get our cars back to the good ole days when hot rods were cheap... :evil

The change will come to us as well, alot of automakers (GM in particular) are already implementing pedestrian-crash-safety changes in anticipation of the US following suit.

As for the reason the bumper laws seem to be ignored, the only thing I can think of is that there hasn't been a major lawsuit against manufacturers, individuals, and insurance companies. Either that, or just not enough people have died to make the governmental juggernaut move enough to make the change. And I suspect it's a combination of the two. As soon as something comes thru akin to the old Pinto flap (where Ford decided that a human life was worth $11.80, or the cost to install a shield between the fuel tank and the bumper), things will change.

IN the meanwhile, I'll make damn sure I don't drive near TErry, and if I see him on the raod in my vicinity, I'll toss out spike strips just so he can't get near me. :tongue:

[Tex Arcana]

http://i10.tinypic.com/3zvsbhd.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/2eztu1i.jpg
http://i10.tinypic.com/2uen02e.jpg

Bumpers, crush zones, and even protective structures are totally useless when the impact happens where it's not supposed to.

[BC Lightning]

It's not *just* my car: it's the LIVES LOST due to major mismatches like that. I ask again: what's the cost of a person's life?



I say we kill all sharks for the people they have killed, there should be a restriction on sharks lives since they probably kill the same amount of people in the world as a car going under the rear end of a bus

I'm sorry but all these accidents were probably caused by someone irresponsibility to watch the road

[Tex Arcana]

I say we kill all sharks for the people they have killed, there should be a restriction on sharks lives since they probably kill the same amount of people in the world as a car going under the rear end of a bus

I'm sorry but all these accidents were probably caused by someone irresponsibility to watch the road

Apples/oranges: sharks were here first, so *we* should be killed for all the sharks we killed. :rolleyes:

Vehicles are made by humans for humans; so they should be made as reasonably safe as possible--REASONABLY.

*All*?? You know better than that. That pic of the 'vette could've been Wes, and we *all* know he's a good driver, and careful; and that it still could happen if the wrong set of circumstances came up. How many times did you come close to eating it, and it wasn't your fault?

On another forum, where this discussion started (and where I got the images), someone commented that, "Safety regulations in the US are such a joke--BMW has to re-design the seats for the new Cooper because the seat's airbag sensor location doesn't conform to the US rules. It's fine to be nit-picky about safety, but when they ignore something huge like the lack of rear bumpers on commercial trucks/buses, it's hard to take those agencies and their rules seriously." And it's true: this whole problem is so easy to fix, yet no one's doing anything about it, likely because some lobbyist for the industry is paying good money to keep such legislation from getting anywhere. Or, trading human life for money. :rolleyes:

[Chris94L]

Don't know the circumstances there with the vette, but once again, looks like Darwin like I posted about the hummer/bus. The rig is parked on the far edge of the shoulder, and the vette, well it had to be traveling at some speed and not paying attn to end up under a trailer parked on the side of the road. I stand by what I said in my first post to this thread, and agree with the pic Terry posted "Can't fix stupid"

[WA 2 FST]

*All*?? You know better than that. That pic of the 'vette could've been Wes, and we *all* know he's a good driver, and careful; and that it still could happen if the wrong set of circumstances came up. How many times did you come close to eating it, and it wasn't your fault?

And it's true: this whole problem is so easy to fix, yet no one's doing anything about it, likely because some lobbyist for the industry is paying good money to keep such legislation from getting anywhere. Or, trading human life for money. :rolleyes:

I guess I am just confused and don't see how this is "easy to fix". Do you propose all sports cars be "lifted" so that their bumpers are in-line with other heavy equipment? I thought I read where you said the Europeans have regs like you are stating we should have, but I don't see all those cars with bumpers at the same (or near) height.

Yep, that pic could have been me... if I'd been driving down the highway and not paying attention to the traffic ahead... or it is just an accident. We don't know. Accidents happen, and I'm willing to take a risk by driving a fun car (and my definition of an accident is when no one is at fault, its a true meaning of the word accident... I try explaining this to my 12 and 9yr old... if you're doing something stupid and things go wrong, that is NOT an accident:tongue: ). That's my risk to take. Let's not regulate it, please.

[mustgofaster]

I think that the biggest issue here is stupidity. Both of those accidents obviously involved a very high rate of speed.
I once got rear-ended in a Ranger by my best friend in his lifted F-350. His bumper went right over mine... not even a scratch, but there was no-where near that kind of damage & it was just a 91' Ranger. He hit me at about 25-30 MPH; a hard hit & yet after re-setting the inertia switch, I drove it home.
It is also kinda hard for me to imagine that a law could get passed mandating that everyones bumper was the same height. Say you are into 4-wheeling. The bumper height determines the approach angle your truck is capable of. So you are going to pay for 4WD & get the same approach angle avail on a Toyota Corolla?
Or say you want to lower your car/truck... Oops! Can't do it, now your bumper doesn't line up.
In the case of idiot drivers, the bumper will do no good anyway. Look at the pic with the Vette under the truck. If you look closely, you can see that the truck had a bumper, and the bumper is largely intact. From the looks of it, Id say that it got pushed up 20-25* from where it started, but it is there. That was a simple case of stupidity. The same is true for the H2. To take that thing clear back to the B pillar is not the fault of a bumper not lining up; That is driver error all the way.

[Silver_2000]

I think that the biggest issue here is stupidity. Both of those accidents obviously involved a very high rate of speed.
I once got rear-ended in a Ranger by my best friend in his lifted F-350. His bumper went right over mine... not even a scratch, but there was no-where near that kind of damage & it was just a 91' Ranger. He hit me at about 25-30 MPH; a hard hit & yet after re-setting the inertia switch, I drove it home.
It is also kinda hard for me to imagine that a law could get passed mandating that everyones bumper was the same height. Say you are into 4-wheeling. The bumper height determines the approach angle your truck is capable of. So you are going to pay for 4WD & get the same approach angle avail on a Toyota Corolla?
Or say you want to lower your car/truck... Oops! Can't do it, now your bumper doesn't line up.
In the case of idiot drivers, the bumper will do no good anyway. Look at the pic with the Vette under the truck. If you look closely, you can see that the truck had a bumper, and the bumper is largely intact. From the looks of it, Id say that it got pushed up 20-25* from where it started, but it is there. That was a simple case of stupidity. The same is true for the H2. To take that thing clear back to the B pillar is not the fault of a bumper not lining up; That is driver error all the way.

Folks that make laws dont care about details like lowering and 4x4 - the zealots want safety at any cost ..

[Mark #2]

Folks that make laws dont care about details like lowering and 4x4 - the zealots want safety at any cost ..

There are already many laws in place, did some research before lifting the K5 a few years ago.
http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/lift-laws.htm

[99bolt]

If you look at the 2nd pic of the vette you can see the safety bar. Looks to me that the vette sheared it off. All trailers like that have a safety bar that extends below the bottom of the trailer. That safety reg was passed years ago. I don't think they are made to protect stupidity.

[mustgofaster]

I just had to add a little... So they are supposed to increase the height of the hood to cut down on the mortality rate of pedstrian/auto accidents? Is that correct? So, is that supposed to keep them from going over the hood of the car? If that is correct, it just doesn't make sense to me. I would much rather go over a car, than under. I had a pedestrian run out in front of my truck back in 98', and he went under. Do you have any idea what going under a vehicle at speed does to the human body? Lets just say, it Aint pretty. Of course my truck was better off... much less damage, but the guy who went under would have been much better off had he gone over the top. Personally, I think that I would have prefered the damage to my truck over what I saw.

[tiffo60]

I just had to add a little... So they are supposed to increase the height of the hood to cut down on the mortality rate of pedstrian/auto accidents? Is that correct? So, is that supposed to keep them from going over the hood of the car? If that is correct, it just doesn't make sense to me. I would much rather go over a car, than under. I had a pedestrian run out in front of my truck back in 98', and he went under. Do you have any idea what going under a vehicle at speed does to the human body? Lets just say, it Aint pretty. Of course my truck was better off... much less damage, but the guy who went under would have been much better off had he gone over the top. Personally, I think that I would have prefered the damage to my truck over what I saw.

thats a situation i hope i never have to experience :eek:

[BC Lightning]

staying somewhat on topic, they are trying to place a ban on truckers driving in the left lane, its only temporary right now, but on 30 and 20 is being voted on in january

[Mark #2]

staying somewhat on topic, they are trying to place a ban on truckers driving in the left lane, its only temporary right now, but on 30 and 20 is being voted on in january
How progressive, the entire east coast had them banned from the left lane in the 70s, but still a great idea, just a little late in coming.

[BC Lightning]

How progressive, the entire east coast had them banned from the left lane in the 70s, but still a great idea, just a little late in coming.

Not sure on what all is in the ban, just overheard it on Channel 8 @6 news

[Tex Arcana]

I guess I am just confused and don't see how this is "easy to fix". Do you propose all sports cars be "lifted" so that their bumpers are in-line with other heavy equipment? I thought I read where you said the Europeans have regs like you are stating we should have, but I don't see all those cars with bumpers at the same (or near) height.

Yep, that pic could have been me... if I'd been driving down the highway and not paying attention to the traffic ahead... or it is just an accident. We don't know. Accidents happen, and I'm willing to take a risk by driving a fun car (and my definition of an accident is when no one is at fault, its a true meaning of the word accident... I try explaining this to my 12 and 9yr old... if you're doing something stupid and things go wrong, that is NOT an accident:tongue: ). That's my risk to take. Let's not regulate it, please.

My point with the euro regs is that they are more consistent with bumper regulations, meaning the majority of vehicles will usually make contact on the bumpers in an accident.

Would you, or do you need, to lower your 'vette any more? Probably not, you're likely as low as you can reasonably go with it. Same thing goes for our trucks: there's only so low you can go before it becomes impossible to drive them on the street. In all honesty, it's easier to lower the bumper on a lifted vehicle (or a big truck or bus) than it is to raise the bumper on a lowered vehicle, so let's try to compromise and set bumper hieghts within a certain range, where at least the majority of the vehicle's crush zones can come into play. At least that way people survive. If a lifted vehicle needs better "departure angle", then do a raisable or removable bumper. Big rigs sure don't need either of that, and even a 55mph impact on a big rig, or even lower closure speed, could result in someone eating that ridiculous excuse for a bumper they have, so they really need something better.

[Tex Arcana]

I think that the biggest issue here is stupidity. Both of those accidents obviously involved a very high rate of speed.
I once got rear-ended in a Ranger by my best friend in his lifted F-350. His bumper went right over mine... not even a scratch, but there was no-where near that kind of damage & it was just a 91' Ranger. He hit me at about 25-30 MPH; a hard hit & yet after re-setting the inertia switch, I drove it home.
It is also kinda hard for me to imagine that a law could get passed mandating that everyones bumper was the same height. Say you are into 4-wheeling. The bumper height determines the approach angle your truck is capable of. So you are going to pay for 4WD & get the same approach angle avail on a Toyota Corolla?
Or say you want to lower your car/truck... Oops! Can't do it, now your bumper doesn't line up.
In the case of idiot drivers, the bumper will do no good anyway. Look at the pic with the Vette under the truck. If you look closely, you can see that the truck had a bumper, and the bumper is largely intact. From the looks of it, Id say that it got pushed up 20-25* from where it started, but it is there. That was a simple case of stupidity. The same is true for the H2. To take that thing clear back to the B pillar is not the fault of a bumper not lining up; That is driver error all the way.

That so-called "bumper" isn't really a bumper, it's there for them to back into a dock with--it's a total joke. It's definitely not low enough to catch the crush zone of 95% of the vehicles out there, and if you look closely at the pics, it's bent well past 25deg, not to mention the lower part of it never hit the 'vette's bumper to begin with. Had the trailer had a proper energy-absorbing bumper system, at the right height, chances are that vette driver could have walked away.

[Mark #2]

That so-called "bumper" isn't really a bumper, it's there for them to back into a dock with--it's a total joke. It's definitely not low enough to catch the crush zone of 95% of the vehicles out there, and if you look closely at the pics, it's bent well past 25deg, not to mention the lower part of it never hit the 'vette's bumper to begin with. Had the trailer had a proper energy-absorbing bumper system, at the right height, chances are that vette driver could have walked away.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

We salute the improvement of the human genome
by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it...
ensuring that the next generation is one idiot smarter.

I disagree with the helmet laws too, even though a helmet, luck, fate, Karma, God...pick your belief saved me...you can't legislate fixing stupid.

[mustgofaster]

That so-called "bumper" isn't really a bumper, it's there for them to back into a dock with--it's a total joke. It's definitely not low enough to catch the crush zone of 95% of the vehicles out there, and if you look closely at the pics, it's bent well past 25deg, not to mention the lower part of it never hit the 'vette's bumper to begin with. Had the trailer had a proper energy-absorbing bumper system, at the right height, chances are that vette driver could have walked away.

That bumper is NOT there for backing into loading docks. The loading docks are the height of the frame. That bumper is there because the Law requires it to keep cars from submarining below the trailer. This is the exact thing you are concerned about isn't it?
The fact that the bumper on the back of that trailer is bent so badly shows the force of the accident. It shows that no bumper would have saved this idiot.

I just looked up the regulation for you.

Here ya go... Directly from TX DOT:


Rear End Protection (393.86)
Every CMV must be equipped with either bumpers or other devices that prevent the under ride of another
vehicle. Tractors, pole trailers, and drive-away/tow-away vehicles are exempt. Certain trailers manufactured
on or after January 26, 1998 must have rear impact guards that meet FMVSS Nos. 223 & 224.
See Texas Exception -Adm. Rule 4.12 (b) (1).


This is a national standard. The rear bumper is not for loading docks, it is for anti-sub protection. It is also part of the daily inspection that CDL drivers are suppsed to check everytime they get behind the wheel. The only exemptions are for overweight & oversize exemptions, which must be accompanied by a chase vehicle anyway.

I also measured the degree that the bumper was bent & I got 24* Feel free to double check, I may be off by a degree or two, you never know.


Again, I stress that the vette ran under the truck from EXCESSIVE SPEED.

[Tex Arcana]

That bumper is NOT there for backing into loading docks. The loading docks are the height of the frame. That bumper is there because the Law requires it to keep cars from submarining below the trailer. This is the exact thing you are concerned about isn't it?
The fact that the bumper on the back of that trailer is bent so badly shows the force of the accident. It shows that no bumper would have saved this idiot.

I just looked up the regulation for you.

Here ya go... Directly from TX DOT:


Rear End Protection (393.86)
Every CMV must be equipped with either bumpers or other devices that prevent the under ride of another
vehicle. Tractors, pole trailers, and drive-away/tow-away vehicles are exempt. Certain trailers manufactured
on or after January 26, 1998 must have rear impact guards that meet FMVSS Nos. 223 & 224.
See Texas Exception -Adm. Rule 4.12 (b) (1).


This is a national standard. The rear bumper is not for loading docks, it is for anti-sub protection. It is also part of the daily inspection that CDL drivers are suppsed to check everytime they get behind the wheel. The only exemptions are for overweight & oversize exemptions, which must be accompanied by a chase vehicle anyway.

I also measured the degree that the bumper was bent & I got 24* Feel free to double check, I may be off by a degree or two, you never know.


Again, I stress that the vette ran under the truck from EXCESSIVE SPEED.

I stand corrected about the "bumperette". However, if you can't see that it's nothing more than a farce of a safety device, then there's no point in going further on this discussion. :(

We were driving to Denton today on 380, and a dumbass tractor-trailer pulled out in front of us from a side road, and pulled all the way over into our lane (right one). He was doing about 30, and we were doing about 60. For a moment there, we were directly behond him, before MOnica moved to the left lane (bitching all the way, I might add)--and that "bumper", if we had actually impacted it, would have hit about halfway up the hood on the Pacifica. :hammer:

Damned stupid, if you ask me.

Y'all can sit here preaching "darwinism" all day long... but the *second* it happens to one of you or your friends or family, your tunes will change in an instant.

[charlie]

Y'all can sit here preaching "darwinism" all day long... but the *second* it happens to one of you or your friends or family, your tunes will change in an instant.

LOL .... nope. A friend of mine was telling me he hit a Semi, and how it was his fault. In his RED 93 Lightning no less! After laughing for a min. And calling him D/A. I never once thought about changing the laws. ( Yes we are freinds, he was laughing too).


Sorry man I do not believe in making the majority suffer, or change because of the few. And it does not matter if the "few", are just retards, or mistakes that where made by a few people.
But if you believe it's nessary to change things. Thats cool with me. :beer:

Charlie