Recent SUV 5 mph crash tests (Pacifica ranked poorly)

Yes, you said forces of physics, same difference. I've never heard of such a concept - there are forces and there is physics, but never heard that physics had a force.

OK, now explain how the "forces" of physics make it such that a bumper that can withstand better a 5 MPH impact is now unable to also better withstand a 35 MPH impact. You say the "forces" of physics preclude both being accomplished simultaneously. I think that's a bunch of baloney, but I'm open to a sound physics based argument.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting
Loading thread data ...

The real roblem with bumpers anyway is not whether they can be designed better or worse at such-and-such a speed. The problem is that there's apparently no uniform bumper height requirement. As a result you get collisions such as I had a week ago where I rear-ended a Chevy truck going at about 3 Mph with my Datsun 210, doing no damage whatsoever to the truck and completely destroying my grill, both fenders, headlights, etc. because the bottom of the truck bumper was fully an inch above the TOP of my bumper.

Now granted I was happy since I didn't have to have a fat claim put against my insurance, and the car I was driving was basically worth about $500 anyway. However, clearly it would have been better if it had been a bumper-to-bumper bump, rather than a bumper-to-plastic gingerbread bump.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

If I were you I would not post the facts of such an incident for the whole world to see. Before you posted it there was no record of it. Now there is.

Reply to
Art Begun

Yeah, my wife's LH car has had about 4 rear bumper replacements (3 times someone hit it while parked in a parking lot, and once a Crown Victoria taxi rear-ended us because th cabbie was gawking at an accident and became one himself). Its been close to $1000 EVERY time that stinking thing has to be repaired because the plastic cover always cracks and the new one then has to be painted and installed. Interestingly, it appeared the LEAST damaged when the Crown Vic nailed us at 15 mph or so. All the 2-3 mph parking lot incidents were with the other cars' bumper corners, trailer hitches, or other things that made a point-impact and really tore up the plastic. The Crown Vic was right out of a crash-test... full bumper-to-bumper contact with no lateral motion. My conclusion is that modern body-color plastic-over-foam over steel-beam bumpers do great in staged collisions, but cost a frickin' fortune to repair for any sort of real-world damage.

I'd give anything to have shock-mounted chromed 5 mph bumpers like an old '74 Dart that used to be in the family. Those things were truly

5-mph bumpers that could survive real-world low-speed contact without any damage, cosmetic or otherwise. And besides, chrome looks 100 times better than painted plastic.
Reply to
Steve

Hogwash. The old-style steel bumpers mounted on TRUE shock-absorbing struts (circa 1974-early 80s, most American cars) could absorb a LOT more joules of energy than any cheesy 2-inch thick chunk of styrofoam, AND they could survive low-speed impacts without any visible damage. They were better all-around.

Reply to
Steve

Tell me about it - I hit a 35 pound dog going 55 mph (uh - my car - not the dog). $1500 due to the fascia, etc. The dog however was totalled.

I'm on my third front fascia (counting the factory one). First time did $4500 at 5 mph (full disclosure: right wheels drifted into a concrete lined ditch, and a chain link fence scratched the paint on the right upper doors and right side of the roof, fence post took out left front fender).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

Dude, it's a crime to fail to file an accident report in the state that I live in if damage to either vehicle is over $1000, or if there's ANY medical claims at ALL. Furthermore my insurance company will not cover me in the event the other driver files a claim if I do not file an accident report. So of course that accident is a matter of public record and can be looked up by anyone with too much time on their hands and a willingness to go to the state capital in Salem.

All I can say is that if you think that it's such a good idea to try to hide accidents, you better give your insurance agent a call and get your head straightened out. One of these days your going to get yourself into what you think is a "minor" fender-bender, fail to report it, then a month later find yourself staring at a $50,000 civil lawsuit on a trumped- up medical claim, with 3 witnesses of the accident to serve as backup, and your insurance company pointing to the fine print of your policy that you violated and that requires you to report accidents if you don't want them to deny coverage.

In Oregon, insurance companies are not allowed to count non-chargable accidents against you (ie: ones that they did not pay out on a claim) no matter who is at fault, nor are they allowed to count accidents against you in which you were determined to not be at fault. You can have 2 dozen accidents in a year's time on your record, as long as none of them are your fault, your premium is the same as someone with a completely clean record.

The ONLY thing you want to avoid in these minor fender-benders is having a police officer show up at the scene, because they invariably write a ticket. Thus, it's crucial to get your information exchanged with the other driver ASAP, and it's crucial to drive your vehicle out of the vicinity, even if pieces of it are hanging off scraping the ground and the radiator is belching water. Once both drivers are out of the accident scene, the police cannot do anything.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Certainly your insurance company always has to be informed of an accident otherwise they could deny coverage. However they are unlikely to ask for details unless there is a claim. Without a claim, all they will note is that they have been given notice of an accident, in my experience. Also at least in the 2 states I've had accidents in, if only the negligent party's car is damaged, the police may not even bother with a formal report though indeed he may give a ticket. In my current state, if you are given a ticket for an accident and the other party is made whole the charges will probably be dropped.

Reply to
Art Begun

Well when you are in dramatic collisions, bumper height is probably not very important. I have unfortunately been involved in a couple of chain collisions. In both cases I was in the middle of the chain (nothing like having a Pontiac push your Jensen-Healey into another car). When the cars involved in a collision are on the brakes, the cars in the line adopt a nose down, tail up stance, which means that even if the bumpers all started out at the same height, they didn't stay that way during the collision. Unless you want to design very tall bumpers (and heavy) bumpers, it is unlikely that you can avoid under running bumpers in many collisions.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

rather the

And they were, in most cases, hideous looking.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Well in my area (Raleigh, NC), the Police almost never write ticket at an accident scene, even when there is clear evidence of fault (unless there a significant injuries). The last time I was in an accident, I was rear ended by a Tempo. My vehicle was undamaged (unfortunately his wasn't). The Police officer arrived and interviewed both of us. She filled out an accident report and gave me a case number. She told the person that rammed me that he was at fault and financially responsible for the damage to my vehicle (which was negligible). She did not write him a ticket. This was somewhat different than when I was the person in fault in another similar accident quite a few years before. When I was the one at fault, I was given a ticket (for failure to avoid collision with a vehicle then stopped in the roadway). However, when the officer gave me the ticket, he told me that if I went to court and provided evidence that my insurance had covered the other parties damage, the ticket would be dropped. THis is exactly what happened.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

I suppose, but they were ugly (of course I thought the whole car was ugly, so I suppose they were not out of character). The battering ram bumpers on my '75 Datsun 280Z were terrific if you were planning on knocking down fences. However they were complicated, heavy, unattractive, and Datsun raised the car to put them at a useful height. I far preferred the original, if weak, Datsun 240Z bumpers. Maybe I am lucky, ut I have only ever had to replace two bumpers, and since the collision where they were damaged (front and rear) occurred at more than

5 mph, I doubt that 5 mph bumpers would have done anything except raise my repair costs.

Ed

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Correct.

Some states do not centralize accident reporting, in those states the local city/county whatever has jurisdiction and maintains the accident reports. Not so in Oregon, by state law the state DMV runs it. However, despite that, many local police departments in Oregon do in fact maintain independent accident reporting databases (Beaverton is one, for example, while Portland is not) that are used by the city for rating road hazard abatement projects, and by the local police for determining patrol patterns. While there is no law compelling a motorist to report to the locals, if your unlucky enough to be caught in Oregon by the local cops in an accident in a jurisdiction that maintains independent reports, they will insist you waste your time filling out duplicate paperwork with them, before you leave the scene. It's just another great example of how our local government likes to spend money keeping people employed sorting data that the state already does.

The one exception to this is if the traffic accident is a felony - ie: hit and run, etc. In that case, all police departments will take reports. But in those cases, those reports are filed with the general criminal reports of the department.

Your lucky. Oregon courts never drop charges for moving voilations if the cop shows up, no matter what the circumstances, and if the internal paperwork is followed properly. The judge may reduce the fine to a paltry amount but that is it. And all the police departments have pretty much standing orders to the officers that they attend all court trials for any moving voilation. Most tickets in fact do not go to trial because the local courts make you jump through endless hoops in order to go before a judge. After all, liability insurance is mandatory here, they automatically assume in all accidents that the other party is going to be made whole, you don't get any points for that in the eyes of the court.

The only _legal_ ways in Oregon to get a ticket dismissed is to jump through the hoops (which means a minimum of 3 separate personal appearances at the courthouse before they even schedule a trial) and have either the officer not show up, or show an improper paperwork procedure has been done (such as the poilice department rescheduling the appearance more than 2 times in a row, which is not allowed) Officers generally don't show on equipment problems (cracked headlight, expired tags, etc.) but the court will fine you unless you show up with evidence the problem has been corrected, in which case the ticket will remain on your record but the fine will be suspended. For speeding type tickets, stop sign violation tickets, etc. if in the rare event the cop does not show, as long as you have pled innocent all along, and you swear out that you wern't speeding (or whatever) then the courts will drop those. But they really do try their utmost to avoid having to drop tickets.

Out here, the challenge to the driver is to avoid getting the ticket in the first place, once you get one, the system is setup to milk you for everything they can get. On the plus side, though, the state does not ban radar detectors. (although if a cop sees one in your car if they pull you over for speeding, they will tack 15-20Mph on your speed as punishment)

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Your state must not mandate motor vehicle insurance coverage. I always wondered how the states that don't mandate it "encourage" people to have it.

In Oregon, they mandate motor vehicle insurance and the court could not give a crap that your insurance covers the other party, if you get a ticket, your going to pay regardless.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Quite true, but in dramatic collisions the bumper is going to be toasted anyhow. Bumpers exist for one reason - to prevent minor bumps from turning into $2000 repair expenditures. If they can't do that, because of positioning or crap design, there's really no point in having them at all.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

I'd gladly take hideous-looking bumpers on my car anyday to avoid the effort and time needed to piece back together the front end.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

North Carolina requires all drivers / vehicles to have liability coverage.

In North Carolina you pay if you are at fault whether you get a ticket or not. I think this is the better system.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

And as far as I'm concerned, modern cars don't have them anymore. And haven't had them for years.

Reply to
Steve

Opinions vary. Some were poorly-implemented monstrosities, but ANY chrome bumper is way better looking than body-color painted plastic.

Reply to
Steve

shock-absorbing

styrofoam,

damage.

Maybe when new but I remember plenty of ugly rusty chrome bumpers.

Reply to
Art Begun

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.