OT: Who is responsible for an accident caused by someone driving a hired car?

In this case, I was parked there already and the van squeezed in in front of me.

In that case, it's entirely the van driver's fault. I don't blame the van manufacturer's at all. Just as the van driver needs to be aware that a large van is bigger and more difficult to judge (particularly on LWB vans) the length of, they should be equally aware of anything sticking out of it, and know to compensate for it.

Peter

It's bad enough that the heights of bumpers on cars aren't standardised, but when you have a loading platform that can be used as a rear bumper...

Why should things be standardised? Is it really too much to expect drivers to accept that no two cars are the same, and that they will have to adjust for different height bumpers, different length cars, etc etc. ?? It really is a fairly basic thing to expect drivers to adjust from one vehicle to another.

Peter

It all depends whether you think bumpers should be used/useful for bumping or not, I suppose.

I've always gone with the school of thought that using your brain and eyes in some sort of combination is a better idea.

Peter

Depends. You can do so but since that's third party cover only then they tend to want an enourmous deposit off your CC.

Everything I've ever hired has been fully comp on thier provided insurance.

Ah, you don't live in London, do you?

No, but for about a year I drove in and out of London 2 or 3 times a day.

I still think using one's brain and eyes is a far better idea than complaining that not all cars have bumpers in exactly the same place. Can't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Peter

Yes, but vehicles *are* different, accidents *do* happen, damage *does* occur, and if it's significant, an insurance claim will need to be made in any case. That's life. Far better to try and tackle the root cause of the problem, rather than try and standardise absolutely everything so as to minimise damage when it does inevitably occur.

Peter

I see we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.

What, in your view, is the purpose of bumpers on cars?

They absorb impacts, up to a certain degree. If the driver of a car backs into a post, then up to a certain speed, the bumper would take the impact and that's hopefully all that'll need replacing on the car. They're not there to help people park.

If a bumper gets damaged then the owner has every right to expect the person who caused the damage to pay for it, either out of their own pocket or via their insurance company. If a light knock from one car to another results in no damage occuring (a lot of modern bumpers 'pop out' to a degree) then so much the better, and both drivers can count themselves lucky.

But with the variety of different sized vehicles on the road today, to suggest that the height of bumpers should be somehow standardised is absolutely ludicrous.

Peter

To use your own words, drivers should use their brains and eyes instead of backing into posts.

They're there to minimise the damage when parking does result in a bumper-to-bumper impact. Assuming the bumper heights are compatible.

Normal parking, which may or may not result in physical contact between adjacent cars, wouldn't normally result in any damage.

I wouldn't expect a 12-ton lorry to have bumpers at the same level as a Mini, but what's the frigging big problem with passenger cars having similar (not necessarily identical) bumper heights?

They're different heights as well, there's no point in me driving around in something tall enough my mother can drive.

Yes, true. But ITYF I also accepted that accidents happen. When they do, bumpers, in a lot of low-speed cases, prevent the need for any reshaping of metal to be done, and the only repair needed is a simple bumper replacement

• spraying.

Yes, and due to the huge varieties of vehicles on the roads, do you really think this is realistic?

Well, something not resulting in physical contact should certainly not result any damage. Where parking is regularly involving physical contact to the extent that it's considered 'normal', we have to seriously question the driver testing system in this country.

Passenger cars are different heights too. Compare a Ford Galaxy to a Ka. Maybe the bumpers are similar in height. But where did this discussion originate? Here's our Graham with a quick reminder:

So make up your mind what on earth you're blithering on about. Your initial problem was the fact that loading platforms aren't the same height as car bumpers, meaning they can potentially wreck the bonnet. Most car bumpers are of a fairly similar size, but it's vans (and larger vehicles) that you had a problem with, wasn't it?

Peter

OK, fair enough.

For passenger cars, it's not totally infeasible. It would be enough to specify that bumpers should not be entirely above or below a height of so many cm above ground level. This would allow quite a lot of flexibility in design.

Of course. Duh.

More often than not, it's just the reality involved in too many cars chasing too few parking spaces: when someone tries to squeeze into a space only marginally greater than their car, physical contact is unavoidable.

While most car bumpers may be of a fairly similar size, there are discrepancies in their heights above ground level.

The problem I have with vans whose loading platforms stick out beyond their rear bumpers is a separate one. And it only involves these vans being driven by thickos who have no experience with large vehicles and parking in high density residential areas

The message from Reilly contains these words:

Though these days they seem more cosmetic.

The message from Reilly contains these words:

Actually - most bumpers are similar enough in height to ensure they hit bumpers rather than something else on the other car.