| Author | Message | ||
     John Abrams (Jabra2) New Member Username: Jabra2 Post Number: 26 Registered: 02-2003 |
Hey guys and gals, A buddy of mine was just involved in an accident with his '94 Disco tonight. He has 3" springs, BFG MT's, and a Safari Gard front bumper with skid plate. A Ford Taurus backed out of a driveway around a blind corner at night as my friend was approaching, and before my buddy could stop or swerve to avoid it, he ran into the back of the car. Because of the monster approach angle, his Disco's right tire actually smashed into and ran over the car's trunk, and through the rear glass, protruding into the back seat. The Disco proceeded to roll over onto its drivers side. This part is where you should have small children leave the room. The owner of the Taurus had a large Golden Retriever in the back seat, and it ended up dying hours later from its injuries. The family and kids saw the whole damn thing happen from outside their house. Miraculously, no one else was severely injured. My friend, although physically unhurt, is horrified and depressed about the whole situation, as am I. He's a helluva great guy, and to see how torn up he is about this has me pretty torn up too. He now faces some severe legal action and lawsuits because his vehicle was in clear violation of state law about vehicle bumper height according to a state trooper present on scene. The local news went totally nuts with this story, basically portraying my friend, his Disco, all Land Rovers, and anyone with a lifted truck or Jeep as evil. I just wanted to share this story with those of you who have or are thinking about using an aftermarket bumper/lift for your truck. It really made me think about mine...I have an ARB bumper that I THINK is legal but I'll check on it when I get back in town just in case. It can't be over 22" from the ground in Georgia according to the officer. As horrible as the dog's death was, just imagine if the guy's kids were in the back seat of that thing. I'm still shaking thinking about this...it makes me literally sick to my stomach that what I thought were relatively benign toys are potential death machines. Just out of curiosity, how high is everyone's front bumper off the ground, those of you with stock and aftermarket bumpers and suspensions? I have OME HD springs up front, with an ARB non-airbag bumper and Warn HS9500...anyone with a similar setup know (I'll be out of town for a week and can't measure this myself right now)? I realize every state may have different laws, but I strongly urge you to check them before it's too late. I really don't want to hear about a little kid dying because a Disco owner felt like he needed the baddest looking bar or best approach angle. If my bar is illegal, I may just end up selling it or even my whole rig...this whole thing has me seriously ill. I kinda always wanted to just build up a Jeep CJ rock crawler and just trailer it to a trail with something more comfortable and daily livable than a Rover anyways. Eh, I'll just try to sleep on it tonight. | ||
| Tom Fioretti (Tom_in_md) New Member Username: Tom_in_md Post Number: 14 Registered: 02-2003 |
Horrible story. I read that the number of dreaded "SUVs" involved in accidents, resulting in fatalities, is proportionally small. This compared to the numbers of SUVs in the general population of vehicles involved in such accidents. It does make sense that my improved approach angle and 2" lift would contribute to the vehicles abillity to run over another in a crash. I also own an assault rifle, so I guess I'm evil squared.  | ||
| Kimball Shahrokhi (Nc_mog) New Member Username: Nc_mog Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2003 |
That is a rough story. While not a LR owner yet, my offroad vehicle had a tremendous bumper height (approx. 38+ in) with a large PTO winch past that. While legal, it would do a number on any vehicle it hit. To put it in prospective though, large trucks experience the same discrepancy when hitting cars. A dump truck loaded with gravel would have done more damage. Good luck to your friend. | ||
| Peter J Blatt (Peteb) Member Username: Peteb Post Number: 102 Registered: 10-2002 |
how about an empty dump truck, or the trash truck? I'm not sure of my bumper height, rovertym slim blade, but here in PA the bumper height is 30" or lower, that's a big differance from GA, so i wouldn't get rid of my rig because of this. Peter But as a dog owner, i do feel bad. | ||
| Dean Brown (Deanbrown3d) Senior Member Username: Deanbrown3d Post Number: 552 Registered: 02-2002 |
Don't you have a hard time in the inspection if you're illegal? | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 90 Registered: 11-2002 |
This is something that I have brought up in the past. You will see more and more of this. On the road you are the minority and most view those sexy bumpers as simply weapons... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| John Cinquegrana (Johnc) Senior Member Username: Johnc Post Number: 382 Registered: 07-2002 |
Horrible story. Two years ago a member of our Jeep club (yes Jeep!) was driving a rented Taurus on the Long Island Expressway. He had an Expedition but it was in the shop at the time. He pulled over to the shoulder to answer a phone call (as required by law)... while stopped and on the phone a NY Newsday truck driver was coming back from delivering papers in NYC and fell asleep at the wheel. The truck swirved onto the shoulder and ran over the driver side of the Taurus. Willie was killed instantly. He was in his mid 20s and a great guy.... Maybe we should ban trucks from the roads.... | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 91 Registered: 11-2002 |
Or Ban little cars..  Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Carter Simcoe (Carter) Senior Member Username: Carter Post Number: 2047 Registered: 04-2002 |
I think a lot of this problem goes back to the fact that with the exception of some of the larger comercial vehicles one drivers license lets you drive to many cars and trucks. Some prissy 16 year old girl can go to the DMV, barely pass the driving test in mommie's Miata, go home get the keys from daddy to her new Excursion and then go out and crush everything in sight. People should have to pass a driving test that specifically qualifies them to drive the size of vehcile they will be driving. On top of all this we should have REAL driving tests. Put these two in place and I bet we would see a lot less soccer moms in Suburbans, Expeditions, and (hopefully) even Discos. | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1102 Registered: 02-2002 |
First off, my wife is an insurance adjuster. As a result, I take such things more seriously than others as I get to see more crashed car pictures and hear the stories more than anyone should. I won't even get into the issue of buy-here-pay-here lots and the results. Back to the issue at hand, I just came in from the parking lot and yard at the plant. My Disco, with Rover Tym 2" springs and 235/85/16 tires has a bumper height of 22.5 inches. As a result of my investigations that led me to buy the particular springs I have on my truck, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that my truck weighs approximately 4500 pounds at commuting weight. In comparison, the Volvo tractor in the yard/dock has a minimum bumper height of 25.25 inches and a legal weight of around 80,000 pounds. I can calculate the difference in kinetic energy, but won't waste the time as it should be self-evident that a truck which weighs nearly 18 times as much will have 18 times the kinetic energy. Referring back to my physics, the damage done by the heavier vehicle will be far worse, yet we see no regulatory activity aimed at lowering bumper heights of these trucks. My mother owned a trucking company and was in business for nearly 20 years before one of her drivers was killed in a truck crash, yet there were many, many funerals that my family was forced to attend of drivers who were hit by mother's drivers and where she was found to be at fault. This is nothing but a bunch of BS intended to make us look like evildoers while the true dangers continue on their business with fewer restrictions (in some cases) and far greater consequences. FWIW-I had been concerned about the height of my Hellas at 45 inches from the ground, until I just measured the height of semi-truck headlights and found them to be at 48.5 inches above the ground. Peace, Paul | ||
| TPH (Snowman) Senior Member Username: Snowman Post Number: 298 Registered: 12-2002 |
Do drivers education courses now include SUV's in the program? S- | ||
| thom mathie (Muskyman) Senior Member Username: Muskyman Post Number: 192 Registered: 11-2002 |
accidents happen thats why they are called accidents i am a dog lover,Patriot,taxpayer, and all that other shit that makes people feel good sorry to sound harsh but shit happens get over it. had it been a a new corvette the vette may have gone under the taurus and the rear tire may have killed the driver of the vette. I once drove off the side of a off ramp to avoid being run over by a semi truck, the woman in the honda in front of me was killed when it hit and drove over her. Should I feel bad because I didnt absorb the force that latter killed her? accidents happen and as hard as you try to plan for them a new set of circumstances pops up. | ||
| Greg Davis (Gregdavis) Senior Member Username: Gregdavis Post Number: 709 Registered: 08-2002 |
So someone backs out into oncoming traffic, gets hit, and sues the guy that had no reaction time. Gotta love our legal system, and the sympathetic jurors that will award millions.  | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 92 Registered: 11-2002 |
Well the argument is somewhat a valid one. Doesnt mean I like it. Just means that there is some validity to it. If both cars absorb the same amount of impact. Both cars will be hurt less. The same goes for the occupants. Not to mention the rigid weapons that we have sticking off the front of the bumpers for recovery and blah blah blah.... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Tom V (Cozmo) Member Username: Cozmo Post Number: 117 Registered: 09-2002 |
Thats it, don't ban cars SUVs or trucks. Ban roads, yes thats the obvious common link between the vast majority of accidents. Roads kill people!!!! Ban roads now!!! | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1104 Registered: 02-2002 |
Kyle: Not to antagonize you, but how can this be a valid argument when we have to worry about being hit by things like trains? Unless there is a completely level playing field, no one can justify criminalizing one vehicle (or class) while a far greater risk is posed by others? We cannot afford to not have trucks hauling products just as we cannot afford to have completely safe cars (economics 101). I could make my factory completely safe and non-polluting, but nobody could afford to buy the mirrors we make for these dangerous cars. I'd hate to think what would happen if someone were to hit a new T-bird with a Disco! What about motorcycles? We pay our dime and roll the dice. Peace, Paul | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 93 Registered: 11-2002 |
Because Paul , we have modified the vehicle and made it into what it was. Had we not don that then you know without a doubt that the damage to the other car would be less... Its really pretty clear cut. Trains and Tractor& trailers are a necissary evil , but they are on stock form. We went out of our way to create something that would do as much damage. Not hard to get your mind around really. Again , I am not saying that I like it. Just saying that the legal argument will be valid and some asses are going to get a little sore over it.... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 260 Registered: 08-2002 |
Terrible story, but it is not the fault of the truck. It was driving appropriate for conditions and vehicle that would have avoided the accident. Selling you truck might be worse than keeping it in its current state no (maybe an completely irresponsible driver buys it)? If you buy into some of your ideas wouldn't you be just as liable if you sold it to someone else? I think the message here is not necessarily only that these lifts and equipment are dangerous (that is the a given no?). The message is you better be a very cautious and defensive driver if you are driving a modified rig on road. Leave more distance, drive slow, and avoid accidents at all costs. Not once have I thought that the mods are benign, nor should we. Hundreds of pounds of 1/4" steel and lifts are never benign. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 138 Registered: 02-2003 |
paul, would you have an issue with some one driving around with giant 3ft long spikes sticking out of their front bumper? after all it is there car and this is america, we should be able to do what we like to our trucks... it's in the constitution after all, right under that seperation of church and state paragraph. rd | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 94 Registered: 11-2002 |
Well that opens the other door. Not hard to prove that the mods that we have done cause our trucks to handle and stop , pretty poorly. Its all elementary when someone starts looking real hard. And all these things are things you did yourself. The reality is that most people cant drive. I aint just talking about the people in the cars , I am including who ever might be reading this that drives a Disco in that statement. Thats not a big secret , its common knowledge. Therefore its nice to be able to avoid these people that we are forced to live and interact with everyday when they do something stupid. The reality is that in stock form these trucks handle decently and you can avoid some things if you had to quickly. Put a 3" lift on and some big tires and that is out the window... Now how hard do you think it will be for lawyers to start winning those cases based on that ? Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Carter Simcoe (Carter) Senior Member Username: Carter Post Number: 2050 Registered: 04-2002 |
I'm with Rob and Kyle, you modified the truck knowing full well the negative consequences it might have in an accident so like it or not some lawyer is going to hang you up to dry, I don't like it but thats how the shit goes down. What is going to be interesting to see when the shit hits the fan (and it will eventually -I believe it allready has in Germany actually) is the roll bumper manufactures are determined to play. An issue in the gun world comes to mind w/ the full auto conversion kits where they give you bolt and a piece of metal and you decide to make a full auto w/ it and you semi. Are bumper manufactures going to be seen as supplying pieces of steel we decide to put on our bumpers or are they selling us 'deadly weapons'???? | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1105 Registered: 02-2002 |
Kyle: Thank you for your response and not taking it personally. As I did not modify my vehicle to intentionally do greater harm, it is difficult to place blame solely on me as I intended no harm. Also, doesn't Land Rover make heavier bumpers and taller springs? If we use these factory parts are we still in the same boat? I find it curious that we can be held potentially responsible for modifying our vehicles yet these modifications do not exceed the conditions found on other factory vehicles. Hell, if you want, can't you order a D-90 with a factory winch? Just think how much more weight is added to a vehicle with a Keonig on the front! As for the argument of the three foot long obstruction, it is irrelevant and silly:-). The same argumaent could be made over snow plows! As for regulations of bumpers, in the UK, it is unlawful to make a bumper with a brush bar-I tried to get a terrain master and was informed they can't make them for this reason. A very curious e-mail conversation ensued. It seems as though some of the folks inthe UK are about ready to dump some tea into Liverpool Harbor, but Liverpool tea party just doesn't sound as good. | ||
| Milan (Milan) Member Username: Milan Post Number: 159 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'm with Musky and Paul T. on this one. While sad, it was just an accident. Why can't people accept that? Should have, would have could have...well the driver of the Taurus, should have, could have looked better when backing out on the street, the disco driver could have gone slower.... Had a yung punk on a motorbike (and yes I ride bikes myself) blow by trafic at lights in left lane, I was pulling out from a curb in to the right lane. He panics, lays it down, his skidding bike hits my heep. Whose fault do you think the cop made it? Luckily the guy was in full leathers, all he had was a brused arm. I called the cops, bought him lunch and after that took his bike to my mechanic. This was in 98, last year I find out he sued my insurance for $25000 claiming injury and got them. I'm paying through the nose for what should have been no fault or his fault. He said he was doing 15-20mi/hr, yet the skid mark of him braking before the bike went down was 7m long (digonal almost accross 2 lanes). Should we ban speeding bikes or idiots like me pulling away from the curb? I should have waited few seconds. P.S. Paul, snow plows is what I thought of too but I guess we'll hear that we need snow plows but we don't need winches. | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 512 Registered: 09-2002 |
A case could be made that the driver of the smaller vehicle had just as much responsibility and oportunity to "beef" up his little geo metro to withstand the inpact from a larger vehicle but we all know that will not happen. Even if a guy stays within all the vehicle modification laws when it comes down to it a modified vehicle will be blamed for a death. But the reality is that the small vehicle knows the odds that he will be crushed just as a large vehicle knows the odd that they will be doing the crushing (at leaste they should). People need to take personal responsibility for the situations and risk that they put them selves in. Of course I am preaching to the coir here. BTW....I don't think it is a good idea to throw 3ft spikes on the front of the truck. But on the rear...that might be ok. | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1106 Registered: 02-2002 |
Brian: I have a friend who is putting Dixon-Bates towing jaws fore and aft for Detroit traffic! | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2032 Registered: 02-2002 |
I'm still shaking thinking about this...it makes me literally sick to my stomach that what I thought were relatively benign toys are potential death machines. A 5,000 lb hunk of metal with a V8 is a benign toy? Even the smallest little convertable sports car is a "death machine." Haven't you ever seen an accident scene before? They can get a new dog; thankfully your friend wasn't hurt when the car backed out into his path, and thankfully the car driver wasn't hurt either. Your friend has just as much of a lawsuit as the taurus driver...he better get on the ball and exercise his "right" to sue if that's the direction this ACCIDENT will go. What people seem to forget (or, more appropriately, what some people never learn in the first place) is that a modified truck is, by definition, no longer stock. All these guys hauling ass around town at 90 mph on 3"+ springs are jackasses. (or how about 5" springs, talk about overkill) | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 95 Registered: 11-2002 |
I hear everyones arguments and agree with most. However , I am just calling it like I see it. You can choose to see the reality in that or keep ignoring it and get bit in the ass. Bumper makers will be cleared by the statement , "For highway use only". The fact is that it wasnt a snow plow on the truck. Thats where the lawyer will go. He will talk about the instance at hand and did the owner of the SUV contribute to the extent of the damages. Everyone knows here that this is fact. Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Brian J. Rohan (Rover_wannabe) Member Username: Rover_wannabe Post Number: 74 Registered: 09-2002 |
What it all really boils down to in my opinion is this: Take out the laws, lawyers, "system" etc., and we get down to what matters in real life. If I had the choice of being a person in a small vehicle, or the one in a bigger truck which would I choose? The bigger truck. Let the lawyers sue me, let people get pissed at me, but at least I am alive to be sued and get yelled at. At least I will still be alive to fight the people that don't take responsibility for their actions (backing around a blind corner at night). It all comes down to basic survival. I'm a human, and an American and I'll use my freedom to do what I choose. If someone else doesn't make the right choice, don't take it out on me! | ||
| Mike Rupp (Mike_rupp) Member Username: Mike_rupp Post Number: 160 Registered: 02-2002 |
Kyle: I have to respectfully disagree with your comment "Bumper makers will be cleared by the statement , "For highway use only". ". The basic concept of negligence law is that as a member of society, one has the responsibility of behaving in a manner that avoids unreasonable risks to others. If it is reasonably forseeable that a manufacturer of bumpers would know that a customer would use the bumper for on road use, he might be found to be negligent as well as the driver of the vehicle. Just look at the recent tobacco lawsuits; warnings all over the place don't mean a thing in the eyes of the courts. I don't agree with these points. I'm just bringing them up for purposes of the discussion. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2033 Registered: 02-2002 |
and the guy who supplied the steel to the bumper maker is liable...and the guy who mined the ore and sold it to the guy who supplies the steel to the bumper maker is liable...and the woman who gave birth to the guy who mined the ore and sold it to the guy who supplies the steel to the bumper maker is liable...this is the house that Jack built. thanks litigious liberal America | ||
| Mike Rupp (Mike_rupp) Member Username: Mike_rupp Post Number: 161 Registered: 02-2002 |
Blue, Like I said, I don't agree with what I posted. I'm just bringing them up because as a business person, you have to know what you might be dealing with as far as the law is concerned. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2036 Registered: 02-2002 |
I know, I caught that in your post, Mike...wasn't directed at you. Someone who sells something (i.e. Kyle & his KVT bumpers) makes statements such as "Not intended for on-road use, check your applicable laws, void where prohibited by law, your parents put it together, not all will qualify, on approved credit, etc." to protect themselves from exactly what you brought up, Mike. Of course it's not 100% protection since any asshole can sue anyone they want for any reason. That's the world we live in now. But, what is someone who manufactures, supplies, produces, or otherwise sells something supposed to do? Abort, sit idle, and collect welfare? You do what you gotta do... Now me, I just carry a shitload of insurance | ||
| Tom Fioretti (Tom_in_md) New Member Username: Tom_in_md Post Number: 15 Registered: 02-2003 |
Unfortunate accident, we all agree. We should focus on personal responsibility rather than finding the "deeper pocket". It's more likely than not, that our mods have diminished the ability of our vehicles to respond to certain conditions. Understanding this gives us a greater responsibility to handle them appropriately. But beware: This responsibility quickly translates to liability. A well informed Lawyer will find a way to make YOU pay for this awareness. I'm not happy about it, it's just how I see it. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 390 Registered: 07-2002 |
Maybe we should all pay a special SUV insurance... I think most mods are OK for the car to a certain extent. i.e. If you carry 7 people in your SE7 you would expect to have a longer stopping distance than if you had only 5 people in it. Does that mean you are somehow more evil for having a seven passenger car, no matter how big it is? If you hit someone with an ARB bumper you can expect to do more damage to them than if you hit them under the same circumstances with a stock bumper. In the end though, it is all about the person actually getting in the car, turning the key, and choosing to drive. A friend of mine ran over a guy who jay-walked in front of him, then turned around after safely crossing the street and dove into traffic to catch an orange he had dropped in the street. Didn't kill him, but the guy could have been just as dead whether my friend was driving a Miata or a Discovery. http://landrover.mrbaileyshistory.net | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 96 Registered: 11-2002 |
Its certainly not the end all be all. But its somewhat like the gun makers. They sell something and have no clue as to what you are going to do with it. Now installs , thats another thing entirely. If you were to design it , make it and then install it on a truck that you knew damn well came there on the highway then you kind of just brought yourself into it. I think the makers of aftermarket stuff will indeed get hammered before its all said and done. Its the world full of weenies that we live in today that dictates this.... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1108 Registered: 02-2002 |
Kyle: Again, not to antagonize you... (man, you'd think you have a rep for flaming folks or something) Is Rover Solutions incorporated, and do you have the what is now obligatory (with finger in corner of mouth) one million dollars insurance? When I started BTL Engineering, Inc. I originally intended to have all of my designs certified by a PE to try to fend off some of the liability. In discussions with one of my lawyers, I was told in no uncertain terms that there is absolutlely nothing I can do to protect myself from liabilty regardless of the circumstances, other than to incorporate and carry lots of insurance. Fortunately, I can get (again, finger in corner of mouth) one million dollars of garage-keepers insurance for about $750/year. It's cheap peace of mind knowing I won't lose my house if a client hurts themselves after I fix their truck. I'm also covered if somebody steals a truck from my driveway. Who wins in all of this? Lawyers and insurance companies. Peace, Paul | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 97 Registered: 11-2002 |
Paul , the only way to protect yourself is to not own anything . Its the best policy.... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1109 Registered: 02-2002 |
But how would my insurance agent's kids go to private schools if it weren't for entrepreneurs like you and me? I won't even discuss the Lawyers... Peace, Paul | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2044 Registered: 02-2002 |
Lawyers don't educate their young...they eat them. | ||
| Andrew Clarke (Aclarke) Senior Member Username: Aclarke Post Number: 304 Registered: 10-2002 |
Does anybody know what the bumper law is in California? My stock bumper with the air dam removed, with 2" OME HD springs and 235/85 tires measures approximately 20" to the factory tie-down hook and about 23" to the bottom of the metal part of the bumper. Would the useless plastic airdam keep the bumper legal? It would be interesting to see if something as simple as that would make all of our "illegal" bumpers suddenly legal. How much of the bumper has to be below the magic number? Would a bumper/frame mounted skid plate count? It seems that maybe some sort of easily removable (swing-away?) metal bar could be retrofitted to most aftermarket bumpers to create the "blocker beam" effect made infamous by the Excursion. It would be one way for the rest of us to learn from and avoid John Abram's friend's unfortunate fate. | ||
| Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) New Member Username: Norm Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2003 |
I have a hard time calling these things "accidents." Call them wrecks or crashes. An "accident" is when you slip in the bathroom -- there's nothing "accidental" about some stupid asshole in a Taurus who doesn't have the sense to look and then backs out in front of you and gets squashed. Suddenly you're at fault for driving a "militaristic" "aggressive" SUV -- BULLSHIT!!! According to the statistics I've read, something like 30% of all "accidents" are "caused" by alcohol. Well, what about the other 70%? Those wrecks are caused by gross stupidity on the part of one or more drivers. That means that when alcohol is figured in, 99.999% of all accidents are caused by stupidity, leaving a miniscule number of "freak accidents." Are they ever going to eliminate the driving stupid? Hell no!! Our automotive industry (and a good chunk of our economy) along with the news media, advertising, the trial lawyers lobby and the Democratic party depend too much on stupid people crashing their cars (and voting and sitting on juries). On a positive note, it's a form of natural selection, although it's truly tragic when one of the driving stupid manage to take out one of the 10-15% of the population that has any brains at all. That's why I drive a Disco and a SAAB, and try to drive defensively at all times -- to protect myself from the 85% of the population behind the wheel who have total shit for brains. Come to think of it, maybe we should all be driving tanks instead of Discos (with functional cannons and machine guns). Anyway, I hope your buddy takes the offensive and hires a lawyer to sue the shit out of this stupid fuck in the Taurus for mental anguish, bodily injury, etc., etc., etc. Unfortunately, you've got to fight fire with fire in this world of ambulance chasers and people who don't have enough character to take responsibility for their own stupidity -- taking the "high road" will only get you screwed. ---Norm | ||
| Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht) Member Username: Markalbrecht Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2002 |
Aclarke: I think that CA has no specific bumper height law (you are, however, required to have one front and rear). Vehicle lift limitations are imposed through frame height and head/tail light height limitation laws. Vehicle Code (VC) 24008.5(b) limits frame height on passenger cars at 23 inches; vehicles with a GVWR between 4501# and 7500# have a max. frame height limit of 30 inches. Frame height is to be measured from the lowest point of the frame to the ground at the lowest point between the axles while the vehicle is "unladen" -- VC 24008.5(d)(3). Also the floor of the vehicle may only be 5 inches off the frame -- VC 24008.5(c). Only appplicable if you have a body lift. BTW front bumpers may only extend 2 feet from the front of the vehcile -- VC 35408. For those with huge winch bumpers. Light height limitations are found in: 1) VC 24400 -- headlights must be between 22 and 54 inches from the ground; and 2) VC 24600(f) --tail lights must be between 15 and 72 inches from the ground. The light height is measured from the level ground to the middle of the light on an unloaded vehicle -- VC 24254. The disclaimer (since we're talking about lawsuits): the above is only applicable to CA; even in CA local laws or ordinances may alter the application of the above; please do not rely on the above information -- you have the duty to determine the regulations applicable to your own vehicle; the above information may be out of date, incorrect, or incomplete. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 142 Registered: 02-2003 |
the national highway something or other officially changed the term from car "accident" to "crash" a few years ago. though there are things as accidents in my opintion. and norm i hope he doesn't "sue the shit out of this stupid fuck" it just propetuates the problem. not to mention makes my rates go up. rd | ||
| Matt (Doc175) Member Username: Doc175 Post Number: 115 Registered: 11-2002 |
Sound to me as though the driver of the car should have been more carefull. At night with headlights it should not have been an issue for someone paying attention | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 99 Registered: 11-2002 |
I am some what amazed and kind of expectant of some of these responses at the same time. This is the issue of which I speak. Why are there air bags ? Why are there crumple zones ? Why do millions go into crash testing ? Why are there guard rails ? BECAUSE PEOPLE DO DUMB SHIT !!!! God damn ! You are an idiot if you see it any other way. The better you are at defensive driving the more your chances rise as far as avoiding these people fumbleing through life. WHen you happento cross paths with them its nice to be able to avoid them. The problem is that being an idiot is the norm and what is expected. Lawyers make millions because we have so many idiots. Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Jaime (Blueboy) Senior Member Username: Blueboy Post Number: 579 Registered: 02-2002 |
and if this starts catching on, insurance companies will have a field day with it. the rates will sky rocket or be non-existant for a modified vehicle. kinda like the 60s with muscle cars. can see it now - the RR will end up being registered as a farm vehicle. Jaime | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 101 Registered: 11-2002 |
Exactly Jaime , thats the reality of it all... The rest of that shit is just a dream world... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 511 Registered: 09-2002 |
did i miss one thing here? why did the wheel go over the fucking taurus? it had to be turning in order to get up and over it. if the wheel was locked and skidding, the disco would hit the damn car hard, but not climb on it! and this brings two things... driver's reaction and ABS. peter | ||
| Ron Brown (Ron) Member Username: Ron Post Number: 132 Registered: 04-2001 |
I would say the design of the truck did exactly what it was supposed to. I bet that 94 disco is in a LOT better shape than it would have been if it had been stock. I am truly saddened that the poor dog did not make it, but the dog died because the owner pulled out into traffic (a violation for which he should have been ticketed) not because of the lifted truck. I know that if my vehicle gets tagged puppy is going flying and she probably won't fair as well as a human passenger in a seat with a belt. You think the dog would have made it if the stock disco plowed into the back of the ford POS. Part of the reason I have a big bumper on the front of my wife's truck is to transfer the impact to the other guy and minimize damage to the truck (no collision). I PA I am certainly legal and I am sure in GA you could argue you are legal too. So go get a better lawyer than the next guy. Ron | ||
| Land Rover Certified Used A**hole (Jason) Senior Member Username: Jason Post Number: 353 Registered: 04-2002 |
Sorry Pete, unless you have done accident reconstruction, there are a lot more factors which could have contributed to the Disco climbing the car...Tarus backing out and blind corner suggests assymetrical impact which can easily explain what occurred. The folks I work with have worked some weird cases...a speeding motorcycle t-boning a speeding Volvo causing the Volvo to roll twice being the weirdest thing I've heard. | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1115 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jason: For whom do you work, Failure Analysis Associates? Paul | ||
| Usoff Tsao (Usoff_tsao) New Member Username: Usoff_tsao Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2003 |
hmm..... I guess in the same way it's like people who modify their cars to produce 100 more hp than stock so they could go hit people faster (speed makes up for mass in the momentum = velocity x mass equation). So people who add in aftermarket performance acessories are just as evil as people who put an aftermarket bumper on their trucks? Yet... I think there's a lot more people in sports cars speeding and killing people but if it was a modified sports car that killed the dog in this case... I don't think there would've been much mention of it in the news. The whole evil truck kills dog thing's just used as smoke screen for the anti-SUV crowds and the driver at fault who backed out onto a major road without checking for traffic. | ||
| Brian J. Rohan (Rover_wannabe) Member Username: Rover_wannabe Post Number: 75 Registered: 09-2002 |
amen brother | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 95 Registered: 08-2002 |
So who is at fault if a lowrider ricer pulls out in front of my lifted Disco with aftermarket bumper? | ||
| Carter Simcoe (Carter) Senior Member Username: Carter Post Number: 2062 Registered: 04-2002 |
LOL there you go Christopher | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2055 Registered: 02-2002 |
Christopher, that's called a speedbump | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 51 Registered: 02-2003 |
I am very sorry to hear about your friend. I am glad that he is okay. It is sad that the dog was killed. unfortunately, most people think about there rights rather than doing the right thing. The owner of the taurus should face the fact that they screwed up, be thankful no human was hurt and go love your family, knowing that your mistake could've cost them their mom and spouse. 0.02 | ||
| John Abrams (Jabra2) New Member Username: Jabra2 Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2003 |
As an avid car enthusiast with a stable of American Muscle, I'm going to have to defend those who mod cars for more horsepower. Apples to oranges here. Although I may have a 900 hp SBC in my car, it doesn't mean that I drive like a maniac on the road. I'm not continuously giving it full throttle, and I obey all laws almost all of the time. With my Disco though, I'm ALWAYS putting someone in more danger than I would have if I kept it stock, but the 900 hp in my car isn't putting anyone or anything in danger because its presence remains unknown almost all the time (except for the track). Could be a weak 350 hp stock SBC, nobody would know any better. There's no actively controlling the height of a Disco like you can with an engine's power output via the throttle. It's obvious that 900 hp in the wrong hands is dangerous, but a stock Yugo can be even more lethal in the hands of a thrill-seeker with no sense. As far as my friend is concerned, the guy in the Taurus has agreed to drop all charges if my friend agrees to drop all charges. I think the Taurus guy finally realized that he's more at fault than my friend after cooling down about his dog, because he's the idiot who backed up wrecklessly into the road in the first place. The cops were being real dicks that night and scared the piss out of my friend, and I'm sure that if it was truly his fault the whole illegal lift thing would've screwed him severely. Weird, weird situation to say the very least. Ya'll take care and be careful out there...and keep your pup dogs safe too. -J | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 528 Registered: 09-2002 |
John, are you saying that you (do or would) drive your Disco in exactly the same manner after installing lift, humongous roof rack with 100lb of stuff on it, big meats, etc.? peter | ||
| Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) New Member Username: Norm Post Number: 22 Registered: 02-2003 |
I wonder what this dick head in the Taurus, the idiot cops, the news media, etc. would use for an excuse if said dick head backed out without looking only to have his entire family (and dog) crushed by a "stock" garbage truck (22" bumpers and all) making its appointed rounds? I look at it this way, your buddy was at risk of life, limb and property because of the actions of some fool who hasn't got enough sense to look before he backs out into the street. Have your friend consult a "good' attorney before he signs anything, especially regarding the state's statutes on comparitive negligence and review the state regs on this 22" bumper BS. Your buddy may well have a good case against this idiot and should at least be paid for the damage to his Disco, any injuries, emotional trauma, etc., etc. In litigation, you've got to fight fire with fire. ---Norm | ||
| Steve Hinton (Steve_h) New Member Username: Steve_h Post Number: 15 Registered: 02-2003 |
Well for what its worth (probably not very much) here is my opinion on this issue. My primary concern when traveling in a vehicle is my family and myself. If that means driving a big SUV so be it. I will not skimp on the safety of my family and myself for the sake of I MIGHT hurt some one who pulls out in front of me. I will continue to drive the safest legal vehicle I can afford. Peter has a good point, once you modify a vehicle you have to modify your driving style to compensate. | ||
| Luis Constantin (Luis512) New Member Username: Luis512 Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2003 |
I'm not an attorney. But, your friend has a 94 Disco. It may be worth looking at what the current vehicular laws were in 1994. If a 94 Disco is within the legal limits based on 1994 laws, try to grandfather the vehicle, and some of the liability may be arguable. | ||
| Ozzie Silvera (Ozzie) Member Username: Ozzie Post Number: 47 Registered: 11-2002 |
If My 93 RRC wasn't lifted and I did not have a rear Bull Bar, and a Recovery Shackle in My Hitch receiver. I and my wife might have been hurt the 2 times we were standing still in traffic and a 99 Toyota Camry, and then a few months later a 98 Honda Civic Totalled themselves in My rear end without even a scratch on My trucks rear. Both times Airbags were deployed in the other vehicles, drivers were OK. The time the toyota was totalled I was looking at the new lettering on the cop car next to me while the cop was looking at the sand ladders on my truck and SLAM! went my truck, the cop got out, said "Thank God you have this truck worked up" and told me if we were ok to get on with our business while he wrote the lady a few tickets. I guess it's all ok if people crash into us but not if we crash into them. When they crash into us usually the insurance companies don't have to pay us nearly as much as they pay the folks who do the crashing since we don't sustain as much damage. Oh Well, I also think about the H2, what's the Bumper height on that? I know the rear bumper and front seem higher than 23". I guess My upcoming Body lift won't affect my Bumpers so I'm good there. Drive safe everyone! Ozzie | ||
| Bill K (Bill_k) Member Username: Bill_k Post Number: 153 Registered: 08-2002 |
After reading all your comments, all I can say is that the guy with the disco was at fault. My wife is a lawyer, and told me that once you modify something from its staock form, whatever happens is your fault (with respect to the damage). The guy in the disco could have had beefed up, non-stock brakes ONLY, and a slick lawyer would have said that his NON STANDARD braking system caused him to break too late. And he would win. On a similar note, a lawyer once told me that if an intruder comes into the house, dont ever use reloaded ammunition to shoot the guy. Sure, you can shoot the guy with factory made ammo that may be 10X more deadly than your own, but in court, a slick lawyer will say you had made that ammo for purposes of maiming and killin. Sounds funny, huh. It sure does, but it'll stick in court. | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1146 Registered: 02-2002 |
Bill: I wonder how your wife can claim that someone who backs into traffic and causes grievous bodily injury can not be found to be guilty, in the absence of malice on the part of the real victim, the Rover driver. No, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one at work. My wife is an insurance adjuster. Not only will she cover a modified truck, if you have the receipts, she will pay for some of the cost of those parts you put on the truck. Her liability adjusters would most certainly apply the liabilty to the driver who was backing out into the path of another vehicle be it a dump truck, garbage truck, horse and buggy, or a modified dico I really don't give a %$^&, the guy backed out into traffic. I feel worse for the poor puppy dog. The last was dictated to me by the wife over the phone! What if it had been a school bus he had backed out into the path of? (her question) Would we be holding the school bus driver responsible for the injuries incurred by the kiddies? | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 106 Registered: 08-2002 |
Well what if it was a custom chopper? Like the type Jesse James makes. Nothing "stock", totally custom. Who is at fault then? The idiot, or the other than stock chopper owner? How about this. Is the garage that gave it the OK at inspection time at fault? I'm not sure, but I'm going to take pictures next time I get my inspection done. Just to prove I passed inspection with the aftermarket stuff and mods. -Chris | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 107 Registered: 08-2002 |
Here is what Massachusetts says: (11) Bumpers, Fenders, External Sheet Metal and Fuel Tank. A Certificate of Rejection shall be issued if any of the following conditions are evident: (a) Bumpers. Broken or bent bumpers, fenders, exterior sheet metal or moldings, having sharp edges or abnormal protrusions extending beyond normal vehicle extremities so as to constitute a danger to pedestrians and other motor vehicle traffic. If bumper face plates are removed, bumper brackets must also be removed. The vehicle hood, door(s), luggage compartment lid, and battery or engine compartment doors or lids, if so equipped, must be capable of being firmly latched. (b) Fenders. Front and rear fenders must be in place. Every passenger motor vehicle which is equipped with tires which extend beyond the fenders or body of such vehicle shall be equipped with flaps or suitable guards to reduce such spray or splash to the rear and side. (c) Floor Pans. Holes or cracks, due to rust or otherwise, in the floor pans or other body panels which would permit the passage of exhaust gases into the passenger or trunk compartments. (d) Fuel Tanks. Fuel tanks which are not securely attached to the vehicles body or chassis, or that are leaking. (12) Altered Vehicle Heights. The original manufacturers specified height of motor vehicles with an original manufacturers gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall not be altered by elevating or lowering the chassis or body by more than two inches, except that 4-wheel drive motor vehicles with a original manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less may be altered in accordance with the provisions of 540 CMR 6.00. The Registrar may periodically provide approved altered vehicle height specifications for said 4-wheel drive vehicles. Any motor vehicle altered, modified, or changed beyond the afore-mentioned two inches, or the Registrar's approved altered height specifications, shall be rejected. I am looking for "540 CMR 6.00" to find out what it says. -Chris | ||
| Art Vigil (Colorover) Member Username: Colorover Post Number: 56 Registered: 02-2003 |
http://www.newengland-offroad.com/documents/cmr6.rtf "540 CMR 6.00" | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 108 Registered: 08-2002 |
Ok... Here it is: 540 CMR: REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES 540 CMR 6.00: ALTERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEIGHT Section 6.01: Purpose 6.02: Scope and Applicability 6.03: Definitions 6.04: General Requirements 6.05: Maximum Combined Mechanical and Tire Lift 6.06: Violations 6.01: Purpose (1) The purpose of 540 CMR 6.00 is to provide rules and regulations for altering the height of four wheel drive motor vehicles by elevating or lowering the chassis or body more than two inches above or below the original manufacturer's height. 6.02: Scope and Applicability (1) 540 CMR 6.00 is adopted by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the authority of M.G.L. c.90 s. 31 and pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c.90, s 7P to regulate alterations to the height of four wheel drive vehicles with an original manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of not over 10,000 operated on any way as defined in M.G.L. c. 90, s. 1. 6.03: Definitions Four Wheel Drive Motor Vehicles: Any vehicle that is capable of providing torque to all four wheels. Mechanical Lift: Modification to the chassis, suspension or body by any means exclusive of tires, rims, and load, affecting the height of four wheel drive motor vehicles. Original Equipment: Any items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires, which are installed in or on a motor vehicle, or available by option for the particular vehicle from the original manufacturer at the time of its delivery to the first purchaser. Original Manufacturer: Any person engaged in the manufacture or assembly of motor vehicles for delivery to the first purchaser. Original Manufacturer's Height: The highest distance inclusive of the largest tires and highest suspension available as standard or optional equipment for the particular vehicle from the original manufacturer. The distance shall be measured between the lowest edge of the center line of the operator's door, or to the lowest point where the door would meet the body on vehicles without doors, or to the lowest point on the floor panel directly below the operator's position on vehicles designed without doors, and the level surface on which the unladen vehicle rests, as determined by the Registrar. Reconstructed Motor Vehicle: Any four wheel drive motor vehicle constructed or ass3embled principally with used parts or components. Wheel Base: The shortest distance between the center of the front and rear axles. Wheel Track: The shortest distance between the centers of the tire treads on the same axle. On vehicles having different axle widths, the measurement shall be made on the widest one. 6.04: General Requirements (1) No motor vehicle shall be altered or modified in any way that may cause the vehicle body or chassis to come in contact with the roadway, expose the fuel tank to damage from collision, or cause the tires to come in contact with the body, chassis, or steering components under normal operation. The horizontal plane, front to rear, shall not differ more than two inches. (2) Alterations or modifications to the original braking, steering, or suspension system, which result in the impairment of the safe operation of the motor vehicle, are prohibited. All replacement parts and equipment used shall be designed and capable to perform the function or purpose for which it is intended and shall be equal or greater in strength and durability than the original parts provided by the original manufacturer. (3) The wheel track may be increased by the use of tires and rims for a maximum total increase of four inches beyond the original manufacturer's specification. The use of spacers to increase the wheel track is prohibited. Fractions shall be excluded in all measurements and final calculations. 6.05 Maximum Combined Mechanical and Tire Lift (1) The maximum mechanical lift for four wheel drive motor vehicles shall be calculated by multiplying the wheel base times the wheel track, and dividing the product by a safety factor of 2200: i.e., 92" w/b x 58" w/t = 5336/2200 = 2" (maximum mechanical lift). The outside diameter of the largest tire size available from the original manufacturer as standard or optional equipment for the particular motor vehicle may also be increased up to an amount equal to the maximum mechanical lift calculated. (2) The maximum combined mechanical and tire lift shall be no greater than the sum of the maximum mechanical lift and increased tire size calculated for the particular vehicle. (3) Reconstructed motor vehicles shall be limited to the maximum combined lift allowed for the particular chassis used, in accordance with the applicable provisions of 540 CMR 6.05 (1) and (2), i.e. a vehicle having a 65" track, 105" wheel base, and an original manufacturer's door height of 21" is allowed a maximum combined lift of four inches above the original manufacturer's door height. Accordingly, the lower edge of the door, door edge line or floor panel, as stipulated in the general requirements of 540 CMR 6.00, of any unladen body mounted on such chassis may not exceed 25" above the level surface upon which the vehicle rests. (4) In doubtful cases, or in any case where the original manufacturer's specified height is not known or available, or where a motor vehicle is assembled without using a particular body and/or chassis (i.e. homemade), the Registrar shall determine the allowable maximum height and may issue a permit authorizing the operation thereof. (5) The Registrar shall periodically provide the specifications of the approved maximum altered heights. 6.06: Violations (1) Due to the slight variances in production tolerances, violations must be in excess of one inch beyond the Registrar's specifications of approved maximum altered heights. (2) The Registrar, in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 90, s22, shall suspend the registration of any motor vehicle equipped, altered or modified in violation of 540 CMR 6.00, and shall refuse to register any motor vehicle that the Registrar has reason to believe is equipped, altered or modified in violation of 540 CMR 6.00. REGULATORY AUTHORITY | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 109 Registered: 08-2002 |
Ooops, Art beat me to it. -Chris | ||
| Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht) Member Username: Markalbrecht Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2002 |
If the accident was in MA, it looks like your buddy may be in the clear depending on tire size. The DI wheel base is 100" and since I'm uncertain of the track width I used width -- 70.6" (I also ran the numbers with 68" a guesstimate on track width which yields essentially the same result). Looks like the lift can be 3" plus an increased tire size of 3" diameter (1.5" radius) over stock. My math brain is slow so someone probably has already beaten me to the punch. | ||
| M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Senior Member Username: Lrover94 Post Number: 708 Registered: 02-2002 |
If this has been said forgive me but the damn arguement is boring, sorry for the lab sorry for the lady in the ford who had her head up her ass, sorry for dude whose 94 bit the dust, but as it has been, not so obivously pointed out, that if the butterfly does land on the flower in the Amazon and cause a tree to fall on your neighbors car, thus causing him or her to have a massive heart attack which causes him to fall onto the edge of a rake, which in turns makes a rock fly thru the air and into your bedroom where it strikes your gun safe causing it to open and thus spilling your unloaded handgun onto a pile of live ammo striking a primer of one lone round, launching a bullet out your door and across two school yards where it ends up in a drug dealer's forehead killing him or her dead, you can bet there will be somebody sueing your ass over the bumper on your Disco. mike w | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 111 Registered: 11-2002 |
And what will all of the people i this thread say when their insurance company raises the rates of certain vehicles and denys insurance to modified ones? lol You going to make those same arguments ? You think they will work ? Again , a dream world.. Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht) Member Username: Markalbrecht Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2002 |
At the risk of offending Mr. Watson, the initial post did make reference to Georgia. A quick look at: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/htdig/search.htm indicates that: 1) the vehicle frame maybe only altered two inches up or down from factory recommended heights -- GC 40-8-6; 2) for a vehicle of GVW less than 4500# the lowest point of the frame must be within 27" of the ground -- GC 40-8-6.1(b); 3) for a vehicle w/ a GVW between 4501# and 7500# the frame may be within 30" of the ground -- GC 40-8-6.1(c); 4) it is a crime (misdemeanor) to operate a vehicle on any street that has been altered in excess of the criteria in GC 40-8-6.1 -- GC 40-8-6.1(d); 5) head/tail light height limits at GC 40-8-22 and GC 40-8-23. Previously mentioned disclaimers apply -- quick look at statutes only, not exhaustive, other laws may apply, check yourself or consult an attorney to be sure. | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 112 Registered: 11-2002 |
LOL , , , thats all I got to say,,,,L O fucking L Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Steve Biggs (Steve) New Member Username: Steve Post Number: 26 Registered: 02-2003 |
Kyle. You got any heavy steel bumpers you want to sell for cheep? With the way most people drive, I whant my dog and family rapped in as much heavy steel as possible. And in the likley event of an accident I would rather be doing the running over than being run over and my kids or dog being killed. And if someone takes me to court at least I still have my family. The disco can always be rebuilt! So sell your bumpers buy a taurus and look both ways when backing out of you driveway, better yet, LOOK TWICE! And the rest of us will miss you while we're having one of those times $$$ can't buy in the mountains with our friends and family. Oh yea, and the dog too! Peace. Steve | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 270 Registered: 08-2002 |
None of this would really matter if there was no accident. The accident was the fault of either the driver of the disco or the taurus, not anything else (not arguing who is at fault, just pointing out the obvious). Not either vehicle caused this accident, it was the driver. Media love to get a spin on anything that they can and will glorify anything in the interest of selling their propoganda. Either the disco failed to avoid the accident (likely the outcome) or the Taurus pulled in front of the Taurus (hard to prove). Each and every time you get behind the wheel of your vehicle you are controlling a deadly weapon. The taurus is like a 9mm, stock disco .357 and disco with "benign toys" like lifts and steel bumpers is a .50 cal. Drive with care, drive slow, defensive and avoid accidents. An accident with a modified disco will never be pretty, so avoid them at all costs. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 168 Registered: 02-2003 |
steve, that sort of logic can be extrapolated into "i shot him cause he looked at me funny and i thought he might harm my family" again, why not weld 3 ft spikes out of the side of your car? it's your car you can do what you want, who cares what happens to the other people. this very selfish additude, you will get nothing done in a democracy if you arent willing to compromise. people see these giant brush gards and bumpers as dangerous as the 3ft spikes i speak of. try and convince me that the 3ft spikes are safe or try and convince them the bumpers are safe. rd | ||
| Marty Koning (Rover) New Member Username: Rover Post Number: 8 Registered: 02-2003 |
To get in on this late We must not keep calling this an accident. This was completely avoidable and hence fits the new term used. A CRASH. A mistake was made. The tauras driver should be happy she didn't back out in front of a larger truck or an emergency vehicle. | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 117 Registered: 11-2002 |
ok , well lets put it this way. What if one of your family members was in a 5 MPH accident and was killed because something on the vehicle that hit it was sticking out and penetrated the car. How would you feel about that ? Lets say it was you guys fault... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Marty Koning (Rover) New Member Username: Rover Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2003 |
How does a trailer hitch with a receiver fit into the equation? My receiver hitch protrudes over a foot from the bumper. Am I at fault if somebody rear ends me? Oh wait.. that receiver has saved my bumper a few times. I guess it stays put... | ||
| Steve Biggs (Steve) New Member Username: Steve Post Number: 28 Registered: 02-2003 |
Rob, you got any bumpers for sale? Like I said, sell your disco or leave it stock. The rest of us will be enjoying a high mountain lake somewhere with are friends and family. And your damb right about the part where I shot him first cuz I thought he was going to harm my family. It's called self defense. Hey, that's how I'm going to look at my heavy steel bumpers, "self defense", thanks Rob. Steve | ||
| Jason T. Barker (Speedminded) Member Username: Speedminded Post Number: 97 Registered: 10-2002 |
For those of us that live in Georgia here is the official code: "...(b) It shall be unlawful to alter the suspension system of any truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,500 pounds or less, which may be operated on any public street or highway, so as to exceed 27 inches as measured from the surface of the street to the lowest point on the frame of the truck. (c) It shall be unlawful to alter the suspension system of any truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of not less than 4,501 pounds and not more than 7,500 pounds, which may be operated on any public street or highway, so as to exceed 30 inches as measured from the surface of the street to the lowest point on the frame of the truck." ...Code 40-8-6.1 http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/gacode/40-8-6.1.html AND.... "(a) It shall be unlawful to alter the suspension system of any private passenger motor vehicle which may be operated on any public street or highway more than two inches above or below the factory recommendation for any such vehicle. (b) It shall be unlawful to operate any private passenger motor vehicle upon any highway, roadway, or street if the suspension system of such vehicle has been altered more than two inches above or below the factory recommendation for such vehicle. (c) It shall be unlawful to operate any motor vehicle upon any highway, roadway, or street if the springs relative to the suspension system are broken. (d) Any person violating this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." ...Code 40-8-6 http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/gacode/40-8-6.html I have not found anything on a required height for bumpers in GA but if there is a requirement does that mean the actual steel underneath all the plastic, the shock absorbers for the bumper, or just the bottom of the plastic covering the bumper??? | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 271 Registered: 08-2002 |
Rob, Easy... the bumpers are 100% safe if you always drive appropriate for your vehicle and thus never crash it against another vehicle. Its the drivers fault, not the vehicles. Brian | ||
| Charlie Fok (Verboy) New Member Username: Verboy Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2003 |
The crash mentioned MAY NOT cause the death of the dog. Its death was most likely caused by the lifted truck running over it. The truck was not likely to run over the dog (or the car) if it wasn't lifted. So, it is not about the cause of the crash, but the cause of the dog's death. The direct link is the lifted truck (illegally). The driver of the truck may have the legal base to sue the dog owner for THE CRASH itself and may win that case, but still be responsible for the death of the dog. Regarding the product liabilities arguement (if the bumper designer is liable), provided that the bumper/lift kit/tire are legal product with proper labeling, in this case, I believe the bumper designer is not liable because the truck owner mis-use the bumper. Example: (real court case) a person did not read the owner's manual for a electric drill and did not hold the drill properly (ie, one hand on the handle and the other of the "barrel" part). He injuried himself in an accident when he use a sanding disc on the drill, holding it on one hand. He sued the manufacturer of the sanding disc and lost his case because he "mis-use" the drill. I have learnt this from my product liabilities study in engineering school. | ||
| Charlie Fok (Verboy) New Member Username: Verboy Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2003 |
Here is another interesting case that I had the opportunity to work on. This case happened in NH (real case where my professor was the expert witness for the victims). Please excuse my English. (what can I say, I was an engineer) The case happened in the early '90s, I was involved in the calculation of the speed of the van and the force implied. So, I can't remember 100%. Chevy Astro van traveled on wet country road. While at a turn, it skidded and slide side way. Right front door joint hit a tree and the van rotated. Passengers (It was 4 in the back and 1 front) shot out to the back of the van with the force so high that they knocked the door open and shot out (something like 10-30ft). Their positions resembled a spread out pattern. I don't remember exactly but I believe it was 2 deaths and very serious injury for the rest, except for the driver who was the only one stayed in the car. Anyhow, the victims (teens) sued the company that modified the truck (and I believe Chevy also) for negligence for the design of the passenger seat and the hook that tie the seat to the floor. Our study showed that the car was a little over speed limit (van was traveling at about 40-45mph based on the spread and distance of the victims), which was not significant. Our calculation also showed that the design of the seat and the hook reached the standard set by NHTSA. HOWEVER, the standard was so low that if a car traveling at a very low speed (can't remember exactly, but it is something like 10mph or 20mph), the back seats will be flatten and the hook will not hold the seat in place. Designer of the seat and hook knew it (presumed, because they are well qualified engineers and in the industry for a long time) but failed to enhance the design with some simple steps just because the original design reached the limit. THE ARGUMENT: No one settle and the case went on to the court. The defendants focused on the speed of the van, which they claimed the van was over the limited, so the plaintiff caused the accident and they are not liabilities. We, the plaintiff side focus on the force required to bent the hook and flatten the seat back. Although they are within the limit, it was realistic in today¡¦s world (in the early ¡¦90). Engineer should know that and with a little effort (instead of bolting on one end, they should extend the plate so it can bolt them on both ends, etc.) The court found the seat and hook designer (and Chevy I believe) liable for the death and the injuries and had to pay. This case shows that even if you are within government set standard, you can still be found liable if you know (or presumed to be, because you are qualified as a professional) the risk and failed to correct it. | ||
| Jason T. Barker (Speedminded) Member Username: Speedminded Post Number: 99 Registered: 10-2002 |
I love my front and rear in-car cameras for this reason but too bad I don't have a way to split the screen or a second VCR to record both at the same time. I'm still working on a computer with dual video inputs which will enable me to record both directly to the harddrive and then burn to CD's or DVD's. I started the whole camera thing when I tore my auto. transmission up by dropping it in 1st at just under 60 mph because some idiot pulled out in front of me. It was a 2 lane road and I couldn't avoid him (go around) because there was oncoming traffic on one side and 50-75 ft. bank on the other (practically no shoulder either). I locked the brakes and slid sideways on dry asphalt while dropping to 1st at the same time. I bet my stopping distance that time was better than most sportscars ever tested by Car and Driver. Somehow I didn't hit him but my transmission was shot from then on. The speed limit was 55 yet if I hit him it would most likely be my fault unless I had enough witness' to contest him. (He could have said he was stopped in the road with his blinker on waiting to turn if I hit him and probably gotten away with it). About 2 weeks later the same thing happened when I was going about 35 in a 45....old man and his wife pulling out from a grocery store and it was either me hit the car next to me, curb it, or hit him...somehow I managed to hit the brakes and throw it sideways and still avoid doing all the above while remaining in my lane. During the day I always drive with my headlights on with the hella driving lights on the brushguard on yet both times apparently they didn't see me???? I literally pushed the old man less than 18 inches from his grand marquis bumper and it was nearly 3 minutes of driving like that before he actually saw me, freaked out, and grabbed the cell phone and held it up for me to see???? Severe case of road rage on my part because I know he had no clue why I was so pissed. If I hit the curb/sidewalk I would have been out at least two wheels, tires, suspension, and possibly tagged one of the power poles less than 6 feet away....if I sideswiped the car next to me I would have been at fault, and if I rearended him it would probably have been ruled as my fault. I now have cameras and a new transmission and I will make life miserable for anyone that does that to me again. My idea is to not submit it as evidence until the trial is nearly over and gave them there chance to lie about it. When the judge/jury reviews the tape they can charge them with both being responsible for the incident and perjury. I'm not really a mean person, I just don't like ignorant people that won't admit fault and I really don't like having to make expensive repairs that should have been avoidable. My little color cameras were $20 each (Pixera: digital focus and light sensitivity) and VCR's go new for $50 now. I think my $100 was well spent and I'm just waiting for something to happen. I also hit a 100 lb. deer two weeks after buying my disco, I wish I had the cameras then...RealTV prolly would have paid me well for that one. The deer died and the only damage on the rover was the bumper was pushed back an inch on one side and a small ding where the brushguard sprung back and hit the fender right behind the turn signal. (Using the bottle jack against the tire I pushed the bumper out away from the front wheel) Luckily in my little North Georgia hometown I had several people stop willing to take the deer off my hands....one of the times the drivers dog jumped out of the back of the truck and started chewing on the deers legs. I told him he could have the deer as soon as the cop showed up and made a report. I think that made is entire week (or maybe his dogs?) I've witnessed quite a few accidents yet nothing since I installed the cameras but i'm sure their time will come. I have both cameras going to a 7" in-dash LCD screen and the rear camera works great for backing up but its not a reversed image like a mirror and took me a while to get used to it....it's all fun. Peace. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 272 Registered: 08-2002 |
Charlie, Had the Taurus and the Discovery been driving appropriate for conditions, the accident would not have taken place and the dog would still be alive and both vehicles in the current state of condition. Neither vehicle caused this accident (which included vehicle damage and the death of a dog). The people driving caused the accident, otherwise the vehicles would have been sitting in the garage. Brian | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 119 Registered: 11-2002 |
But I see no one anwered my hypothetical.... Hard headed people....... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) New Member Username: Norm Post Number: 23 Registered: 02-2003 |
Driving around with 3' spikes or some other impaling device would seem to constitute an offensive weapon because it could pierce through a vehicle (and its occupants), unlike a bumper, no matter how heavy, which is designed to withstand impacts (even though it might cause damage to the other vehicle). If you drive around with 3' spikes fore and aft or side to side, it's obvious that you have flagrant disregard (if not downright malice) toward the people around you. Should you impale someone in a "crash" I'd think you'd be subject to criminal and civil action. ---Norm | ||
| John Hamblin (Jhmover) New Member Username: Jhmover Post Number: 2 Registered: 02-2003 |
SO this means if Madonna has her cone bra on and bumps into someone it's construed to be a deadly weapon. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 171 Registered: 02-2003 |
you people missed the point, i once OWNED THE BIG ARB BUMPER. i know what it can do , i think it's safe, but completely contradicts what most bumpers are designed to do today. your "sell the disco or leave it stock" is not the point, the point is , if you trick out the disco just be prepared to deal with whatever legal actions might or might not come out of it if you are in an accident. reap the harvest you have sewn. i can completely relate to doing everything to protect yourself and your family, but i like to keep it within reason. at the rate steve is going he'd like to kill everyone in sight, just to be on the safe side. if thats what you want to do then i respect your opinion. just don't bitch about the law's you are breaking to feel safe. rd oh, and i did sell my disco, much happier how. | ||
| Jeremy Katka (Jkatka) Member Username: Jkatka Post Number: 236 Registered: 02-2002 |
Rob, I see your point but here is anouther thing to think about. How different is a arb bumper then a bumper on a 60's Nova or other older cars bumper and lack of crumple zones? IMHO the arb does the job of protecting the truck, Its the lift and skid plates that would make truck more dangerous in accidents. Also when did aftermarket bumpers become illegal? | ||
| Chris Marcel (Gumarcel) Member Username: Gumarcel Post Number: 150 Registered: 11-2002 |
How would a skid plate make your truck more dangerous in accidents? | ||
| Jason T. Barker (Speedminded) Member Username: Speedminded Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2002 |
...grind like a skateboard instead of possibly getting caught on all your steering components. The whole point in skidplates to begin with right? | ||
| Chris Marcel (Gumarcel) Member Username: Gumarcel Post Number: 151 Registered: 11-2002 |
Ha that would be kinda funny to see, a disco grinding. But not good if i would cause injury or anything bad like that. | ||
| Bill K (Bill_k) Member Username: Bill_k Post Number: 154 Registered: 08-2002 |
Paul, the guy backing out of the spot caused the accident, but if the rover was modified by a lift or brakes or such, a lawyer will argue that braking distance and/or handling was impaired by the non factory modifications leading the rover driver to not be able to steer clear. That one might or might not hold up, but the damage will definetely be put on the rover. I can see an insurance agent willing to cover a modified rover (reasonably modified) but if the rover driver is sued in court for damages, I think he's got a good chance of losing. Nobody knows exactly what the outcome of an accident could be, but a good (sleazy to the defendant) lawyer will argue that the damage was greater than should be thanks to the non-standard modifications. | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 120 Registered: 11-2002 |
Exactly Bill , I dont know what kind of a dream world the rest of these people are living in. As for Norm (Completely lost in this thread). Well Norm , cars are designed to take impacts from other cars out there on the market. Lets call it a defense system that they install that is designed to defend against a certain enemy. Car makers know the field and they know from crash data what they are dealing with. For starters the bags are designed to go off within a certain scenario , weather it be side or front. Thats taking into consideration that the other vehicle is going to impact it at a certain height and transfer shock a certain way. A car hitting above the zone will not transfer the same amount of shock to the bag sensors in the same timing that it would if it hit the sweet spot. So there is one instance that your overheight vehicle might lose its insurance. Remember , the same company that is insuring you is probably paying for the funeral of the folks you killed in the other car (Cause they got in your way ofcourse). Now for the "impaleing devices" . Look at the factory bumpers out there and tell me what you see? They are all nice and low and nice and smooth. Now look at ours. What if that Dixon and Bates grabs the door seam on a glancing blow ? What if (Since we are sitting so high) the fairlead and both dixon and bates penetrate the passenger compartment through the side window just enough to hit the small childs head that was riding in the passengers seat ? If it was lower , or flat and smooth acrost the front this probably wouldnt happen. And you didnt answer my question either Norm. What if the scenario above happened to your child becuase your car (Lets say you have a regular sized car as well) was hit in the side by a lifted and bumpered Disco ? Just how would you feel about it then ? I know you are going to say "Thats exactly why I have the big Disco" , and thats a bullshit answer. Address the question as its layed out. The facts are that there are more people driving little cars then there are big trucks. Its also a fact that just because you are driving a big truck doesnt mean that you should be , or , that you are any better a driver then 99% of the people driving the little shit boxes. I say again , dont get me wrong , I build and sell bumpers and our own trucks are lifted and bumpered. Every time I build a bumper I am looking at those corners on the outside edge of the winch basket and wishing I could smooth that off a bit so it wouldnt tear something if it hit it , I am also looking at those reco points thinking of what a mess they could make of someone... Eric was talking about it on here once about having to do a quick avoidance manuever. You pretty much have to just pick a spot to hit that doesnt have occupants in it and hope for the best. Now in the original scenario tell me how all of you would feel if it was you driving that Disco? Would you be feeling like shit knowing that things you did killed that poor damn dog ? Or would you be beating your chest giving yourself praise over the fact that you are blundering through life protected by a "Superior vehicle" that you had the cash to bolt some shit onto ? Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Gabriel Guay (Gearhead) Member Username: Gearhead Post Number: 41 Registered: 04-2002 |
I normally only lurk here but, I think the point that was missed is that a sexy high apr angle bumper with skid plate will put you up on top of most of these smaller and lower cars that are being produced today. Having the sexy blade bumper is a trade off on crash safty. It does what it was designed to do, allow you to scrape up on top of an obsticle, car or rock. A heavy ARB type bumper will not absorb as much energy as the car you hit. Ever wonder why there is basically no bumper on a disco. Just a thin sheet metal plate. Thats so the disco will crumple some in a crash. I drive alot in heavy city traffic and freeway and kept my stock sheet metal bumper. I did add a frame mounted winch but, it is mounted low and close to most car bumper hights. Sure I don,t get the high apr angles. I fact the apr angle is the same it was with the stock brush bar but I have had a few cars nudge the front of my truck in traffic and there was little damage because the winch frame lined up with their bumper. If you choose to go with a blade style bumper, drive extra responsibly, allow extra stopping distance and know if something like this happens, you may be liable due to the bumper and lift added to your vehicle. I personally feel asking truck makers to weaken a truck to accomodate the weaker design of todays smaller plastic cars is not well thought out. Maybe the public and press should note that a lot of these cars are not safe unless driven on roads of only like cars. I also own a 70's muscle car and that will drive through any of these new cars in a crash. My wife has a Mini cooper S and god help her if anything bigger than a shopping cart hits that but, we take the risks as informed consumers and don't use that car to haul the kids around. I don't think you need to sell you disco but realize that it will crush most new cars and drive it as such. Just my $.02 Gabe | ||
| Carter Simcoe (Carter) Senior Member Username: Carter Post Number: 2098 Registered: 04-2002 |
I think we need to give 'apr' the red dot treatment | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 113 Registered: 08-2002 |
When I die I'm going to make sure and sue God for making me mortal. What was he thinking? What a dangerous design flaw. | ||
| Jeremy Katka (Jkatka) Member Username: Jkatka Post Number: 237 Registered: 02-2002 |
Kyle, To anwser your first question. I would be pissed off to hell if someone I knew was killed in a 5MPH collision because something on a persons car was sticking out of their automobile enought to potrude into the cabin of the car. I just cant see why anyone should die at such a slow speed impact. Now if I were the driver of the car I would feel guilt ridden that an accident at such a low speed killed someone. I know that that risk would be there if I had a aftermarket bumper w/ a lift. I also know that that risk is there when I secure something onto the top of either of my cars if its wood or a kayak or bike (I guess these things would be variables that I see as being similar.) Now for your final question. I would feel very bad that a dog (that could have easily been a child) died. I though I wouldn't feel bad for what I bought and or built. Maybe I am cold hearted or just have never been in the situation and can not wrap my head around such a thing. I try and make decisions that work for me and do not hurt others of course. There are balances and, I do not see people that do up their rigs as self centered or out to hurt people. Now I know that how I rationalize things are definitely not the way the rest of the world sees this balance. There were alot of good posts and information. Just wanted to throw in my $.02 thanks. JK | ||
| Charlie Fok (Verboy) New Member Username: Verboy Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2003 |
Brian, The cause of the crash and the cause of the death of the dog may be two different events. You are saying if the crash didn't happen, the rover wouldn't be on top of the car. Well, that is true, but that is not the direct cause of the death of the dog. You can even argue that "if the guy wasn't driving on that street, there would be no crash". Driving on that street is not the direct cause of the death of the dog, and not the direct cause of the crash. I am not a legal expert here and with my limited English, I don't think I can explain it well. ---Charlie <---going to English class again | ||
| Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) New Member Username: Norm Post Number: 24 Registered: 02-2003 |
Damn, Kyle, if you feel that way about it, maybe you should get out of the bumper manufacturing business -- the paranoia from the threat of an impending lawsuit must be unbearable. After all, you're building these lethal battering rams -- 3-foot steel spikes and all... All I can say is if I get into an "accident' and smash and impale somebody in a tin-can econo box, it's all YOUR FAULT!!! LOL ---Norm | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 122 Registered: 11-2002 |
And again Norm , you have nothing to say... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Norm Orschnorschki (Norm) New Member Username: Norm Post Number: 25 Registered: 02-2003 |
...and another thing, there are too many GD lawyers stirring up trouble. Aside from William Shakespear's suggestion of whacking them all first (as pleasurable as that would be), in order to erase their deficits, every State in the Union should shut down their law schools for about 8 to 10 years. That ought to relieve the glut of lawyers and make life a lot more affordable for the rest of us. ---Norm | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 123 Registered: 11-2002 |
Shoulda , woulda , coulda........... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Greg (Gparrish) Senior Member Username: Gparrish Post Number: 1144 Registered: 04-2002 |
After reading this entire thread, my opinion is that it needs to be deleted. There are too many admissions of knowledge and guilt that would crucify a modified truck driver in a court of law......... even if you didn't make the comments. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 550 Registered: 09-2002 |
that thread makes me really uneasy. i have a bugger that will roll over a car's end easily, esp. 'cause I can't lock up the wheels. it is interesting that we've had a long and winded argument with a close friend of mine (who happens to be a very liberal/democratic/whatnot), and he brought up the similar point - among other "inherent features of an SUV that make it more dangerous to public," he mentioned a bumper. An example he gave was $2200 in damages he incurred on his Mitsu Galant when he rear-ended a Bronco. He said the damages would have been much less if it was a regular, unlifted vehicle. Somehow, being a physicist with a good analytical mind, he missed two points that seemed to be important to me - - damages to which vehicle? His or the one he rear-ended? - the accident happened when he had six people in a four-seater little car, and he locked up the brakes during rain. How that makes SUV dangerous? so, in the eyes of the population fed by Consumer Reports, your disco is a threat once it rolls off the assembly line, and you face liability before you take a wheel off to instal taller springs. but... if you're really concerned about it, it's time to think of a good airbag setup. Trade the KISS principle for reduced liability. | ||
| Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht) Member Username: Markalbrecht Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jason: Cameras are an interesting idea. However if you wait to produce the tape until almost the end of trial the evidence rules in most states will prevent the information from being presented to the fact finder. Unless of course it counts as impeachment evidence. You best bet would be to produce the video early on and hope for a favorable resolution. Norm: If you shut down the law schools for 8 - 10 years, it won't be less expensive for us. Legal fees will just be higher (supply and demand). | ||
| Mike Rupp (Mike_rupp) Member Username: Mike_rupp Post Number: 166 Registered: 02-2002 |
Mark, Legal fees would definitely go up on a per hour basis, but there would most definitely be fewer lawsuits. Fewer lawsuits = lower total payouts to "damaged" parties = lower insurance rates, etc. | ||
| Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht) Member Username: Markalbrecht Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2002 |
Mike: I don't know about that. All the old guys would put off retiring to make some extra dough. Also if we're experiencing a glut of attorneys, The system can continue to run for awhile with the current number. If you really wanted to make a difference you'd have to suspend new licensing for at least 35 years (average age of new associates is about 27 y.o.) The main problem would be that with over 50% of politicians being attorneys, it would be hard to convince them to stop lawschools or licensing. | ||
| Jaime (Blueboy) Senior Member Username: Blueboy Post Number: 584 Registered: 02-2002 |
"useda" was left out by KVT - and thats probably in the near future. Jaime | ||
| Mike Rupp (Mike_rupp) Member Username: Mike_rupp Post Number: 167 Registered: 02-2002 |
Mark: Yes, it wouldn't be just "hard" to convince lawmakers to stop lawschools or licensing, it would be impossible. I was just pointing out the economic effect of eliminating new prospective lawyers to the work force, not advocating it. If the workforce doesn't expand, the number of lawsuits would stop expanding as well. Just by retirement and death, the pool of lawyers would shrink every year. | ||
| Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht) Member Username: Markalbrecht Post Number: 73 Registered: 11-2002 |
Mike: I understand your argument, however, the reduction of attorneys through retirement and death would take a long time to influence the market place. The last ten years or so have demonstrated the largest influx of attorneys. http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/demographics.aspx will give you an idea of attorney age and year of admission in CA. Eliminating new admissions would not have a significant effect for several years if current case filings remained the same. | ||
| John (Jroc) Member Username: Jroc Post Number: 76 Registered: 08-2002 |
Anyone who has a KVT bumper on there rig should feel disguisted and guilt ridden, knowing that that thing could possibly kill a pet, or small child, in the future! Anyone looking to return back to a more humane and environmentally friendly bumper should contact me to unload that dam weapon. You should be ashamed of yourself!!! | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 555 Registered: 09-2002 |
John, may i suggest a temporary (before all lawyers are eliminated) little-car-safety solution?  if that's not enough, there are better ones:  peter | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2106 Registered: 02-2002 |
what's a KVT bumper? is a KVT those pretty plastic colored things up there? | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 560 Registered: 09-2002 |
that's a hanger for the ones on the top picture. the ones at the bottom you tie a rope to, fill'em with water, and swing at whoever you don't like very much. | ||
| Paul Gilbert (Lowspeedclutch) New Member Username: Lowspeedclutch Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2003 |
Hey, this has been fun. Did anyone think to question the original post? If this is so, how do all these trucks and SUVs pass inspection every year? Did anyone read the post here regarding California? (the most heaviy regulated place on earth...) No mention of bumber heights... I believe we've all been taken by an anti-SUV tree hugger, or a new urban legend. | ||
| Kennith P. Whichard III (Kennith) Senior Member Username: Kennith Post Number: 275 Registered: 05-2002 |
Kyle has had a point through this whole thread, and that's that what we have done to these trucks does make them more damaging to other cars in collisions. You can argue legality forever, but who cares, the government dosn't even know what's legal here anymore. The police and inspectors rarely check such things unless they are blatently obvious, and court cases are going to make us look bad either way. Just drive carefully and get out of denial, reality stares us right in the face. "Drive to arrive" Cheers, Kennith |
