IIHS Demands Regulated SUV Bumpers

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced today that it has petitioned the government — namely the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — to regulate bumpers on light trucks, SUVs and vans in the same way it does cars. There are no regulations on these vehicles currently; they can even be sold without bumpers.

IIHS reasons that because the bumpers on many SUVs are higher off the ground than car bumpers, they cause more damage in SUV-to-car accidents. In IIHS testing, the damage to a test car — a Hyundai Sonata — ranged from $3,891 to $4,737 when taking on SUVs like the Hummer H3, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Mitsubishi Endeavor. The one SUV with lower bumpers, the Ford Explorer shown top, caused a third of the damage on the Sonata.

Now, this isn’t all about safety; IIHS is primarily looking out for the insurance industry. It stated that between 2005 and 2007, the first three SUVs mentioned above had some of the highest insurance losses in regard to the vehicles they collided with. The Explorer had a lower-than-average loss rate. Even if insurance companies save money with new regulations, though, so will consumers, thanks to lower repair costs and lower insurance premiums.

Comments

Maybe they could also government to mandate that the stupid soccer moms actually learn how to drive these asinine things before letting them loose on the public.

I recently a 96 Escort. One of the reasons I didn't even bother trying to sell or trade it was that it looked like it had been through Demolition Derby. All the damage came while it was parked in parking lots.

All the many big dents were high up - the sure sign of some stupid arrogant soccer mom who can't even park the monstrosity. I even had one big one on the driver side back above the bumper. In that case, soccer mom, couldn't even turn into a parking space without taking out my car.

One of my neighbors now has a lovely, huge dent on their 2 year old Accord, again, way up on the side. Another parking lot fiasco involving and suv and a driver who couldn't drive it.

Of course, dear little soccer moms never leave a note with their name and address so you can claim against them.

Haa wow, "Now, this isn’t all about safety; IIHS is primarily looking out for the insurance industry." Shouldn't safety come first? Guys, cars are replaceable when humans are not. That is what we pay insurance companies for. If I could add up all the years of insurance i've payed and never had to claim on it I could run my Hummer into 20 Sonatas and get them all new cars! Yes I agree that it would be a good idea to make some kind of standard for bumbers. but NOT for the insurance companies, for the FAMILIES.

This regulation is pretty much irrelevant at this point. SUV sales are dropping fast because they just use too much gas. Also, any future SUV's will be constructed with much lighter materials to save gas. Accidents 10 years from now involving SUV's will be far less destructive.

That said, there's no reason in the world why SUV's shouldn't use the same standards cars do. After all, the whole reason SUV's were created was to circumvent the CAFE standards that passenger cars used. It high time all vehicles used the same rule book.

This regulation is pretty much irrelevant at this point. SUV sales are dropping fast because they just use too much gas. Also, any future SUV's will be constructed with much lighter materials to save gas. Accidents 10 years from now involving SUV's will be far less destructive.

That said, there's no reason in the world why SUV's shouldn't use the same standards cars do. After all, the whole reason SUV's were created was to circumvent the CAFE standards that passenger cars used. It high time all vehicles used the same rule book.

Makes sense, also, lift kits should be illegal for on-road use.

lift kits? oh hell no. SUVs are made to be bigger. let them keep their advantage. otherwise, whats the point in buying a SUV? how about, you teach people how to drive the SUVs and trucks, THEN you teach the other idiots on the road not to eat, drink, nor talk on the phone NOR text. then all would be good.

i love how there are people claiming SUV's are safer by virtue of their size (like one of the previous post about giving your POS old SUV to your teen instead of selling it), when some basic safety features are not even regulated. that's great.

The regulations make sense because while SUV sales may be dropping, many so-called cross-over vehicles are still certified as trucks and would still be able to be built with higher bumpers just for vanity's sake. And they would also apply to light trucks, which as the IIHS pointed out, used to have lower bumpers. Also, note that the IIHS didn't just choose the Sonata as the test car by pulling a name out of a hat. It performed best among mid-sized cars in this particular type of crash when tested last year. Many other cars would have fared far worse, even up against the Explorer.

Bumpers don't protect anything except the income of automobile parts departments... Andy Rooney 60 Minutes.

Check one of these out: http://www.superbumper.com or
http://www.sparebumper.com