Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?

> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?


The hire company's insurance.

Peter

The message 
from Reilly  contains these words:


> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?


A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
details of the driver.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

>> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
>> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
>
> A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
> insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
> generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
> details of the driver.


And more importantly, details of the insurance company.

Peter

"Reilly"  wrote in message 
news:chpid1tdlm95tf7f4gu4vgg6mtqgsdidln@4ax.com...

> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?



If you've got the reg. and a witness or two then just ring HelpHire and let 
them sort out who they're going to claim from...

Darren

"Reilly"  wrote in message
news:chpid1tdlm95tf7f4gu4vgg6mtqgsdidln@4ax.com...

> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?


Whoever caused the accident is responsible, neither the hire company or
their insurers (if applicable) are.

You can feel free to notify the hire company that their vehicle has been
involved in a collision, they will however NOT release details of the
driver. They will probably not release their insurers details to you over
the phone (due to fraud) but if you submit a request in writing with your
own insurance details, details of the accident etc. they will pass it to
their insurers who will contact your insurance company direct. That is
providing the driver was covered by their insurance??

Alternatively just give all the details to your insurance company and let
them pursue it, that's what they are paid to do.

The message <e7eCe.878$Wi3.638@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>
from "AstraVanMan"  contains
these words:


> > A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
> > insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
> > generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
> > details of the driver.

> And more importantly, details of the insurance company.


I don't know how hire cars work - I ain't done it for about twenty
years, but isn't it your own insurance you drive on?

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Clearly, it's the driver who is responsible for the accident where he is at 
fault.

Of course, providing the accident is not criminal, then the insurance 
company will deal with the financial side, whether it is a hire car, company 
car, or owned car - that is correctly insured.

You raise an interesting point though - how on earth does this reflect NCB, 
'at fault' accident history, etc.? considering insurers in the UK only 
insure the vehicle, and not the driver, as the prime risk.

"Reilly"  wrote in message 
news:chpid1tdlm95tf7f4gu4vgg6mtqgsdidln@4ax.com...

> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
> 

"Frank McWurter"  wrote in message 
news:UCgCe.673$yH4.277@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

> Clearly, it's the driver who is responsible for the accident where he is 
> at fault.
>
> Of course, providing the accident is not criminal, then the insurance 
> company will deal with the financial side, whether it is a hire car, 
> company car, or owned car - that is correctly insured.
>
> You raise an interesting point though - how on earth does this reflect 
> NCB, 'at fault' accident history, etc.? considering insurers in the UK 
> only insure the vehicle, and not the driver, as the prime risk.
>


Aren't hirers supposed to declare claims and losses when filling in the 
forms ?

In article , Reilly says...

> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
> 

THe driver is responsible. The company providing insurance for him 
driving it will be the people who pay out.


-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

In article , Guy King says...


> I don't know how hire cars work - I ain't done it for about twenty
> years, but isn't it your own insurance you drive on?
> 

Usually not.


-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

> You raise an interesting point though - how on earth does this reflect 
> NCB, 'at fault' accident history, etc.? considering insurers in the UK 
> only insure the vehicle, and not the driver, as the prime risk.


No they don't.  The driver is the prime risk.

But it is an interesting point, regarding NCB and such like.  A while back, 
when getting insurance, I mentioned an accident I'd had in my Dad's car, 
stating that it was my fault, but it was whilst named on someone else's 
insurance, and didn't affect my NCB.  The guy said "you don't need to tell 
us about that then".  Now, obviously I technically do - but my theory is 
that he said that with a knowledge of how their systems work, and when they 
run checks on people they only search for claims made with policies held by 
that person.  Just a thought anyway.

Peter

The message 
from Conor  contains these words:


> > I don't know how hire cars work - I ain't done it for about twenty
> > years, but isn't it your own insurance you drive on?
> > 
> Usually not.


Ah. You live and learn.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

The message <UCgCe.673$yH4.277@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>
from "Frank McWurter"  contains these words:



> You raise an interesting point though - how on earth does this reflect NCB, 
> 'at fault' accident history, etc.? considering insurers in the UK only 
> insure the vehicle, and not the driver, as the prime risk.


You sure about that? I'm sure it's the driver they're more interested in.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Frank McWurter (frank.mcwurter@virgin.net) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying : 


> considering insurers in the UK
> only insure the vehicle, and not the driver, as the prime risk.


That'll explain why a 17yo lad costs the same to insure for a given vehicle 
as a 50yo woman, then?

"Guy King"  wrote in message 
news:313030303432373942DA281286@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message 
> from Conor  contains these words:
>
>> > I don't know how hire cars work - I ain't done it for about twenty
>> > years, but isn't it your own insurance you drive on?
>> >
>> Usually not.
>
> Ah. You live and learn.
>


Unless it's a courtesy car while yours is being fixed - then it usually *is* 
on your insurance...

Just on a side note..

Here in Ireland we have to display an insurance disc alongside the
usual tax disc.

It takes all the hassle out of situations like this ...

It displays....Insurance Company...Policy Number,  expiry date and
reg. number.  

The police will sieze your car on the spot if it's not displayed.

I'm surprised that this has not been adopted in the UK.

In article , Dave Hedgehog 
says...

> Just on a side note..
> 
> Here in Ireland we have to display an insurance disc alongside the
> usual tax disc.
> 
> It takes all the hassle out of situations like this ...
> 
> It displays....Insurance Company...Policy Number,  expiry date and
> reg. number.  
> 
> The police will sieze your car on the spot if it's not displayed.
> 
> I'm surprised that this has not been adopted in the UK.  
> 

Me too. As you say, it solves the problem.


-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:39:11 +0100, Conor 
wrote:


>In article , Reilly says...
>> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
>> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
>> 
>THe driver is responsible. The company providing insurance for him 
>driving it will be the people who pay out.


Ok.  I did manage to get the driver's name (a company actually) from
the van hire company.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:12:30 +0100, Guy King 
wrote:


>The message 
>from Reilly  contains these words:
>
>> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
>> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
>
>A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
>insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
>generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
>details of the driver.


The design of the vans leaves much to be desired.  The loading
platform sticks out about a foot beyond the rear bumper - and just the
right level to make a mess of the bonnet of the car behind when some
idiot tries to park it in a tight space on a residential street.

>>> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
>>> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
>>
>>A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
>>insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
>>generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
>>details of the driver.
>
> The design of the vans leaves much to be desired.  The loading
> platform sticks out about a foot beyond the rear bumper - and just the
> right level to make a mess of the bonnet of the car behind when some
> idiot tries to park it in a tight space on a residential street.


Admittedly, a van driver should be aware of things like steps/loading 
platform etc on the back of their van, and should either not set off if they 
can't do so without damaging someone else's property (regardless of whose 
fault the idiotic parking was) or get the offending car to move.  But if car 
drivers really will refuse to use their brains when parking behind large 
vehicles, then what do they expect?

Peter

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:31:10 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>> Is it the driver of the vehicle (and his insurer, if any) or the hire
>>>> company who owns the vehicle and their insurer?
>>>
>>>A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
>>>insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
>>>generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
>>>details of the driver.
>>
>> The design of the vans leaves much to be desired.  The loading
>> platform sticks out about a foot beyond the rear bumper - and just the
>> right level to make a mess of the bonnet of the car behind when some
>> idiot tries to park it in a tight space on a residential street.
>
>Admittedly, a van driver should be aware of things like steps/loading 
>platform etc on the back of their van, and should either not set off if they 
>can't do so without damaging someone else's property (regardless of whose 
>fault the idiotic parking was) or get the offending car to move.  But if car 
>drivers really will refuse to use their brains when parking behind large 
>vehicles, then what do they expect?


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

>>Admittedly, a van driver should be aware of things like steps/loading
>>platform etc on the back of their van, and should either not set off if 
>>they
>>can't do so without damaging someone else's property (regardless of whose
>>fault the idiotic parking was) or get the offending car to move.  But if 
>>car
>>drivers really will refuse to use their brains when parking behind large
>>vehicles, then what do they expect?
>
> In this case, I was parked there already and the van squeezed in in
> front of me.


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

Peter

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:12:06 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>Admittedly, a van driver should be aware of things like steps/loading
>>>platform etc on the back of their van, and should either not set off if 
>>>they
>>>can't do so without damaging someone else's property (regardless of whose
>>>fault the idiotic parking was) or get the offending car to move.  But if 
>>>car
>>>drivers really will refuse to use their brains when parking behind large
>>>vehicles, then what do they expect?
>>
>> In this case, I was parked there already and the van squeezed in in
>> front of me.
>
>In that case, it's entirely the van driver's fault.  I don't blame the van 
>manufacturer's at all.  Just as the van driver needs to be aware that a 
>large van is bigger and more difficult to judge (particularly on LWB vans) 
>the length of, they should be equally aware of anything sticking out of it, 
>and know to compensate for it.


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

>>In that case, it's entirely the van driver's fault.  I don't blame the van
>>manufacturer's at all.  Just as the van driver needs to be aware that a
>>large van is bigger and more difficult to judge (particularly on LWB vans)
>>the length of, they should be equally aware of anything sticking out of 
>>it,
>>and know to compensate for it.
>
> It's bad enough that the heights of bumpers on cars aren't
> standardised, but when you have a loading platform that can be used as
> a rear bumper...


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

Peter

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:42:37 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>In that case, it's entirely the van driver's fault.  I don't blame the van
>>>manufacturer's at all.  Just as the van driver needs to be aware that a
>>>large van is bigger and more difficult to judge (particularly on LWB vans)
>>>the length of, they should be equally aware of anything sticking out of 
>>>it,
>>>and know to compensate for it.
>>
>> It's bad enough that the heights of bumpers on cars aren't
>> standardised, but when you have a loading platform that can be used as
>> a rear bumper...
>
>Why should things be standardised?  Is it really too much to expect drivers 
>to accept that no two cars are the same, and that they will have to adjust 
>for different height bumpers, different length cars, etc etc. ??  It really 
>is a fairly basic thing to expect drivers to adjust from one vehicle to 
>another.


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

>>Why should things be standardised?  Is it really too much to expect 
>>drivers
>>to accept that no two cars are the same, and that they will have to adjust
>>for different height bumpers, different length cars, etc etc. ??  It 
>>really
>>is a fairly basic thing to expect drivers to adjust from one vehicle to
>>another.
>
> It all depends whether you think bumpers should be used/useful for
> bumping or not, I suppose.


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

Peter

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:49:57 +0100, Guy King wrote:


> The message <e7eCe.878$Wi3.638@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>
> from "AstraVanMan"  contains
> these words:
> 
>>> A driver is always responsible for his/her actions, but of course the
>>> insurers carry the can. The hire company has sod all to do with it,
>>> generally, though of course you may have to approach them to get the
>>> details of the driver.
> 
>> And more importantly, details of the insurance company.
> 
> I don't know how hire cars work - I ain't done it for about twenty
> years, but isn't it your own insurance you drive on?


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

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:59:32 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>Why should things be standardised?  Is it really too much to expect 
>>>drivers
>>>to accept that no two cars are the same, and that they will have to adjust
>>>for different height bumpers, different length cars, etc etc. ??  It 
>>>really
>>>is a fairly basic thing to expect drivers to adjust from one vehicle to
>>>another.
>>
>> It all depends whether you think bumpers should be used/useful for
>> bumping or not, I suppose.
>
>I've always gone with the school of thought that using your brain and eyes 
>in some sort of combination is a better idea.


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

>>>>Why should things be standardised?  Is it really too much to expect
>>>>drivers
>>>>to accept that no two cars are the same, and that they will have to 
>>>>adjust
>>>>for different height bumpers, different length cars, etc etc. ??  It
>>>>really
>>>>is a fairly basic thing to expect drivers to adjust from one vehicle to
>>>>another.
>>>
>>> It all depends whether you think bumpers should be used/useful for
>>> bumping or not, I suppose.
>>
>>I've always gone with the school of thought that using your brain and eyes
>>in some sort of combination is a better idea.
>
> Ah, you don't live in London, do you?


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

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

Peter

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:37:40 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>>>Why should things be standardised?  Is it really too much to expect
>>>>>drivers
>>>>>to accept that no two cars are the same, and that they will have to 
>>>>>adjust
>>>>>for different height bumpers, different length cars, etc etc. ??  It
>>>>>really
>>>>>is a fairly basic thing to expect drivers to adjust from one vehicle to
>>>>>another.
>>>>
>>>> It all depends whether you think bumpers should be used/useful for
>>>> bumping or not, I suppose.
>>>
>>>I've always gone with the school of thought that using your brain and eyes
>>>in some sort of combination is a better idea.
>>
>> Ah, you don't live in London, do you?
>
>No, but for about a year I drove in and out of London 2 or 3 times a day.
>
>I still think using one's brain and eyes is a far better idea than 
>complaining that not all cars have bumpers in exactly the same place.  Can't 
>see what's so hard to understand about this.


Yes, you can use your brain and eyes all you like, but what about
someone who parks in front of you or behind you?    If yours is a Mini
and theirs something much larger, it's quite possible that something
is going to get fucked.

>>>>I've always gone with the school of thought that using your brain and 
>>>>eyes
>>>>in some sort of combination is a better idea.
>>>
>>> Ah, you don't live in London, do you?
>>
>>No, but for about a year I drove in and out of London 2 or 3 times a day.
>>
>>I still think using one's brain and eyes is a far better idea than
>>complaining that not all cars have bumpers in exactly the same place. 
>>Can't
>>see what's so hard to understand about this.
>
> Yes, you can use your brain and eyes all you like, but what about
> someone who parks in front of you or behind you?    If yours is a Mini
> and theirs something much larger, it's quite possible that something
> is going to get fucked.


If you'd actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I wasn't 
criticising the parking of the driver in the car that gets hit by the van, 
but the driving of the van driver.  If someone driving a large van isn't 
aware of the need to be extra cautious when parking something that length, 
particularly if it's got things like steps sticking out of the back of it, 
then they shouldn't be driving it.  It's not rocket science to work out that 
if you can't judge it properly from sitting inside the van, then the 
sensible thing to do, in the absence of having someone to assist you, is to 
stop the van and get out and have a look at exactly how much space there is.

Peter

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:32 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>>>I've always gone with the school of thought that using your brain and 
>>>>>eyes
>>>>>in some sort of combination is a better idea.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you don't live in London, do you?
>>>
>>>No, but for about a year I drove in and out of London 2 or 3 times a day.
>>>
>>>I still think using one's brain and eyes is a far better idea than
>>>complaining that not all cars have bumpers in exactly the same place. 
>>>Can't
>>>see what's so hard to understand about this.
>>
>> Yes, you can use your brain and eyes all you like, but what about
>> someone who parks in front of you or behind you?    If yours is a Mini
>> and theirs something much larger, it's quite possible that something
>> is going to get fucked.
>
>If you'd actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I wasn't 
>criticising the parking of the driver in the car that gets hit by the van, 
>but the driving of the van driver.  If someone driving a large van isn't 
>aware of the need to be extra cautious when parking something that length, 
>particularly if it's got things like steps sticking out of the back of it, 
>then they shouldn't be driving it.  It's not rocket science to work out that 
>if you can't judge it properly from sitting inside the van, then the 
>sensible thing to do, in the absence of having someone to assist you, is to 
>stop the van and get out and have a look at exactly how much space there is.


Given the overall thickness of van drivers (nothing personal) I
wouldn't want to count on this.

Which is why it helps for bumpers to be at similar heights.   And for
loading platforms to not protrude beyond them.  A bumper to bumper
impact (no matter how small) is better that bumper to radiator grille,
or bumper to headlight, or loading platform to bonnet.

>>If you'd actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I wasn't
>>criticising the parking of the driver in the car that gets hit by the van,
>>but the driving of the van driver.  If someone driving a large van isn't
>>aware of the need to be extra cautious when parking something that length,
>>particularly if it's got things like steps sticking out of the back of it,
>>then they shouldn't be driving it.  It's not rocket science to work out 
>>that
>>if you can't judge it properly from sitting inside the van, then the
>>sensible thing to do, in the absence of having someone to assist you, is 
>>to
>>stop the van and get out and have a look at exactly how much space there 
>>is.
>
> Given the overall thickness of van drivers (nothing personal) I
> wouldn't want to count on this.
>
> Which is why it helps for bumpers to be at similar heights.   And for
> loading platforms to not protrude beyond them.  A bumper to bumper
> impact (no matter how small) is better that bumper to radiator grille,
> or bumper to headlight, or loading platform to bonnet.


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

Peter

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:14:38 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>If you'd actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I wasn't
>>>criticising the parking of the driver in the car that gets hit by the van,
>>>but the driving of the van driver.  If someone driving a large van isn't
>>>aware of the need to be extra cautious when parking something that length,
>>>particularly if it's got things like steps sticking out of the back of it,
>>>then they shouldn't be driving it.  It's not rocket science to work out 
>>>that
>>>if you can't judge it properly from sitting inside the van, then the
>>>sensible thing to do, in the absence of having someone to assist you, is 
>>>to
>>>stop the van and get out and have a look at exactly how much space there 
>>>is.
>>
>> Given the overall thickness of van drivers (nothing personal) I
>> wouldn't want to count on this.
>>
>> Which is why it helps for bumpers to be at similar heights.   And for
>> loading platforms to not protrude beyond them.  A bumper to bumper
>> impact (no matter how small) is better that bumper to radiator grille,
>> or bumper to headlight, or loading platform to bonnet.
>
>Yes, but vehicles *are* different, accidents *do* happen, damage *does* 
>occur, and if it's significant, an insurance claim will need to be made in 
>any case.  That's life.  Far better to try and tackle the root cause of the 
>problem, rather than try and standardise absolutely everything so as to 
>minimise damage when it does inevitably occur.


I see we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.  

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

>>Yes, but vehicles *are* different, accidents *do* happen, damage *does*
>>occur, and if it's significant, an insurance claim will need to be made in
>>any case.  That's life.  Far better to try and tackle the root cause of 
>>the
>>problem, rather than try and standardise absolutely everything so as to
>>minimise damage when it does inevitably occur.
>
> I see we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.
>
> What, in your view, is the purpose of bumpers on cars?


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

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

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

Peter

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:08:10 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>Yes, but vehicles *are* different, accidents *do* happen, damage *does*
>>>occur, and if it's significant, an insurance claim will need to be made in
>>>any case.  That's life.  Far better to try and tackle the root cause of 
>>>the
>>>problem, rather than try and standardise absolutely everything so as to
>>>minimise damage when it does inevitably occur.
>>
>> I see we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.
>>
>> What, in your view, is the purpose of bumpers on cars?
>
>They absorb impacts, up to a certain degree.  If the driver of a car backs 
>into a post, then up to a certain speed, the bumper would take the impact 
>and that's hopefully all that'll need replacing on the car. 


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


>They're not 
>there to help people park.


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


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


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


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


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

>
>> But with the variety of different sized vehicles on the road today, to
>> suggest that the height of bumpers should be somehow standardised is
>> absolutely ludicrous.
>
> I wouldn't expect a 12-ton lorry to have bumpers at the same level as
> a Mini, but what's the frigging big problem with passenger cars having
> similar (not necessarily identical) bumper heights?
>



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

>>> I see we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.
>>>
>>> What, in your view, is the purpose of bumpers on cars?
>>
>>They absorb impacts, up to a certain degree.  If the driver of a car backs
>>into a post, then up to a certain speed, the bumper would take the impact
>>and that's hopefully all that'll need replacing on the car.
>
> To use your own words, drivers should use their brains and eyes
> instead of backing into posts.


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


>>They're not
>>there to help people park.
>
> They're there to minimise the damage when parking does result in a
> bumper-to-bumper impact.  Assuming the bumper heights are compatible.


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


>>If a bumper gets damaged then the owner has every right to expect the 
>>person
>>who caused the damage to pay for it, either out of their own pocket or via
>>their insurance company.  If a light knock from one car to another results
>>in no damage occuring (a lot of modern bumpers 'pop out' to a degree) then
>>so much the better, and both drivers can count themselves lucky.
>
> Normal parking, which may or may not result in physical contact
> between adjacent cars, wouldn't normally result in any damage.


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


>>But with the variety of different sized vehicles on the road today, to
>>suggest that the height of bumpers should be somehow standardised is
>>absolutely ludicrous.
>
> I wouldn't expect a 12-ton lorry to have bumpers at the same level as
> a Mini, but what's the frigging big problem with passenger cars having
> similar (not necessarily identical) bumper heights?


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


> The design of the vans leaves much to be desired.  The loading
> platform sticks out about a foot beyond the rear bumper - and just the
> right level to make a mess of the bonnet of the car behind when some
> idiot tries to park it in a tight space on a residential street.


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

Peter

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:17:04 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
 wrote:


>>>> I see we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion here.
>>>>
>>>> What, in your view, is the purpose of bumpers on cars?
>>>
>>>They absorb impacts, up to a certain degree.  If the driver of a car backs
>>>into a post, then up to a certain speed, the bumper would take the impact
>>>and that's hopefully all that'll need replacing on the car.
>>
>> To use your own words, drivers should use their brains and eyes
>> instead of backing into posts.
>
>Yes, true.  But ITYF I also accepted that accidents happen.  When they do, 
>bumpers, in a lot of low-speed cases, prevent the need for any reshaping of 
>metal to be done, and the only repair needed is a simple bumper replacement 
>+ spraying.


OK, fair enough.


>>>They're not
>>>there to help people park.
>>
>> They're there to minimise the damage when parking does result in a
>> bumper-to-bumper impact.  Assuming the bumper heights are compatible.
>
>Yes, and due to the huge varieties of vehicles on the roads, do you really 
>think this is realistic?


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


>>>If a bumper gets damaged then the owner has every right to expect the 
>>>person
>>>who caused the damage to pay for it, either out of their own pocket or via
>>>their insurance company.  If a light knock from one car to another results
>>>in no damage occuring (a lot of modern bumpers 'pop out' to a degree) then
>>>so much the better, and both drivers can count themselves lucky.
>>
>> Normal parking, which may or may not result in physical contact
>> between adjacent cars, wouldn't normally result in any damage.
>
>Well, something not resulting in physical contact should certainly not 
>result any damage. 


Of course.  Duh.


> Where parking is regularly involving physical contact to 
>the extent that it's considered 'normal', we have to seriously question the 
>driver testing system in this country.


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


>>>But with the variety of different sized vehicles on the road today, to
>>>suggest that the height of bumpers should be somehow standardised is
>>>absolutely ludicrous.
>>
>> I wouldn't expect a 12-ton lorry to have bumpers at the same level as
>> a Mini, but what's the frigging big problem with passenger cars having
>> similar (not necessarily identical) bumper heights?
>
>Passenger cars are different heights too.  Compare a Ford Galaxy to a Ka. 
>Maybe the bumpers are similar in height.  But where did this discussion 
>originate?  Here's our Graham with a quick reminder:
>
>> The design of the vans leaves much to be desired.  The loading
>> platform sticks out about a foot beyond the rear bumper - and just the
>> right level to make a mess of the bonnet of the car behind when some
>> idiot tries to park it in a tight space on a residential street.
>
>So make up your mind what on earth you're blithering on about.  Your initial 
>problem was the fact that loading platforms aren't the same height as car 
>bumpers, meaning they can potentially wreck the bonnet.  Most car bumpers 
>are of a fairly similar size, but it's vans (and larger vehicles) that you 
>had a problem with, wasn't it?


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

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

The message 
from Reilly  contains these words:


> They're there to minimise the damage when parking does result in a
> bumper-to-bumper impact. 


Though these days they seem more cosmetic.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

The message 
from Reilly  contains these words:


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


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

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."