On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Trevor Boicey wrote:
> The Overriders were for insurance purposes, not safety. The
> problem was that insurance rates were going through the roof
> because an everyday little touch to the bumpers was costing
> thousands to fix properly.
>
> The laws at the time were something to the effect of
> "vehicle must withstand collision of X mph without sustaining
> over $Y in damage" or something to that effect.
>
> The overriders allowed this.
>
> Sorry if the facts get in the way of another nice
> conspiracy rumour involving do-gooders and overactive
> governments, but...
Technically :-), the laws actually read something to the effect of
...sustain a crash of up to 2.5 or 5 mph (depending on various factors)
without damage to safety-related components (primarily lights and such).
That's where the "safety" angle came into play.
Of course, at anything over those speeds, the expenses in repair seemed
to progress geometrically (nothing like a good 6 mph crash, eh?)!
--Andy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace, President and *
* 10/Herald/Vitesse (Sports 6) Consultant *
* Vintage Triumph Register *
* amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|