If I'm not mistaken, I believe these same regulations are the ones that forced
MG to raise the MGB to a more standard height. I also heard something several
years ago about why there were 3 wipers - some sort of regulation about the
percentage of the wind-screen that needed to be cleared by the wipers.
Interesting how the US government looks the other way when Detroit is fudging
the rules, but MG was forced to do silly things like put on a rubber bumper,
raise the car's height and add the extra wiper!
Tony Woodruff
67 MGB (down low and with 2 wipers!)
>>> Dan Dwelley <ddwelley@excite.com> 3/23/2000 9:35:35 AM >>>
If you look at the regulations of many states, there is a height at which
the bottom edge of a vehicles bumper may be off the ground. Some states;
it's 20" maximum. This means that if the bottom of your bumper is any higher
than 20" off the ground, your vehicle is in violation of the law. This
equates to a failure for inspection...unfortunately, these laws are never
enforced...I think there is some federal regulation somewhere as well. Just
my thoughts...I remember seeing this somewhere.
Dan Dwelley
77 Midget
Alexandria, Va.
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:25:04 -0500, Robert Alan Reisse wrote:
> I think that has been verified by the acknowledgement of GM, Ford,
Chrysler
> and a host of foreign manufactures that they need to install protection
on
> their SUV and other large vehicles for crash protection for the average
> car. A driver of an average car is three times more likely to be killed
in
> a collision with an SUV type vehicle then if the other vehicle is an
> average car.
>
> At one point all cars had to have their bumpers and lights within
specific
> ranges for the protection of all. SUV's and Trucks certainly have voided
> that idea to the peril of the rest of us.
>
> I am sick and tired of driving average vehicles and being blinded by the
> lights of some SUV or pick up that are at my eye height and are bearing
> down on me.
>
> Maybe someday the regulators will act up and require some modifications
to
> these gas guzzling behemoths and we can again have a sane set of vehicles
> on the roads.
>
> Bob Reisse, PH.D and proud of the acheivement.
>
> At 10:41 AM 3/23/00 -0600, David C Little field wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:18:46 -0500 DOUGLAS_RUSSELL@nyc.yr.com writes:
> >> 5. I believe you're the unsuspecting victim of flawed logic to
> >> think that
> >> the roads will be safer without SUVs.
> >> All things considered, it's the driver not the vehicle that
> >> determines safety.
> >
> >Yes, but the effect of a bad driver is multiplied several times when
that
> >driver is driving a SUV. They are three times as likely to kill someone
> >compared to car.
> >
> >I'd rather be hit by an idiot in a Neon than an idiot in an Excursion
> >while driving my MGA. YES!! MG CONTENT _FINALLY_ ACHIEVED!! [insert
> >applause]
> >
> >David Littlefield
> >Houston, TX
> >'62 MGA MkII
> >'51 MGTD
> >'88 Jaguar XJ-S
> >
> >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> >
Dan Dwelley
77 Midget
Alexandria, Va.
Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite
Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp
|