Hi Glen:
The front bumper was definitely an option, although there is consensus that
the cars shipped to North America were all fitted with it. I guess that's
called a mandatory option. In England, and perhaps other markets as well, it
was an optional extra. It would seem to me that a case could be made that
the front bumper was not standard equipment, and thus need not be there now.
Don't most jurisdictions make allowances for collector cars with these sort
of regulations? Where I live, we are required to have a license plate both
front and rear, although I have never had one on the front of my bugeye. Any
police I have encountered just smile and say "nice car" or something like
that.
In Eastern Canada, British Columbia (where I live) is sometimes referred to
as "Lotus Land", perhaps this sort of thing is why......
Doug Ingram
Victoria BC
1958 Sprite (AN5L/636)
1963 Sprite Mk II project (HAN7L/30003)
----- Original Message -----
From Glen Byrns <grbyrns at ucdavis.edu>
To: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 4:16 PM
Subject: front bumber, Yes of No
> My '59 Bugeye is currently without a front bumper. I don't have one and
> currently don't intend ever to get one.
>
> Is this legal in Calif.? Did the bugeyes come this way in this country?
> Most important question is.... Can I BS the CHP with a story about how
they
> came this way and it would screw up the 'originality' of it if I put one
on?
>
> I like the look without it, the 'grinning frog' look is better without the
> bumper to muck it up. In my case, the red air horn is visible through the
> grille and looks like the frog's tongue. I've no safety concerns that the
> original bumper could alleviate.
>
>
> Glen Byrns
> '59 Bugeye
> various other boring cars
>
|