Hello guys,
An interesting exchange which I have almost missed wile travelling abroad.
As for the points made by Chris - I agree 100% that wrecking a car on
a shopping trip is a major inconvenience (think of all the frozen food
at the back!) but not a disaster.That's why chromed bullbars and side
steps are total bling.
It will be a different story in other parts of the world where an
encounter with object immovable as well as movable in the opposite
direction is more likely than here and can be a disaster. Think of a
bullbar or D-frame as a protection for the radiator, not for paint,
lamps or bodywork. You can drive without lamps (in Africa you're a
sissy if you have a pair of then working
but not without engine
cooling.
The extra strong rear bumper like Kaymar is not so much for protection
as for carrying the weight of two spare wheel brackets.
Underbody protection - I don't know about others but I see them as an
extra insurance policy. After many hours of driving on African roads
or on a piste it's easy to lose concentration and hit a rock or
anything hard in the path of the vehicle. Not a problem while moving
10 mph, but if the road ahead looks good you normally are doing 40 or
50 mph before realising it was a tad too fast judging by the force of
the impact ;-)
The downside of vehicle armour is extra fuel that the car burns to
carry additional mass but the upside is that one can allow for such
occasional mistakes without any consequence.
--
Rgds,
Roman (London, UK)
'92 HDJ80
On 9/15/05, Christopher Bell <[Email address removed]> wrote:
e where impact on the roads is likely to be with 2-legged rather than 4-legged creatures ("2 legs good, 4 legs bad?") as I'm sure you would agree. In fact the original question posed was how and why the traffic police in the UK would react. So I'm sorry if you felt that I was labelling you as a callous philistine - having read a lot of posts from you over the years I know that you are quite the opposite.
