New York State to Ban Brush Guards

[Good Times]

That doesn't make any sense. Even if NY passed the bill into law, it should only apply to NYS registered vehicles. It would be beyond ridiculous to expect people in other states to remove their guards because they are driving through NY.

Do people in Florida have to remove their dark window tint when they are driving their cars in NJ?

Just to answer your question really quickly, YES. I've seen people get cited in CA because AZ plates allow tint on all windows except CA does not. Just because of you have out of state plates do not mean you're exempt. Do you think just because you're from out of state, you're exempt from all VC codes in the state you're driving in? lol I don't think so.

I've also seen people get citied for no mudflaps in AZ with CA plates. In CA the rules for mudflaps are more relaxed but in AZ that is not the case.

I could probably try to find more examples if I ask some of my fellow law enforcement buddies if you wish.

 

[Fourty-four]

Just to answer your question really quickly, YES. I've seen people get cited in CA because AZ plates allow tint on all windows except CA does not. Just because of you have out of state plates do not mean you're exempt. Do you think just because you're from out of state, you're exempt from all VC codes in the state you're driving in? lol I don't think so.

I've also seen people get citied for no mudflaps in AZ with CA plates. In CA the rules for mudflaps are more relaxed but in AZ that is not the case.

I could probably try to find more examples if I ask some of my fellow law enforcement buddies if you wish.

I did a little research and found out that many states do not enforce their tint laws on out-of-state vehicles. Do a Google searcha and look at the tint laws in Georgia, for example. For some reason, there's a lot of information on tint laws in that state. I live in NY, but right next to the border of NJ. My 4Runner windows are heavily tinted, and I've never had a problem in NJ. Any tint on the drivers and passenger side window is illegeal in NJ.

 

[RunnerUp]

did your wife leave you? your kids hate you? did you lose your job and your dog get run over? whats wrong with you man? why are you so combative about everything? i think you should take some friendly advice and leave this conversation now before you do get shut up in an unfriendly way.

sorry if im coming across as mean, but you are just annoying at this point....

no wonder your ______ left

 

[Atomic 4Runner]

Use the Ignore List

We have an IGNORE LIST available, where we can add the names of obnoxious folks that write stupid posts and waste our time.

Instead of giving these mental giants the satisfaction that they're getting on your nerves, add them to your Ignore list and just ignore their rantings and ravings.

Take their audience away and all you have left is a poor babbling fool talking to himself (or herself).

 

[abin]

it is not illegal for same person to use more than one user id.
just curious, how many people consistently use one single user id? it is not very hard to tell.
i see no problem on this.

 

[bolt]

rolleyes

:dance:

 

[atomic punk]

And odds are that I'm quite a bit older than you, "punk":

...all the more reason you should be quite a bit more mature than me, "four".

 

[4RunnerSE2006]

2. personally the brush guards (manik, jaos to name a few) are worthless $$ junk that do not do anything but cause more $$ in an accident.

[/B][/QUOTE]

The brush guards or bull bars can provide protection of the bumper when parallel parked on the streets. They are not worthless junk. Personally I wouldn't mind getting one b/c I've experienced those pushing the limits to get into a space in front of you. (Or behind you)

But now I have to reconsider if I should buy one. Or buy one but NEVER cross the bridges and tunnels with my 4Runner. ha ha.

It is possible that once NY passes, other states may follow.

 

[Fourty-four]

did your wife leave you? your kids hate you? did you lose your job and your dog get run over? whats wrong with you man? why are you so combative about everything? i think you should take some friendly advice and leave this conversation now before you do get shut up in an unfriendly way.

sorry if im coming across as mean, but you are just annoying at this point....

no wonder your ______ left

Nope, none of the above.

BTW, nice way to deflect the conversation off of the facts.

So if the bill is turned into law, will out-of-state drivers face a fine/ticket if they do not remove their brush guards in NY? Please keep the conversation on topic as requested by the modertors.

 

[abin]

someone got hit at sore spot as i can see.

you parked illegally in NYC, you deserve a parking ticket doesn't matter where your license is from. that is the bottom line

this bill is for NY residents only.


people on so called 'igonre list' (if there is such thing) seem to get most attentions here. it happens everywhere and i have no issue living with this.

 

[sharp4runr]

it is not illegal for same person to use more than one user id.
just curious, how many people consistently use one single user id? it is not very hard to tell.
i see no problem on this.

Actually Rule 7 on this link: http://toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5809 :

Keep it on topic and avoid the personal attacks and this thread will stay open.

 

[Fourty-four]

Read up on the reasons for the proposed ban:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10116

You'll quickly see that the main reason for the ban is the protection of the drivers of vehicles equipped with the guard. By attaching the guard to the chassis of a vehicle, the crumple zone is not as effective (if at all), which puts the driver in a higher risk of injury.

It's amazing to me that nobody has anything to say about that. I mentioned it much earlier in this thread. I'd much rather have my 4Runner's crumple zone be able to do its job, instead of having a guard that transfers the crash energy past the crumple zone.

It seems that the law is attempting to protect people from themselves. Kinda reminds me of the seatbelt laws that so many people were against in the beginning.

 

[dmr_pj]

Brush guards in the city

Just gotta say that the first time you walk out to your car and see a huge dent, marred bumper or dangling parking light left by some jackass who can't park, drive or use common courtesey and leave a note (nevermind anything as tedious as the law), you'll quickly realize why bumper guards are so popular in the city.

After the second time you see your car damaged, you'll start shopping for a bumper guard yourself. They appear on everything here, including minivans.

No, I wouldn't expect it to protect me in an accident. But I can still drive legaly with a scratched up bumper guard. Can't say the same when you've got a dangling turn signal or drooping bumper.

 

[ksneubec]

Read up on the reasons for the proposed ban:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10116

You'll quickly see that the main reason for the ban is the protection of the drivers of vehicles equipped with the guard. By attaching the guard to the chassis of a vehicle, the crumple zone is not as effective (if at all), which puts the driver in a higher risk of injury.

I disagree . . . . these guards only prevent damage from slower speed accidents- the guards themselves will crumple at higher speeds too. I'm talking about aftermarket grille guards, not replacement bumpers like the ARB.

 

[sharp4runr]

Read up on the reasons for the proposed ban:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10116

You'll quickly see that the main reason for the ban is the protection of the drivers of vehicles equipped with the guard. By attaching the guard to the chassis of a vehicle, the crumple zone is not as effective (if at all), which puts the driver in a higher risk of injury.

It's amazing to me that nobody has anything to say about that. I mentioned it much earlier in this thread. I'd much rather have my 4Runner's crumple zone be able to do its job, instead of having a guard that transfers the crash energy past the crumple zone.

It seems that the law is attempting to protect people from themselves. Kinda reminds me of the seatbelt laws that so many people were against in the beginning.

Actually if you read your own link, you'll see that the bill is designed with the vehicle being hit in mind. It says that quote:

The guards transfer the energy from the
moving vehicle, oftentimes a full size pick-up or SUV directly onto
the other vehicle in the accident. This can place the driver and
passengers of the other vehicle in greater harm than in an accident
involving properly functioning protective mechanisms.

I believe if you are going to use that reasoning, then the bill has no basis. Brush guards, bumper protectors, safari grills etc are useless at anything more than 5MPH. They will crumple and provide no protection at high speeds so that negates any effects on crumple zones. These devices are designed to take a light tap from parallel parking mishaps and not true fender benders.

If anything this bill is designed with the ARB bumpers in the bullseye. Runnerup has already posted his pictures of his run in with an Audi. He obviously one that altercation.

For this bill to pass, I think NY will have to do some crash testing to prove the effects of these brush guards. Otherwise, I don't think this would pass.

 

[abin]

quote:The guards transfer the energy from the
moving vehicle, oftentimes a full size pick-up or SUV directly onto
the other vehicle in the accident. This can place the driver and
passengers of the other vehicle in greater harm than in an accident
involving properly functioning protective mechanisms.


=======================
yes,you hit the point.
a truck loaded with 5000 pounds of good will transfer this additional impact of 5000 pounds to other vehicle in the accident. i don't see big difference here. same for gas tankers.

 

[Fourty-four]

Actually if you read your own link, you'll see that the bill is designed with the vehicle being hit in mind. It says that quote:



I believe if you are going to use that reasoning, then the bill has no basis. Brush guards, bumper protectors, safari grills etc are useless at anything more than 5MPH. They will crumple and provide no protection at high speeds so that negates any effects on crumple zones. These devices are designed to take a light tap from parallel parking mishaps and not true fender benders.

The transfer of crash energy would obviously affect both vehicles. If a guard is bolted directly to the frame of a vehicle, then it will transfer some of the crash energy "around" the crumple zones, and that has the potential to hurt occupants of both vehicles.

If you're talking about an accident involving a single-vehicle at any decent speeds, (think of a 4Runner into a pole), then there's no question that the guard will increase the decelerative forces of the occupants, due to the transfer of energy around the crumple zones.

 

[sharp4runr]

Thats all fine and dandy, but there are no HARD numbers showing how much if any "crash energy" as you put it is transferred.

This point is moot until someone can show definitively that the brush guards have any detrimental effect. Since the politicians are trying to pass this as law, they will need to provide the crash test numbers showing how much the grill guards affected the outcome of the crash. As it stands, it is your word against mine.

I'm not passing myself off as a scientist, I'm just using my common sense so if anyone with an engineering background wants to chime in feel free.

 

[RunnerUp]

okay, see fourty four, this is how to talk about it. i can sit here all day and compare opinions with you on this. i just dont like it when people seem to have a "better than everyone" attitude, and again, sorry if i seem to be a "dickhead".

anyways, back on topic,

i will agree that replacement bumpers such as an ARB or TJM or other's will transfer more energy and provide more of a JOLT when you are involved in an accident.

NYC traffic and parking is horrible and i would never drive any car that didnt have front & rear steel bumpers, steel sliders to protect from idiots swinging there door open and slamming it into your door.

small brush guards (waag, westin, jaos) really dont do anything except make a cosmetic difference and protect from runaway shopping carts and the occasional unskilled parrallel parker.

i think if NY is going to make this a law, first off whoever already has a bumper guard should be grandfathered in and the state should pay for damages caused by bad drivers. it shouldnt be made illegal to protect your vehicle as you paid for it, and most people (unless you are crazy rich and have matching cars for when one is in the shop) dont take well when there vehicle is hurt

hell, my bumper is scratched from the speed bump audi i hit and everytime i see it i kinda just go a little crazy for a little bit. i dont want to know what i would be like if i walked out to my car after i ran into the store real fast and saw my front bumper/back bumper/lights busted out.

i know that bumpers like the ARB dont crumple, but there is no way that you can compare that to a seat belt law. im young, so i can take the little extra jolt, but ARB does test there bumpers for crashing, and they do perform well in serious accidents.

i can take a few extra g forces if it saves my vehicle from damage.. in a 30mph combined speed wreck with a stupid driver that very well could have damaged my radiator if i had a factory bumper.

the wreck that i was in wasnt very jarring. it actually felt as if i had hit a wall that gave way. dont get my wrong, i still felt it and new immediatly that i had hit her hard but compared to how much damge with an OEM bumper.....

are you saying that you think little strips of thin metal are going to affect a vehicle hit by it hard enough to hurt occupants? its nto going to be felt as extra weight or increase the decelerative force significantly to either vehicle



other people who CHOOSE to drive if you will... disposable cars... the roads are dangerous

 

[Expat]

I did a little research and found out that many states do not enforce their tint laws on out-of-state vehicles. Do a Google searcha and look at the tint laws in Georgia, for example. For some reason, there's a lot of information on tint laws in that state. I live in NY, but right next to the border of NJ. My 4Runner windows are heavily tinted, and I've never had a problem in NJ. Any tint on the drivers and passenger side window is illegeal in NJ.

Four -

See, here is where one law is good for you and another not.

Your premise in one of your comments was that the NY law on brush guards is protecting people from themselves...an idea you think might be slightly curious, but nevertheless necessary (because you are supporting the ban/law).

So if you want to go down that line, tinted windows are also considered dangerous by many agencies/people. As an example, our protection services (police) find it difficult to know who is the car/truck when they cannont see in. Pulling someone over for a traffic infingement can easily turn into more dangerous situations when the police cannot see into the car/truck and know what the occupants are doing - eg pulling a gun, destroying evidence.... and likewise tinted windows are a danger as they reduce visibility whcih can affect peripheral view, especially at night.

Now going on your position that the brush guard ban is protecting people from themselves, should not the tinting of windows also be banned to protect people from themselves?

So now, how about you removing your "heavily tinted" window film please?

These are somewhat rhetorical (sp?) questions as the point I am making is that this ban could be extended to many other features of a car design. In all truthfulness you'd have to agree that the only safe way for car design (and therefore aftermarket products) would be for all cars to have the same design, a very low speed capability, sensors that force vehicles to travel at safe distances, airbags for the car as well as the occupants, same height bumpers enforced, removal of all trucks from roadways except designated truck only roadways etc etc.

Last time I look, the US in one of the few "free" countries. The right to expression, personal choice, and a limit on over- burdening government was a positive feature of the country.

By supporting the ban, you are supporting the continued loss of choice and rights. If you look carefully at your own life (behaviors) honestly, I bet you, that you will at times behave in ways that are counter productive to safety/laws/common sense, and yet you and I and everyone else does so on a daily basis.

Vote no to over regulation!

PS: THE REAL ISSUE IS OVER PEOPLE WHO CANNOT DRIVE WITH CARE.

Rant over