Another Reason Trucks, Vans and SUVs are Pricey

When my car was backed into last summer, I had over $2,000 of damage done to my mini-SUV. I later posted that minivans also cost a fortune to repair after only a small accident. Now I know why. MSNBC says that fender benders cost so much because trucks, vans, and SUVs don't have to comply with bumper regulations. The details:

But federal bumper regulations do not apply to SUVs, pickups, and minivans. Without a regulatory height requirement, the bumpers on these vehicles tend to be higher than car bumpers. It makes them look more sporty and rugged. But in a crash — even at low speeds — these higher bumpers often ride over the car bumpers and cause more damage to both vehicles.

“What should be a no-damage bump turns into a thousand dollar repair job,” says John Karp, a claims analyst with PEMCO insurance in Seattle.

According to Karp, if an SUV or pickup bumps into a car in a parking lot at just a half mile an hour and hits the headlight assembly rather than the bumper, the repair bill could run $2,000. “That’s terrible,” he says. “There’s something wrong with the way the system is set up.”

That's EXACTLY what happened to me. The guy backed his massive (and I mean jacked up so that you almost needed a ladder to get into it) truck right into me. His hitch crushed the front of my Forester, damaging the grill, one headlight and the hood. What a nightmare!

Since the problem is both with the vehicle being hit as well as the one doing the hitting, this is not something we can all avoid by simply buying "normal" cars. Of course, doing that will limit the possibilities that we'll have a problem (maybe we'll hit/be hit by another "normal" car), but it certainly does not eliminate the possibility of a big problem. So what should we do? Maybe the answer is simply "drive more carefully." ;-)

And before I get any "why do you drive a gas-guzzling SUV?" sort of comments, let me remind you that I live in a state that has five months of winter which delivers 70 to 100 inches of snow per year. And my job requires me to often drive on unplowed roads to get to/from work.

Comments

[MasterPo]

While I agree, you've missed (one of) the point entirely of having a truck or SUV - the ground clearance. If it is required that trucks/suvs/etc have bumpers at the same level as cars there goes your clearance which is an other safety hazard (I can pass over something safely in my SUV that could be dangerous in a car).

[segfault]

I don't think a Forester qualifies as a "gas-guzzling SUV." If you drove a Tahoe, you'd probably qualify...

I have said for a long time that there should be regulations for bumper and frame height on on-road vehicles... That would pretty much take care of the safety/visibility issues caused by lift kits.

[WiseMoneyMatters]

I disagree about regulating bumper and frame height for all vehicles. What about the construction worker who drives a big truck? He needs the truck to pick up construction materials. He also needs a lot more clearance than the average vehicle because construction sites are not known to have nice smooth surfaces. If he were forced to have a lower frame, he'd be getting high centered on the construction site, especially after he fills his truck with a few thousand pounds of materials.

There are legitimate reasons for a higher frame.

[Jim]

They should at least expand the regulation where it makes sense. On one hand we're having worse accidents and spending more money on repairs due to high bumpers so it certainly makes sense to change something. But on the other hand there are legitimate reasons for some vehicles to have higher clearance. There should be some common ground to change the bumper rules to meet half way.

If a Ford Explorer can met the car bumper rules then I think most SUVs can. I can't really see why Minivans shouldn't comply with the car regulation. A lot of the SUVs sold now do not have high clearance either so theres no reason they can't comply as cars. The 'cross over' SUV's in particular are just glorified, station wagons.

Maybe the car makers could have a heavy utility version of trucks or SUVs that have the high clearance and sell those in more limited #'s for people who really need it. Then the rest of us can buy the normal SUV, truck or minivan that has a bumper at the car level.

Jim

[MasterPo]

I'm sympathetic, but if your car unexpectedly meets my SUV, your repair costs frankly aren't my concern.

I don't know who, when or where this idea that accident repair costs should be "fair" between all parties but that's just plain nonsense.

How about blaming Washington for requiring standards that necessitate car manufacturers to use more plastic and carbon fibre rather than rigid metal? How about blaming car makers for having so many one-piece units that to repair a small ding you have to replace a whole panel?

This is yet just another attack on SUV owners in disguise.

If they are so horrible then just pass a law banning them. It's that simple. Washington bans things all the time for much less. Let the politicians goon record for/against SUVs, if they have the backbone for taking a stand (and they don't).

[Ron]

"why do you drive a gas-guzzling SUV?" The answer is simple: Because I can! What difference does it make if someone chooses to drive a so-called gas guzzler anyway? If your not paying the bill it's none of your business, period!

"I don't know who, when or where this idea that accident repair costs should be "fair" between all parties but that's just plain nonsense." If I were to take a VERY accurate guess I would say: A bunch of Liberals!

[Matt]

I too drive an SUV; I need the space and towing capacity and it was a choice of mine which I am willing to pay for in gas costs. With that said it's a choice that makes sense for some people - not everyone falls into being able to drive a sub-compact to save on gas.

As for the cost of accidents - changing the system would probably never work. But I agree that we should all drive more carefully. I find that too many drivers are overly aggressive and don't take the responsibility for their actions (not to mention its just too easy to get a drivers license).

[Alex]

A Forester is NOT an SUV. Please stop spreading FUD about using gas in a non-socialist approved manner. A Subaru is way more likely to be driven by eco-socialists than gun toting religionist(is this a word).

Wait... did I just try to spin this topic? Silly me. For the record I live in a location during the winter that averages 500" of snowfall each season. I'm a 26 year old single male who recently traded a 2500 series diesel truck for a Honda Element. Why? I'm not a lesbian or a socialist, I like to sleep in it when traveling and camping. Is this post dragging out? That Forester probably gets better mileage than my AWD "box".