rant: a bumper's not a bumper anymore

anyone who knows me and has been in more than one conversation with me about cars knows how much i hate the modern car. specifically, i hate the absence of actual, steel or chrome bumpers on any auto made post 1990. (and don't get me started on SUVs)

the purpose of a bumper is to absorb "bumps" that the vehicle may sustain in parking and minor contact with other vehicles. since the early-to-mid-1990s, bumpers don't do anything of the sort. and if you have had to deal with having one or more replaced when it was cracked(!?) in a minor bump, you know exactly what i'm talking about. my own car is not as bad as those from the last few years, in that the bumper is still a bumper, instead of a mere fiberglass or plastic panel integrated into the overall profile and shape of the vehicle. my bumpers, though only made of plastic and fiberglass, still do some minor bumping without crunching and can be scratched without doing damage to any paint or structural integrity of the vehicle. the cars of today, with their smooth lines and general schmantziness, can't bear up to more than a 2mph impact! this is pathetic! what's a bumper for, if not to prevent minor contact between vehicles from creating a need for an accident report and an exchange of insurance cards?!

in the news of the last year there has been some commiseration with my lament for the bygone bumper and even more complaint from the insurance industry on this exact issue. not only does the lack of a bumper create an overall plastic-toy-like quality to the design of modern cars, but it makes living in cities like washington, dc and new york city, where there is virtually a zero-inch clearance for parallel parking, a nightmare of outrageous insurance premiums and over-the-shoulder ("did anyone see me bump that car?") furtiveness.

what the hell was wrong with cars having a big-braces-on-the-teeth-grin or pouting bottom lip anyway. the profile of older cars with bumpers has more character than the seamless-bubbles that they've become in the last decade. and no one can tell me that the reason for the lack of actual bumpers anymore is aerodynamics - the overall fuel-efficiency of vehicles today is certainly not better than that of the late-80s and early-90s (without even mentioning SUVs). no, the only true reasons for manufacturers to have made the change from metal-and-rubber to color-matched plastic and painted fiberglass can be lower costs for production and higher (in frequency and price) replacement sales for damaged parts.

don't kid yourself, it's only sold to you as a "clean and seamless" aesthetic image because the marketing departments at the big automakers told you you liked it. we all were just fine with bumpers when they were ugly pouts of steel and rubber. face it, when cars had humble bumpers made of metal and rubber (or even like mine, plain black plastic), there was no need to replace them when they got a few scratches and dings. not even the resale value was harmed much by such trivial, run-of-the-mill mundane use - a bumper was intended to sustain it. but now that there is only the "smooth line" of the quarter-panel-to-rear-assembly bumperlessness of modern cars, any minor scuff, nick or scratch can mean potentially monumental replacement costs and so, higher insurance premiums. sure chrome had it's own worries with scratches and dings, but that was when such stuff was only "character" rather than "damage," and who would think to replace the whole bumper for that?

no, we're stuck in a world without bumpers until we the consumers (or more likely, the insurance industry as a whole) buck the marketing of "simple lines" in vehicles and unite in fighting the auto manufacturers in the furtherance of their cash-cow of no-profile bumpers.

in the news of the last year there has been some commiseration with my lament for the bygone bumper and even more complaint from the insurance industry on this exact issue. not only does the lack of a bumper create an overall plastic-toy-like quality to the design of modern cars, but it makes living in cities like washington, dc and new york city, where there is virtually a zero-inch clearance for parallel parking, a nightmare of outrageous insurance premiums and over-the-shoulder ("did anyone see me bump that car?") furtiveness.

what the hell was wrong with cars having a big-braces-on-the-teeth-grin or pouting bottom lip anyway. the profile of older cars with bumpers has more character than the seamless-bubbles that they've become in the last decade. and no one can tell me that the reason for the lack of actual bumpers anymore is aerodynamics - the overall fuel-efficiency of vehicles today is certainly not better than that of the late-80s and early-90s (without even mentioning SUVs). no, the only true reasons for manufacturers to have made the change from metal-and-rubber to color-matched plastic and painted fiberglass can be lower costs for production and higher (in frequency and price) replacement sales for damaged parts.

don't kid yourself, it's only sold to you as a "clean and seamless" aesthetic image because the marketing departments at the big automakers told you you liked it. we all were just fine with bumpers when they were ugly pouts of steel and rubber. face it, when cars had humble bumpers made of metal and rubber (or even like mine, plain black plastic), there was no need to replace them when they got a few scratches and dings. not even the resale value was harmed much by such trivial, run-of-the-mill mundane use - a bumper was intended to sustain it. but now that there is only the "smooth line" of the quarter-panel-to-rear-assembly bumperlessness of modern cars, any minor scuff, nick or scratch can mean potentially monumental replacement costs and so, higher insurance premiums. sure chrome had it's own worries with scratches and dings, but that was when such stuff was only "character" rather than "damage," and who would think to replace the whole bumper for that?

no, we're stuck in a world without bumpers until we the consumers (or more likely, the insurance industry as a whole) buck the marketing of "simple lines" in vehicles and unite in fighting the auto manufacturers in the furtherance of their cash-cow of no-profile bumpers.