Bullbars under fire again...

[mbt]

mazdamazda,

precisely... it would be next to impossible to legally define who has legitimate use for a bull bar (just as it's really tough to tell who has legitimate use for a big hulking SUV in the US). that's why it wouldn't be fair to enact a total ban, methinks.

setting higher (but not exceedingly so) insurance premiums for bar-equipped vehicles as you mentioned seems to me a good compromise...

[paolorenzo]

mazdamazda's inputs are the most logical ones I've read! Tama yan. Kung roof-rack nga may additional fee sa rehistro, dapat bullbars rin. Pero additional TPL coverage is the better approach.

[OTEP]

Dapat may additional fee din para sa sumusunod kung gayon:

*Headlamp mounted air intake
*Lowering springs
*Sport mirrors
*Blue bulbs
*Super white headlamps

madami pang iba. Mukhang solved na ang budget deficit ng gobyerno!!! :D

Roof racks are taxed because they were originally used for business. Lately lang naman ito naging fashion accessory.

[empy]

mazda2's suggestion is a good one - you guys might be interested to know that many insurance companies in the US have already hiked premiums for large suv's (all of them, not just the bullbar-equipped) on the grounds that they cause more damage in a crash.

[pissword]

pwede rin ba na..payagan lang maglagay ng bullbar ang mga may winch, atleast madalas ang may mga winch ung mga nagooffroad lang naman...

[splerdu]

Otep sounds angry =)

*Headlamp mounted air intake
-- Not just an additional fee, but a car sans one headlight isn't even street legal. If seen on the streets, the owner should be apprehended...

*Lowering springs
-- Disagree on this one. There are no regulations regarding ride height. If we would impose a tax on lowering springs, then we should impose a tax on bigger tires or lift kits as well, considering both methods effectively change the height of the bumper -- circumventing the logic behind a uniform bumper height.

*Sport mirrors
-- I have no idea what this is, but IMO there should be regulations regarding car accessories that replace functional components. If a replacement mirror cannot provide equal or greater field of view than the OEM component it's obviously a safety hazard and should be taken off the market.

*Blue bulbs
-- See "headlamp mounted air intake"

*Super white headlamps
-- Disagree here too. Lamp color isn't quite the problem, rather improper light design resulting in excessive glare. As with mirrors, lights are a functional component of a car and thus replacement parts should be required to undergo testing and approval.

[OTEP]

Splerdu,

I was just poking fun at the opposite end of the spectrum. :D

Regarding lowering springs. All those SUV-haters are complaining that SUV's are too high (malamang, how are we supposed to go off-road?) and that they are not meeting with the bumpers of Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe's sedans. Could it also be that they are not meeting with the bumpers of our rigs because they are lowered and not just because we sit higher?

Regarding headlamps. Check out the "Truth Behind Super White" thread in the Car Talk forum. But the other points you have raised are also valid.

[Drexx]

15Dec2003 (UTC -8)

Originally posted by mazdamazda
...
I think that this can be addressed by either the following:

- imposing additional tax for all vehicles using bullbars (not restricted to SUVs - jeepneys, cargo trucks and the like should also be covered)
- requiring additional TPL coverage

since bullbars are a "want" rather than a "need", this is logical. the additional TPL (is this right?) coverage should the said vehicle hit a pedestrian. getting hit by a bullbar is more damaging than just with the plain OEM bumper. [/B]

By the same flawed logic, and with the objective of raising government revenue by expanding tax collections, why not tax the shoe owners too? Yes, the very same constituents of the law who happen to be more numerous than the vehicles roaming in 'Pinas.

--tax the basketball posers who wear Nike shoes, and yet can't make a decent jumpshot
--tax the Doc Marten hiking shoe owners who can't even walk two kilometers without resting
--tax the ones who wear Sperry Topsider driving shoes, but only thing driven are keyboard on the computer

Clearly, since these are all just "wants" rather than "need", these are logical too by the same token. :freak:

[mbt]

ahahaha cute parallelisms hehe

mabuti na yung insurance premiums over higher tax... that way there's no discrimination and it makes better sense since the insurance company would foot a larger bill since the bar would likely cause more damage to the second party

[Drexx]

15Dec2003 (UTC -8)

Originally posted by mbt
ahahaha cute parallelisms hehe

mabuti na yung insurance premiums over higher tax... that way there's no discrimination and it makes better sense since the insurance company would foot a larger bill since the bar would likely cause more damage to the second party

:D
May hinahanap nga ako eh, being a pedestrian myself, and being more than a cute parallelism, is an insurance policy that is like TPL for car owners but is meant for pedestrians.

Imagine, kung may nabangga ka sa overpass ng SM Megamall tapos nalaglag sa EDSA, eh wala kang gagastosin sa pagpa-gamot? Or kung may nasapak ka na aksidente lang pala, eh OK lang ipagamot sa PGH?

I've been looking for something like that for more than nine years na, pero wala pa rin akong mahanap eh.