Rear bumper.

[flywheel]

I got stoped by a cop, He said that i could get a ticket for not having a rear bumper. My 69 F100 did not have one on it when I got it. Did ALL 1969 F100 have rear bumpers? I'm going in to see the chief in the morning.

[mrsnicks]

Don't quote me but I believe rear bumpers were Federally mandated safety equipment installed on all vehicles, and yes you just have a rear bumper to be street legal....

But now that I think of this, several trucks have roll pans and no rear bumpers... are they street legal????

Dangit I hate when I do that....

Anyone else know if this is illegal or not?

Patrick

[xxxtina63]

Unless someone put a rollpan on it, then yes. Not sure what regs are on rollpans. The rear bumper often times was an "extra" item back then, meaning you could buy it without one or it would be an option, like adding power windows or cool rims.

[heep70]

I think they are just that dumb to figure out that a roll pan is not a real bumper.

That is a good question that you brought up.

[jor]

I don't think rear bumpers are mandated in Arizona. I bought a new Nissan pickup in 93 and a rear bumper was an option. The truck is still on the road (sold it to a neighbor) and it still has no rear bumper.
jor

[fordman]

i do know that the trucks could come with no rear bumper. it was an option.

[Comet]

Bumpers used to always be an option on trucks. I thought they were exempt from the bumper laws because the whole bed (not a passenger compartment) would act like a bumper. Did he cite an RCW on the ticket?

[steveheer]

Well, I'm sure with a roll pan installed the impact resistance would go WAY UP!!

[flywheel]

I got the ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. He said he could write me a ticket for no bumper. When i asked about it he got mad at me. I dropped it. I have filed a complaint at city hall. We will see. I will not put a bumper on the truck, I don't want one! :twisted:

[Comet]

Next time you get stopped, ask all nicey nice. Gee officer, it was my understanding that trucks were exempt from the bumper law. Could you kindly tell me the applicable RCW so that I can fully understand the law?

[Comet]

Well, I looked it up. Here it is:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.517
Guess it is required. Damn, I'm running just a roll pan in the '61.

[rjewkes]

I thought if it came that way from factory/dealership it was alright. And what about the times it would be far more dangerous to have the bumper on the vehicle. and does this mean that if my original was a smouthie bumper i can't put a step bumper on in its place as it would exceed the original bumpers line?.

[Comet]

Yeah me too rjewkes. But this is WA law, so your experience may vary!

In WA, I was hoping it would break out trucks specifically, but it doesn't. Unfortunately in our case, silence on the issue means we're supposed to have a bumper.

[FORDification]

Comet: That statute doesn't mean they're required, just that they need to be maintained so as not to protrude past the body, which could be a hazard to other vehicles and pedestrians.

THIS LINK states the following:

When any motor vehicle was originally equipped with bumpers or any other collision energy absorption or attenuation system, that system shall be maintained in good operational condition....

This shows that they're only required (in the state of Washington) for vehicles orginally equipped with them from the factory.

And the 'not protruding' part simply is a way of keeping someone from sticking 10-foot wide bumpers on a 6-foot wide vehicle.

[rjewkes]

Yup. Oh well when all hail breaks loose in the end and our malfunctioning, bumperless, fenderlss lightless cars and trucks pull their buns out of the fire they'll sing a different tune.