I’ve written about bumpers before on various occasions, and I genuinely believe it is a good time to revisit them once again. Maybe it is time to consider them from a slightly different point of view or perspective. The government just loves regulating things, especially automobiles and the automotive industry. Yet, near as I can tell from what I’ve observed, they don’t seem to want to regulate bumpers very much at all.

There was a time when bumpers were engineered to absorb impacts—which, oddly enough, is where they derived their name. Over the years, designers increasingly chose to integrate lights into bumpers, and more recently, sensors and cameras. It’s worth noting that lights and sensors rank among the most fragile components on a vehicle.

My question for our engineers—one I’d like to present before Congress—is straightforward: why do they consistently place the vehicle’s most fragile components in the location most vulnerable to damage? Could financial incentives be driving this decision?

Regardless of whether this is the case or not, it has increased repair costs following accidents and, consequently, insurance premiums. To reduce insurance costs, we need to implement strict regulations prohibiting lights, sensors, and cameras on or near bumpers. While repair shops will likely object, this measure will bring down premium rates.

Truth be told, when you really think about it carefully, putting lights on bumpers honestly serves absolutely no practical purpose whatsoever, and truthfully, it doesn’t even enhance the appearance or look of a vehicle in any meaningful way. It’s just genuinely dumb and doesn’t make a lot of sense!