Re: Car Bumpers
I expect not having a bumper makes the car a little more aero-dynamic, which probably makes a difference to fuel efficiency over the life of the car. Hence
perhaps meaning a little less air pollution. Every little helps I suppose.
Apart from that, I believe cars not having a definite bumper is for safety considerations to pedestrians. Less injury
may be sustained if a pedestrian is hit by a car that doesn't have a bumper, or if it has a bumper that crumples or flexes a bit.
A bumper (if fitted) is a about at knee height or a little below. What happens then is that the bumper hitting a person shatters bones at about that level. This can still happen if a car hits hard enough of course but on balance, getting hit by a car without a bumper may cause less injury.
I think what happens to walkers/children when a car hits them is all part of what gets tested when designing a car's shape. I believe the hope is a person will be sent up onto the bonnet by the car without it breaking bones, or knocking down the person where they might subsequently go underneath it.
Once on the bonnet, there is just the drop to the road. Not good but hopefully the knee joints at least won't be shattered and better on the bonnet than under the car. Shattered knee joints don't mend properly.
I daresay this isn't entirely the reason why cars have no bumpers but I think the pedestrian safety factor does enter into it to a degree. Car bodies can be repaired. A human body maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedest...vehicle_design