Interesting topic this has turned into, aside from a few side-steps into tree houses and motorcycles :)
In the Netherlands, one of the most difficult countries in the EU to get vehicles engineered, a bar on the front of a work vehicle is not allowed unless it has a EU certificate. To be precise about the term work vehicle: this is a category of vehicles that has to conform to certain parameters like cargo space, entry size to said space etc. So anything from a 18 wheeler truck down to a van is considered a work vehicle. What is allowed is a "device" to protect whatever item you have mounted to perform work on the front of your vehicle. This is often used to explain the bar, to protect the winch.
This however is where it gets interesting: certain vehicles comply with the parameters set for a work vehicle, ie the cargo space of a station wagen and the door accessing it can be large enough to re engineer the vehicle from what we would consider to just be a car to a van effectively. This is done a lot with 4x4's since they are big and heavy and are often used by people with a profession that requires them to lug big stuff around, a carpenter for example. Also they are capable of pulling a 3500kg trailer which is useful. So, when I buy a defender and keep it as a people mover, I can bolt pretty much anything to the front as long as it has no sharp parts etc. but if I put that same vehicle on the road as a work vehicle the rules of the game change instantly.
On note: road tax in the Netherlands is based on the weight and fuel type of the vehicle and if you run a work car the road tax is A LOT less, hence the re-engineering.
Having said all that, I do firmly believe the nanny state exists because it had to at some point. Manufacturers always have but one thing in mind: money. And probably rightfully so. If they can do something on the cheap they will. ABS, SRS and a bunch of other useful options have existed for a very long time. Even adaptive cruise control was already in development in at mercedes at least since the very early eighties, maybe late seventies. We did'nt see those options come in until the naughties because they were expensive and people spoke with their wallets. Governments need to sometimes motivate both people and companies to make an option mandatory because if left to their own devices, they will not choose to do so. I am also convinced though that governments do interfere with our daily lives to much, let policies be decided by popular opinion and lobbyists.
Let me be clear: I am NOT against pedestrians, the environment, etc. but we DO pay a very hefty price for all these developments. Modern petrol engines are forced to run so lean and clean that the engine itself is paying the price. air intake valves coke up for instance and let's not even talk about diesels! These things choke up like it's nobody's business. It used to be that a proper engine could run 100's of k's, diesels even millions of k's and these days they are pretty much worn out at 100k, maybe 150 if you are lucky. Also pedestrian safety has made vehicles so soft up front that a minor accident will break pretty much everything in front of the windshield. Have we ever thought about the costs of all that? casting a new aluminium engine is a terribly expensive business in terms of the environment. I think a bit more pollution from the exhaust would offset the enormous pollution of building and recycling vehicles :)
Conclusion (mine) I do take care of what I do to my vehicle, I do think about my fellow humans and nature alike but there is a point where I feel it is all going a bit overboard. I guess though that if our governments have lost their common sense, it is reasonable to assume that at least some part of the population has also lost theirs :( and thus rules are a necessity for them and perhaps a hindrance to the rest of us.
Cheers,
-P
