SKU: 75358120142

Prostep Backstep Yellow No Towbar Required For Swift Sundance 2012-Onwards

$150.08 $166.75
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on sm10m.ch >

Pay in installments of $41.69 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 29 - Sep 3

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

Prostep Backstep Yellow No Towbar Required For Swift Sundance 2012-OnwardsCompany Profile Tow Trust Towbars Ltd are one of the UK's largest manufacturers of towbars and towing accessories. Based in Atherstone, Warwickshire the company has set about forging a strong reputation amongst the trade for supplying the highest quality products. From commercial and non commercial towbars to an expanding range of trade accessories, Tow Trust are confident we have the right towing solution for you. Here at Tow Trust we have

Company Profile
Tow-Trust Towbars Ltd are one of the UK's largest manufacturers of towbars and towing accessories. Based in Atherstone, Warwickshire the company has set about forging a strong reputation amongst the trade for supplying the highest quality products. From commercial and non-commercial towbars to an expanding range of trade accessories, Tow-Trust are confident we have the right towing solution for you.

Here at Tow-Trust we have deliberately chosen to site ourselves at the premium end of the market, and this means sourcing the best quality steel and using the latest technology for design and manufacturing processes. This enables us to produce products that our nationwide stockists recommend without hesitation. The Tow-Trust promise from start to finish is simple, 'absolute quality'.

In today's competitive market, every brand and manufacturer seem to make the claim for the quality of their product, yet we constantly hear headlines of how companies are trying to cut costs in order to cheapen the manufacturing process of their products. Cheaper manufacturing costs may lead to cheaply made products, a concept Tow-Trust have challenged through heavy investment in our production process. The whole Tow-Trust operation, from initial computer aided design right through to our high-grade packaging of each towbar, exhibits a remarkable attention to detail.

You may be forgiven for now expecting that this makes our products expensive, however our dedicated sales team constantly monitor our prices to ensure we are competitively priced against all alternative manufacturers. Although our products may not be the cheapest on the market we firmly believe they offer true 'value for money'. We think anyone would agree that you cannot be the cheapest and the best at the same time, and for that very reason we have decided to become the best. After all, ask yourself the question: with a safety critical component such as a towbar would you really want to rely on using the cheapest product?

Tow-Trust have been a quiet success in the towing industry for over 20 years and until relatively recently, it is fair to say that most people who require use of a towbar may only know of a few brands. However, in today's modern world the internet has meant motorists have better access than ever before to new products and possibilities. It is time therefore for the towing industries previous best kept secret to now reap the rewards of years of hard work.

From commercial fleets to the private motorist who drives to the tip once a month, the demands of a towbar are relatively simple: that it is safe, fits well, looks good, and does the job it was intended for. Despite not seeming like a lot to ask, without the proper attention to detail and passion for the product it can be surprisingly difficult to find a towbar that ticks all the boxes and we believe this is where Tow-Trust comes in. In today's market where money is tight and competition is high, it turns out that quality is still a word that means something and with such dedication to producing quality, why would you trust anyone else ....

 

Please note: Images are for illustration purposes only

 

Towbar not included

 

Pro-Steps

The Tow-Trust range of 'Pro-Steps' offer a robust, full width, plastic, anti-slip tread solution for trade professionals looking for easy access to their vehicle via a heavy duty step. Manufactured to the highest standards, the lightweight anti shatter plastic tread offers excellent foot span and is supported by a steel skeleton structure that provides extreme rigidity when placed under large loads. The 'Pro-Step' range is available in yellow or black and features a hi-visibility reflective strip. Whilst being quick and easy to fit, the 'Pro-Step' range is also suitable for parking sensors to be installed.

Tow-Trust offer both a universal and vehicle specific version of the tow bar mounted Pro Step, the vehicle specific types are designed to compliment the bumper contours and leave less of a gap between the step and the van. All their non-towing steps are vehicle specific.

  • Robust, full width, lightweight,anti shatter plastic.
  • Anti-slip, heavy duty step for easy access.
  • Excellent foot span
  • Supported by a steel skeleton structure providing extreme rigidity when placed under large loads.
  • Available in yellow or black
  • Features a hi-visibility reflective strip.
  • Suitable for parking sensors to be installed.

 

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 75358120142

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.0 ★★★★★
Based on 15 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
Waukegan, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010
G
Verified Purchase
garynini
Dallas, US
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
C
Verified Purchase
Chris Morton
Natrona Heights, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Chelsea, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
San Leandro, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010

recommand products

REAL TOUCH - 73CM ANTHURIUM CLARINERVIUM ARTIFICIAL PLANT IN POT
99.95
Single Lotus Flower Lamp - Red - Mosaic Stained Glass - Leadlight
109.97
Fire Ball Pre - Rusted Laser Cut Fire Pit - Forest Scene
549.50
LARGE RUSTY BEE WALL ART
99.00
Single Lotus Flower Lamp - Beige - Mosaic Stained Glass - Leadlight
109.97