Bull Bars Under Threat

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Issue in the ABC news today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... ion=justin

Full gamut of opinions on display, including the blame game for drivers and passengers. It's like a rerun of this thread with some additional craziness on both sides of the debate.

[lionel Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close lionel]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Okay. To summarise, the issue should not be about banning bullbars, or 4wds, or to try and blame drivers or passengers for each crash.

Rather, it should be about improved vehicle designs, improved manufacturing standards and improved road safety planning. And we should all be able to agree to this, right?

Agreed x2

The argument is just about how to do it!

[Matty80 Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Matty80]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Okay. To summarise, the issue should not be about banning bullbars, or 4wds, or to try and blame drivers or passengers for each crash.

Rather, it should be about improved vehicle designs, improved manufacturing standards and improved road safety planning. And we should all be able to agree to this, right?

Agreed, well said ntpryce!!! (x3)...

[croozza Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close croozza]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Issue in the ABC news today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... ion=justin

Full gamut of opinions on display, including the blame game for drivers and passengers. It's like a rerun of this thread with some additional craziness on both sides of the debate.

I noticed that they did not allow any feedback on this topic.

[AJ120 Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close AJ120]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Okay. To summarise, the issue should not be about banning bullbars

I copied this from the link in the original post.

The Federal Government is considering adopting the United Nations Economic Cooperation for Europe (UNECE) regulation governing the design and safety performance of vehicles that come into contact with pedestrians. If the regulation were adopted in full, every new vehicle sold in Australia would be required to meet pedestrian safety criteria under ADRs. This would affect your ability to fit bull bars to vehicles to protect occupants from animal strikes. The full adoption of the European Standard would spell the end of the Australian bull bar as we know it.

If you read the last sentrence in that quote I think that this thread should and is about whether to ban bullbars. In fact the title of the thread says pretty much that.

Quite a bit of talk earlier about smart bars being the way to go! As far as i can gather these would not comply with the proposed laws, not even a nudge bar would comply, and winches would also be next to impossible to fit.

I am all for making things safer for everyone but this standard is a one sided view of the situation from the pedestrians point of view, as discussed before in this thread; data on whether bullbars are a significant factor in injuries or deaths seems to be non existant. Any improvement in pedestrian safety needs to be weighed up against driver safety in the event of an animal strike and the death or injuries this could cause either in the accident itself, or as a result of being stranded and unable to get help.


Cheers Andrew

[ntp Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close ntp]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

ARB notice: Bull Bars under threat

ABC News article from NT - at least the NT Government has a common sense approach.

[ntp Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close ntp]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

And an example of how a bull bar can actually save a life - News Article

[ntp Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close ntp]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Worth reading: The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association industry position paper

I've lifted some interesting pertinent quotes from the document, but recommend you read the whole document for full context:

"The Australian Transport Road Safety Bureau examined bull bars and road trauma (2000) and found that in the Australian environment there are positive and negative aspects of bull bars with regard to road trauma and fatal road crash data. Their final conclusion was that there is a significant lack of data on animal strikes. In their view it was impossible to isolate the effects of bull bars on pedestrians from other factors associated with injury outcomes such as vehicle size and speed."

"Pedestrians are our most vulnerable road users and yet we do not impose any pedestrian safety regulations on bicycles, motorbikes, cars, trucks, commercial or public transport vehicles. We do not require car makers to test their vehicles for head injury to pedestrians. There are no requirements for airbags on the outside of any vehicle currently in production.
Why is this? Why don’t we design pedestrian friendly vehicles? Because pedestrians and vehicles simply don’t mix. Because the best way to protect pedestrians is to make sure they do not come into contact with a moving vehicle. No design specification is capable of protecting a pedestrian from the harm inflicted by connecting with a one tonne moving vehicle."

"Due to government driver education, drivers know that the best way to protect pedestrians in urban areas is to slow down. Protecting pedestrians is a road safety issue; we need to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians are kept at a safe distance from each other – urban road design, speed limits, pedestrian crossings and road safety education, save pedestrian lives. If we accept that no vehicle is friendly to pedestrians, why then is there so much talk about bull bars? So much discussion about banning and regulating? Because we can see the bull bar, this accessory is obvious to all observers."

"The Vicroads campaign “Seven Reasons why bull bars can be dangerous” was implemented as a result of the above recommendations and was undertaken without any consultation with the AAAA, the VFPS manufacturing sector or the 4WD Drivers. As a result the campaign manages to misinform consumers and defame manufacturers. The campaign needs to be challenged on a number of levels. One of the most significant and misleading aspects of the campaign is the linking of VFPS and pedestrian road deaths. Particularly the statement that pedestrians are 50% more likely to be killed in a collision with a vehicle fitted with a bull bar. Vic Roads does not have any data or evidence to substantiate this claim. Similarly, the Vic Roads campaign falsely implies that about 90 people were fatally injured by bull bars. This figure is not correct. This data is drawn from the national road data base and we believe that it may be related to all fatalities with a bull bar – there is no suggestion that these accidents even involved a pedestrian and the national data base does not record pedestrian fatalities/injuries and the incidence of bull bars."

[Guest Close max_rocktansky]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Bugger me,

The wankers lost the suspension height battle and now the same clowns are starting on us over our bullbars. Just buearecrats trying to justify their damn existence again and we seem to be easy targets. I reckon they can get stuffed...

My 4 cents...

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Worth reading: The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association industry position paper

[..]
"Pedestrians are our most vulnerable road users and yet we do not impose any pedestrian safety regulations on bicycles, motorbikes, cars, trucks, commercial or public transport vehicles. We do not require car makers to test their vehicles for head injury to pedestrians. There are no requirements for airbags on the outside of any vehicle currently in production.
Why is this? Why don’t we design pedestrian friendly vehicles? Because pedestrians and vehicles simply don’t mix. Because the best way to protect pedestrians is to make sure they do not come into contact with a moving vehicle. No design specification is capable of protecting a pedestrian from the harm inflicted by connecting with a one tonne moving vehicle."

"Due to government driver education, drivers know that the best way to protect pedestrians in urban areas is to slow down. Protecting pedestrians is a road safety issue; we need to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians are kept at a safe distance from each other – urban road design, speed limits, pedestrian crossings and road safety education, save pedestrian lives. If we accept that no vehicle is friendly to pedestrians, why then is there so much talk about bull bars? So much discussion about banning and regulating? Because we can see the bull bar, this accessory is obvious to all observers."

"The Vicroads campaign “Seven Reasons why bull bars can be dangerous” was implemented as a result of the above recommendations and was undertaken without any consultation with the AAAA, the VFPS manufacturing sector or the 4WD Drivers. As a result the campaign manages to misinform consumers and defame manufacturers. The campaign needs to be challenged on a number of levels. One of the most significant and misleading aspects of the campaign is the linking of VFPS and pedestrian road deaths. Particularly the statement that pedestrians are 50% more likely to be killed in a collision with a vehicle fitted with a bull bar. Vic Roads does not have any data or evidence to substantiate this claim. Similarly, the Vic Roads campaign falsely implies that about 90 people were fatally injured by bull bars. This figure is not correct. This data is drawn from the national road data base and we believe that it may be related to all fatalities with a bull bar – there is no suggestion that these accidents even involved a pedestrian and the national data base does not record pedestrian fatalities/injuries and the incidence of bull bars."

Drivel. They will have to get far more focussed and logical if they want to make a decent case. We in Aus may not currently require manufacturers to test, but they are already doing that overseas anyway. Airbags outside of vehicles??? Who suggested they put that in there? And criticising a statement that "pedestrians are 50% more likely to be killed in a collision with a vehicle fitted with a bull bar." You have to be joking.

Pick the fights you can win. We can win non-urban use of bullbars, we might be able to negotiate on urban use of those bullbars whilst in transit. We won't ever win bull bars on urban-only vehicles in the long term - there is no justification.

[tassie tiger Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close tassie tiger]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Thanks for the link nt. Interesting read.

I am sitting waiting for the kids to finish taekwondo and so have typed a bit of piece. All the stuff in blue is written from a risk management viewpoint which I hold qualifications and a real interest in. Its not an attack on anyone or there decisions in life. If you can stomach it you may (or may not) find it interesting. If I were working for the govt here is how I would argue the paper from a risk management perspective.

NB. For the record i dont think all new vehicles should be prohibited from fitting a solid bullbar. There are definite reasons for some vehicles to carry them.

Here goes;

Dear Minister,

This is perhaps the saddest 'paper' I have read in a long time. I understand that they may not have had much time to prepare but that is a pathetic attempt.

Here is a quote that anyone who has any training in risk management would fall down laughing (and the govt has lots of risk managers on staff)

"Why is this? Why don’t we design pedestrian friendly vehicles? Because
pedestrians and vehicles simply don’t mix. Because the best way to
protect pedestrians is to make sure they do not come into contact
with a moving vehicle. No design specification is capable of protecting a
pedestrian from the harm inflicted by connecting with a one tonne
moving vehicle.

The proposed changes are to 'minimise' not 'protect from harm'. The argument is stupid and will be seen as such. Anyone who has prepared a discussion paper knows that you never give the opposition a free kick (or demonstrate your an idiot). Of course you will be harmed if you are hit by a vehicle. You will of course suffer far less damage, and possibly survive, if the vehicle is designed to reduce the impact.

Now here is where the approach taken by the industry will be difficult to sustain when placed under scrutiny. The majority of vehicles in rural areas dont have bullbars. How are the non bullbar equipped vehicle occupants surviving? They travel the same roads with the same risk. If you have travelled to any rural mining town you will find an SS Commodore ute with 22" wheels for every 4wd. (okay, a bit silly but you get the drift)

If bullbars are such as life saver then why are not all vehicles MADE to fit them. Because lives lost to animal strikes are so statistically low as to be almost non existent. Can someone link to one? Seriously, do a search on google. I spent 15 minutes and couldnt find a single news article. It does happen of course. A fellow died near our house when he hit a horse and it entered the vehicle.

There are however research papers (as linked earlier and available if searched) that show the increased damage that bullbars do when they impact with humans. To argue that a bullbar does not make a difference is stupid. Plain and simple. If you dont thinks its stupid walk up to the next prado you see with a bullbar. Smash your head against the std rear plastic bumper so it hurts. Do the same to the bullbar. Did you feel the difference.

Another issue that will lose is blaming pedestrians for the collision. Of course some pedestrians are at fault. Many are not. Often pedestrians are hit by vehicles running red lights, speeding and losing control. Drivers are to blame just like pedestrians are. But pedestrians come in many forms. Some dont have the capacity to determine risk - it doesnt mean they should die.

The last issue that will damage the argument is the fact that the user is MODIFYING the vehicle from standard. This is where the govt will probably win. They will argue, and I'm not sure how you would defend it, that the vehicle has been made MORE dangerous through modification and they are stopping this practice from occurring. And seeing as most vehicles dont have a bullbar fitted and do quite fine then why should you be allowed to increase risk?

So your vehicle has a better departure angle - FAIL- they wont be interested.
So your vehicle is not damaged if it hits a Kangaroo - FAIL - thats what insurance is for.
So your vehicle can carry a winch - FAIL - the vehicle needs a cradle, not a full bullbar and the cradle can be protected.

The smart option, IMO, would be for the industry to strike a balance. Embrace the concept but push for exemptions. Exemptions for rural areas where the inherent dangers of a bullbar outweigh the dangers to pedestrians. The exemption would probably still require a smooth off the bar so that there is still a reduction in impact - maybe remove the bars in front of the headlights and something with the radiator tube.

Then design (and sell which is what they are interested in) bullbars that meet the standard for all other vehicles. Give a little, get a little.

But in the long run, they will point to smartbars, and despite what shortcomings they may have (or are perceived to have), and the industry will lose.

cheers

EDIT: "doh", I forgot the clincher -

"Minister, there are two people who are about to crash your press conference. One is the General Manager of Bullbars Australia Pty Ltd and has lost 20% of his business. The other is a mother holding a photo of her dead daughter, she claims killed by a 4wd with a bullbar. Which one do you want the cameras to see"

[AJ120 Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close AJ120]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Photoprado wrote
Pick the fights you can win. We can win non-urban use of bullbars, we might be able to negotiate on urban use of those bullbars whilst in transit. We won't ever win bull bars on urban-only vehicles in the long term - there is no justification.

You are talking about options that are not up for consideration though. The proposal is to adopt the european standard which would mean no bullbars end of story. I haven't read anything yet about allowing us country folk to have them and ban the city dwellers from doing the same.

If i drive my bullbar equiped 4WD to the city how do the police know what is in transit and what is a permanent city dweller?
Once again with no data on how many bullbars are on vehicles that never leave the city limits how can this be an argument? No doubt there are a few but i would think most bullbar equiped vehicles would head out on the open road once in a while.

I must say, if i was on death row on a trumped up charge i wouldn't want you for a lawyer, i think this whole suggestion about the new standards can be shot down before it ever sees the light of day, although I am staggered at the amount of support that these suggested changes are getting on a 4WD forum :shock:

To steal a line from Charlton Heston when he was President of the American rifle owners Association, they can take my bullbar (guns) when they pry it from my cold dead hands. And yes i know my current bullbar is not under threat but my next one might be!

Cheers Andrew

[tassie tiger Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close tassie tiger]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

, although I am staggered at the amount of support that these suggested changes are getting on a 4WD forum :shock:

Because we are individuals who bring different viewpoints and life experiences to the discussion.

I love my 4wding and the outdoors but dont have a need for one.

If they wanted to pull my front propshaft I would fight them.

[ntp Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close ntp]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Hey Tassie Tiger - nice letter, but not sure how much interest Govt would take in your letter.

As I understand it, risk management is based on evidence. The point is here, there is no firm evidence to clearly indicate that bullbars are the number one threat to pedestrians at the present time. I reckon more pedestrians have suffered injury or death from tyres, windows and other parts of vehicles than bullbars. But the argument seems to remain fixated on bullbars as being enemy number one. Call me a sceptic, but I think the drivers behind this initiative (excuse the pun) are more about moves against 4wds in general rather than bullbars alone.

Sure, no one wants to see or hear a story of someone being injured or killed in any vehicle crash/incident. But when vehicles and pedestrians mix - something has got to give. This isn't to say that vehicle design and other controls, such as improved road designs that help prevent pedestrians from coming into contact with vehicles in the first place, shouldn't also be considered too. But any large heavy object travelling at speed coming into contact with a soft framed human is going to result in less than optimal outcomes - no matter how good the vehicle design. Perhaps the best way of improving safety to pedestrians in urban centres without requiring major industry change would be simply to lower speeds in these zones - this would perhaps have a greater safety effect for all pedestrians than any design change to just a single element of road users.

But when I think about this issue, I can't help think about all the deaths/injuries caused because of non-seatbelt compliance. This is a major factor in known road injury and fatalities - and I would hazard to say a greater factor in road crash injury/death statistics than bullbars. Yet, despite this high risk known causal factor, the response to date to address this issue is primarily focused simply on road user enforcement and some education. Clearly, there are vehicle design options that could significantly improve seatbelt compliance by occupants... but these aren't pursued. Why not? And given the extent of seatbelts as a causal factor, why would bullbars be a higher priority fix than seatbelts?

Life is all about choices, consequences and risks - and is unfortunately dangerous. We can't expect to be wrapped in cotton wool by the Government and must take responsibility for our part too. Having said this, vehicle manufacturers and Governments have a responsibility to try and mitigate against the known risks through promoting improved vehicle design, adopting better design standards, ensuring better road safety planning and perhaps, most importantly, requiring greater education for all road users. Like I said before, I am all for improved road safety standards, design improvements, better planning and better education. But I also believe that there is a compromise solution out there - if people can focus on facts, objective evidence and commonsense instead of emotional arguments that only polarise opinions, inflame responses and lose sight of the big picture.

Luckily, the point here is Government is only considering whether it will adopt the EU standard. I think it is fair to say that Government must consider these types of issues for a range of reasons. And in doing so, it will take into great consideration the extent of responses, the level of interest (ie potential votes), and the regulatory impact that such a decision might have on end users (you and me) and industry (jobs). They will also consider the benefits versus the risks (from a political point of view). And in a political risk management matrix, the likelihood and consequence of their decision on their political future will figure prominently in their minds. And noting that the Government is presently supported by a few Independents, who have a regional focus, I don't see there being strong support for Government to adopt such a strong stance at the present time. Thank god for democracy.

And before I step down from the soapbox again - I just wanted to say the different view points expressed in this thread are certainly interesting, and respect everyones point of view and the maturity of responses. Whatever your opinion or point of view - still happy to be part of this forum with you and catch up for a drink and a few arguments at a future PP GTG sometime. :wink:

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Photoprado wrote
Pick the fights you can win. We can win non-urban use of bullbars, we might be able to negotiate on urban use of those bullbars whilst in transit. We won't ever win bull bars on urban-only vehicles in the long term - there is no justification.

You are talking about options that are not up for consideration though. The proposal is to adopt the european standard which would mean no bullbars end of story.

Please read the Paper. While I am sure you will find things in it you disagree with (as do I), I also think you will find it is not as black and white as you suggest.

The paper is a regulation impact statement, and is open for public comment for 60 days. I'm suggesting that the 'proposed' standards have facets that are not arguable, and that it is not realistic to expect that the whole idea will be thrown on the ash can as there are competing interests acting for and against - we would be better to fight for the middle ground than fight for things that cannot be won.

Bull bars have strengths, pedestrian friendly vehicle design has strengths, but neither operate at their best when outside their design parameters.

I am staggered at the amount of support that these suggested changes are getting on a 4WD forum

Welcome to our pluralistic society. Just because we here all have 4WD's doesn't mean we all have to think the same. Many of us live in the city, have kids and elderly parents and we are not blind to the risks we all face as pedestrians.