Federal Govt and Bull Bars proposed Legislation

Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010 at 17:37
ThreadID: 78647 Views:8987 Replies:20 FollowUps:40
This Thread has been Archived
The following has been recv'd from the Aust. Auto. Aftermarket Asso. (AAAA) and refers to proposed new ADRs on the removal of Frontal protection systems (Roo/Bull Bars) form new vehicles sold in Australia..

This is an extract only and you should take the time to look at the full version on the AAAA website. Also given that an election is due to be called soon it may be an oportune time to ask your local federal member just where they stand and what support they will give.

Whilst the initial contact has come form the industry directly impacted by any removal of this type of vehicle accessory the impact on all of those who travel within Australia may be very high - especially after the first animal strike results in serious injury or death.

"Businesses involved in the manufacture, distribution and fitment of bull bars should be aware that the Federal Government is currently considering the adoption of United Nations Economic Cooperation for Europe (UNECE) regulation which relates to the design and safety performance of vehicles that come into contact with pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

In simple terms, if the regulation were adopted in full, there would be a requirement for every new vehicle sold in Australia to meet stringent pedestrian safety criteria which would be administered via the Australian Design Rule (ADR) process. The timing of European adoption of the regulation is through a phased approach between 2013 and 2019. In the European Union, the roll out of this regulation incorporates the design and performance of vehicle frontal protection systems.

As a signatory to the UNECE, the Australian Government is obliged to consider the introduction of all regulation developed via this process and the lead agency is the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The Department is in the process of preparing a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) which will seek public input into the possible adoption of the regulation to assist them in developing a cost/benefit analysis. We understand that the RIS will be circulated in July 2010 with a final decision to be made by Government before the end of the year.
It is the belief of the AAAA that it is simply not possible to design and manufacture any form of effective and commercially viable bull bar that would meet this European standard. As such, full adoption of the standard would spell the end of the bull bar as we know it and would have a devastating impact on the 4x4 parts and accessories industry in Australia.

While the AAAA understands the merits of international harmonisation of standards, we believe that harmonisation should only be considered if the relevant standard or regulation is appropriate for the local conditions. Australian driving conditions vary enormously from European conditions; particularly the physical and weather environment, the increasing the incidents of large native animals on urban roads, the level and concentration of built up areas in Europe compared to Australia. These factors all make Australia a unique driving environment and in our part of the world, bull bars are designed to save the lives of the drivers and passengers of the vehicle. An impact at over 25 kilometres an hour with a large native or domestic animal will result in driver and passenger injury and death. Whilst some members of the public perceive these accessories as unnecessary – the producers, distributors and users of bull bars know they save lives. "

The above is an extract only and you should make the effort to read the full article.

Should you require any further information please contact Stuart Charity in the AAAA National Office on (03) 9545 3333.

More importantly contact your local federal member and make them explain just what is is they intend to do and why they feel it is necessary to do it.




Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Wilko - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 18:02

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 18:02
I believe they design bullbars now days to protect pedestrians when the same design will allow a roo to come over the bonnet thru the front window and possible kill the driver.

This is a discrace. Australia is a huge place and doesnt end at the city limits. If the people who think that a pedestrians life is worth more then a drivers life then they have blood on their hands.

Cheers Wilko
AnswerID: 417567

Reply By: Dave B ( BHQ NSW) - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 18:41

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 18:41
I guess that would mean that spotlights/driving lights would be out too.
I can't see how they could be mounted so as not to protrude from the contour of the vehicle.
It could be a pretty risky drive in the outback unless I just drive between 9 am and 4.30 pm and stick to about 60 kph.

Dave
'Wouldn't be dead for quids'

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 417573

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 07:41

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 07:41
Hi Dave,
Agree with you, this would also include aerials. And lets not forget the good old fishing rod holder, that every second vehicle has on it, near the coast.
Just another case of the Happy Clappers getting a word into a bureaucrats ears. So they have to justify their existence.

I'm with you on that Wilko,
Their putting one type of road users life over anothers.
I had my cruiser in getting work done on it yesterday, so I had to leg it around town for a few hours. The amount of people crossing the road without a care in the world, even with kids in tow, and yet there was a crossing only 30-50 meters away from them. And they expected the motor vehicle to stop for them.
Pure madness.

0
FollowupID: 687704

Follow Up By: SDG - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 19:11

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 19:11
Fishing rod holders are already illegal in NSW
0
FollowupID: 687784

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 22:12

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 22:12
Hi SDG,
They are. While being questioned about 18 months ago about my Hi Lift jack being mounted on my bullbar.Image Could Not Be Found
Four Vehicles passed by with Fishing rod holders on their bull bars, pointing forward and the copper ignored them, even though I pointed this out to him.
he chose to ignore this.
The jack is behind the bar work. It is legal.
Image Could Not Be Found+
This is the legal spec, even thought the RTA will not give it in writing

.


0
FollowupID: 687824

Follow Up By: SDG - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 23:13

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 23:13
Another legal spec found here.

http://lightcomworld.com.au/newsevents/bullbar.htm

This is what rego inspectors are suppose to abide by.

0
FollowupID: 687827

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh - Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 08:47

Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 08:47
Thanks for the link SDG.
Cheers

0
FollowupID: 687844

Reply By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 19:29

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 19:29
I'm not sure where this is heading but I can go back to about 1975 when 23 Ch CB's hit the market, the law was pulling over truckies and some drivers had the CB consficated, but we persisted along with other radio enthusiasts to continue using CB's and finally the Govt' give in under population pressure , just one of the many safety uses we used them for was to announce our approach to narrow bridges.
So I feel the transport industry alone benefits from having Bullbars, if you think it would cost a few $1000 to fix a Pajero or a Landcruiser after a strike, imagine the cost of a new radiator, grill, bumber, fan, Fiberglass mudguards etc for a Kenworth, or a Freightliner Primemover,then there would be downtime and loss of income for an owner,many of you will have seen a dead bull or Buffalo rotting away on the side of the highway, more than likely hit by a truck and because of the bullbar the truck probably suffered no damage, you can be assured the truckies won't give in that easy. On the other hand I do not see the reason for a Falcon or Holden sedan/wagon that spends 98% of it's time in the city to have a bar.

.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 417577

Reply By: D200Dug- Friday, May 21, 2010 at 19:54

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 19:54
sadly I would estimate that at least 90% of vehicles with bull bars do not need them and will never need them.

a blanket ban will not effect those people except that they will not have shiny chrome bars to put their shiny chrome lights on so they can drive through town to do the shopping and pick up the kids.

We need to work out a way to convince people to drive more practical vehicles in a more practical manner rather than tinkering with the edges like this.

Personally and I have said this before I think there should be a compulsory 4 wheel driving practical exam for anyone wishing to drive a 4x4 that would get a huge majority of "mum's taxies 4x4s" off our roads.

I think the same kind of practical driving exams should be introduced for anyone wishing to drive with a trailer of any size.

It seems the only way to get some form of sensible control over untrained people driving in an unsafe manner on our roads.

( I have a bull bar :)
AnswerID: 417585

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:50

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:50
No - most dont need bullbars at all ..... most are just a bling accessory.

Protection barwork to make up for the lack of proper bumper bars is certainly a nescessity on a townies car tho I believe ..... cost of replacing plastic bits and radiators in a 5kph impact is ludicrous.

And then of course there is always those poor unfortunates who can only afford one vehicle ..... and live/work in the city but spend spare time further afield .... should they be dictated to in regard to their vehicle choice for australia ..... just because some dutchman wants to walk to their windmill without being hit by a citroen on its way to collect a pizza ????

4x4 license .... I really cant understand the logic behind a presumed need for such a thing .... I have yet to find a 4x4 wagon - apart from a H2 hummer - that is "bigger" than an XB station wagon I drove around as a kid.

Speaking of station wagons .... have you noticed that car manufacturers dont make them any more ????

I could fit more stuff in an old subie touring wagon than what you can fit in one those useless new dunneydore "wagons"

I wonder if because the only boxy, large capacity, multi passenger carrying vehicle with a bonnet that resembles something like an old XB station wagon .... IS A 4x4 wagon ..... is the reason for so many toynissbitsu " mums taxis "

You are almost there with the license idea tho ......

Whats needed is driver training from an early, pre license age .... not more mamby pamby rules and regulations inflicted upon individuals, as soon as they receive the tax receipt which entitles them to propel a motorvehicle down a road..
0
FollowupID: 687666

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:16

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:16
I think we need to have all 'old bugga's, retested for their vehicle drivers licenses once they get to about 70 yo, then maybe again each few years.

Many are so dam useless they 'touch park' in car parks or get out to see how close they are to the other vehicles, maybe it’s because I live in a tourist town and it’s full of old bugga’s that I notice it happen so often.

They very often they get to a roundabout and wait for every man an his dam dog to go past before they even think about moving forward.

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 687672

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:20

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:20
Our last home was at the rear entrance to a private school.

At 3pm I would estimate 80% of the vehicles picking up kids were BLING 4x4s that never ever went off roads. Driven by women who would be terrified of the thought of driving on a dirt road.

They complained when the school asked them to park on the football oval because their cars got dirty ! Shock Horror !

These women if faced with having to pass a 4x4 practical driving test would be up their husbands so fast and so far it would not be funny. I imagine most would get rid of the imported 4x4s and go back to large fords and holdens in a flash.

Yes we need more driver training, every driver should be competent and skilled ( they are using a very deadly piece of equipment in very varied conditions )

but to relieve the pressure of so many 4x4s on our roads we need to try to limit them to people who actually drive them off road.

0
FollowupID: 687673

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:24

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:24
Maîneÿ

Older drivers may be annoying but it is the young drivers who are deadly.

Walk into any rehab unit anywhere in Australia the old are in there because of strokes and heart attacks etc, the other 50% of patients are young people recovering from MVAs.

Spend any amount of time in a hospital and you will see the real cost of the road toll to Australia. It is pretty horrendous.
0
FollowupID: 687674

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:36

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:36
D200Dug,
Yes, I don't disagree with you about the number of people in hospitals for various reasons, but it's the old bugga's that still drive when they can't see and can't walk round the block anyway, they have a car and a license so they still drive because they believe they are still capable of driving, till their son or daughter gets their license taken away from them for their own safety and yes even the safety of other road users too

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 687677

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:52

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:52
Check the statistics

Older drivers are NOT the main problem.

yes they can be very very annoying but they are not worth wasting money on testing them every year. The same money would be far better spent teaching young people how to drive properly in the first place.

I am looking at this from a time money and safety aspect not from an emotional one.
0
FollowupID: 687681

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 23:28

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 23:28
"These women if faced with having to pass a 4x4 practical driving test would be up their husbands so fast and so far it would not be funny. I imagine most would get rid of the imported 4x4s and go back to large fords and holdens in a flash.

Yes we need more driver training, every driver should be competent and skilled ( they are using a very deadly piece of equipment in very varied conditions )

but to relieve the pressure of so many 4x4s on our roads we need to try to limit them to people who actually drive them off road."


D200 .... I understand the point your are trying to make .... and agree in principle .... but you are ignoring the fact that REAL "stationwagons" - no longer exist ... 4x4 wagons ARE todays station wagon.

Many of the drivers of the vehicles dont need to know how to cross the simpson or get to mt elizabeth ..... they just need the vehicle capacity to fit all the kids and gear in for school / sports and shopping trips .... or safely tow little missy's pony off to club meets on a weekend.

.... and what better weekend tow vehicle is there, than a weighty, all wheel drive wagon ????

Perhaps you could lobby for 2wd versions ... or get GMH / Ford to sell a decent sized, vehicle.
0
FollowupID: 687686

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 02:05

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 02:05
Not necc so D200 doug Just recently south of Perth an old guy in his 80s just drove over the wrong side of the road and took out a car of 5 teenage girls head on doing absalutly nothing wrong 84 year old takes out car load of teens
0
FollowupID: 687692

Follow Up By: Member - Kevin J (Sunshine Coa - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 07:48

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 07:48
Might I suggest thast we are prone to generalise when it comes to issues like this.

I recent months we have seen a 17 yo student near Toowoomba take out 4/5 of his mates in an 'accident' Two were in the boot.

Young unlicensed female driver killed 4 of her school mates near Mtn Creek on Sunshine Coast.

Reported on local news this week a 102 yo flies his helicopter for his birthday. Got his licence at 97 because they took his car licence off him.

Certainly I see 50 yo's who shouldn't be driving but then again the biggest problem to me is people not driving to the road conditions and being far too aggressive. Young females in little cars very prone to this disorder.

Don't claim to be the best driver in the country but the only one whose behaviour I can change is me.

On the original subject I agree that there are any number of 4x4s around our cities which are a status symbol but why should that mean that we who frequent/live in the back blocks have to run the gauntlet. In 50 plus years - yes I'm 70 - of driving with bullbar protection I have not hit even one pedestrian. Unfortunately I have never been blessed by having had a politiician step in front.

Let them fix some of the real problems. This is fiddling at the edge.

Kevin J
0
FollowupID: 687705

Follow Up By: Dave B ( BHQ NSW) - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 09:53

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 09:53
This has got right off track talking about who needs tests and who needs 4WDs.

The issue is the so called danger to pedestrians with additions to the front of the vehicle.

ADR's say that the heights of the bumpers and lights have to be within certain limits.
The angles of the panels and shape of the front of the car is also in the rules somewhere.
That's why most cars look very similar at the front now.

In my opinion, if bullbars are banned, so will nudge bars, they stick out from the front of the car.

If anyone needs tests, as is mentioned in other posts, it is the pedestrian.
Send them all to OPSM or somewhere for a test.

Maybe all cars should be painted bright orange with flashing lights on the roof so the pedestrians can see them.

Dave
'Wouldn't be dead for quids'

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687716

Reply By: Matt M - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:16

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:16
I think the Govt know where their GST comes from and despite the best efforts of idiots like Harold Scruby, they have done little in changing BBar design to keep the idiot quiet.

Our after market industry is hure for Aust economy...too much for the pollies to lose.

Matt.
AnswerID: 417591

Follow Up By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:29

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:29
At the risk of becoming political, the mining industry is many many times bigger and more important than the vehicle after market industry. Hasn't stopped the Govt from making silly economically destructive decisions on it.

Relying on the good sense and judgement of Governments (regardless of party) is very dangerous.

Norm C
0
FollowupID: 687659

Follow Up By: Matt M - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:07

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:07
Norm Norm Norm...for gods sake..open your eyes and stop watching Today Tonight!

Seriously do you actually think this new mining tax will ever get it past through parliment?

IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO!!!

The Govt delivers its budget and guess what...rather than the stimuls deficit that our grandkids-grandkids will have to pay off (negative for the polls) they deliver one that will free us all from the defecit-we-had-to-have (forget the school building debarkle or the insulation stuff-up, ignoring the lives lost) and be deficit free in three years.

Now do they ever actually believe that the budget will be approved by the opposition?....................think about it......NO!

But then they are not the badies...THE OPPOSITION IS!!! We gave you a good budget and the opposition blocked it...so they are the badies!

Now we all know that to kill the golden goose, (minining companies) the sole saviour of the GFC in Aust...(not the Govt stimulus as we know is true) shoot yourself if you dont believe it, then the Govt would lose exponentionally and THEY KNOW IT.

But they never actually intended for the mining tax to be approved, simply to draw attention off their failed stimulus and to be able to shift all blame on the economy on the opposition and walk away scott free.

Open your eyes, dont let the Govt treat you like the uneducated peasant they believe us all to be!

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 687670

Follow Up By: Rob! - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 10:43

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 10:43
If we are all so worried about handing over debt to our kids and grandkids, why don't we leave the coal in the ground for the next 30-50 years. In that time its price will skyrocket. Then they can dig it all up and pay off all those debts with the royalties received.

Oh wait - but we wouldn't be able to afford those plasma 3D televisions, or those long travelling holidays and those 260 square metre houses...
0
FollowupID: 687970

Reply By: OzTroopy - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:28

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 20:28
" ..... Whilst the initial contact has come form the industry directly impacted by any removal of this type of vehicle accessory the impact on all of those who travel within Australia may be very high - especially after the first animal strike results in serious injury or death ..... "

heh heh ....

Death resulting from a an animal strike ..... ?????

That will never happen .....

Everybody knows that ALL accidents are attributed to "speed" .... NOT the mitigating circumstances/conditions/events - that occur at various diferent levels of "speed" ..... our pollies and police keep telling us so ....


What a stooooopid world we are creating ...... UN drivel pertinent to overcrowded european cities and countries the size of the A.C.T. .... being applied to OUR living conditions ....

Pffftttttt..........
AnswerID: 417594

Reply By: pop2jocem - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:24

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:24
If I understand correctly the reasoning behind this proposal is the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable (whatever that means) road users. Surely the greatest degree of protection would be to not come in contact with a tonne or more of metal travelling at even moderate speed. I must admit I fail to see the front of a reasonable size vehicle coming into contact with a human body not causing significant injury or death regardless of the design of that vehicle. The body (human or animal) was not designed to withstand such an impact. As I am sure most of us would know the massive internal injuries that can be inflicted are the primary cause of death. These injuries are the result of our brains and other vital organs being subjected to rapid acceleration or deceleration when involved in an accident, road or otherwise and contacting the inside of our skull or outer skeletal frame.
I wonder how one could find out what style of vehicle is in fact the major contributor to injury or death when the person injured or killed is a "pedestrian or other vulnerable" road user. Obviously a 4WD or similar vehicle equipped with a large and visually threatening frontal bar appears to all and sundry to represent a confronting site. Shark, crocodile and viscous dog attacks seem to stir some primeval fear in us and yet we more readily accept the deaths of thousands of people on our roads.
Would our efforts be better put to education and design of areas where cars in general and people have the greatest risk of coming into contact with each other rather than trying to find a way of stopping a large lump of metal damaging us after impact.
Just a thought

Cheers
Pop
AnswerID: 417600

Follow Up By: Outback Gazz - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:47

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:47
I know I'm not real bright and could be the odd one out here but when I am a pedestrian I don't walk on the road - I tend to use the footpath and let the big heavy solid steel fast moving objects use "the road" ! I've been using this procedure for quite a few years now and ( touch wood ) have yet to be run over !! Another trick I use is to LOOK where I'm going and WAIT for the big fast moving steel objects to pass before I try and cross a road ! Seems to work for me so maybe someone could teach others to use the same principals and that way the only injuries / deaths that occur on the road caused by bull bars would be animals that jump in front of moving vehicles !

Must be something wrong with me !!!
0
FollowupID: 687667

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:57

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:57
Now now Gazz, don't try muddying the argument with logic and a good helping of common sense........................lol
0
FollowupID: 687669

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 02:16

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 02:16
considering the campaighns they run to stop people walking along railway tracks and driving around train boomgates

youd have to think that commonsense was optional
0
FollowupID: 687693

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 02:18

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 02:18
back in the good old days people that tried patting sabre tooth tigers and played in front of stampeding mamoths as well as wearing live snakes as belts 'got bred out pretty quickly
0
FollowupID: 687694

Follow Up By: Gazal Champion - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 12:14

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 12:14
Don't know why they call it "Common Sense" there is nothing common about it. It is certainly not possessed by every body. I think it is rather thin on the ground these days. Talk about driving around boom gates at railway crossings, that beggars belief doesn't it. But it goes on. Education is the answer, especially in the cities these days. No one appears to give a crop about the other guy any more.
Cheers, Bruce
At home and at ease on a track that I know not and
restless and lost on a track that I know. HL.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687731

Follow Up By: Fred G NSW - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 18:38

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 18:38
Bruce, it is absolutely impossible to educate idiots...has been tried, but can't be done.

Fred
0
FollowupID: 687775

Reply By: Indigo Jones (QLD) - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:36

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 21:36
Pretty simple really If Harold Scruby doesn't like my driving he should get off the footpath !!

This is just one more attempt to turn us into a bigger nanny state than we already are - How this would be enforced is beyond me, would it be done by shire ? by postcode ? - as posters above have said maybe a test to thin out the toorak tractors is where it should start
AnswerID: 417602

Reply By: Cliveg - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:12

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:12
Does that mean I can now step in front of a fast moving car that does not have a bull bar and walk away after been hit. What scares me is these ppl run our country
AnswerID: 417608

Reply By: wafarmer - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:47

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 22:47
Hi

Ban the ipod

I think if this was done you would see a lowering of the pedestrian toll.

The main problem will be getting pedestrians to take responsibility for their actions or sometimes lack thereof.

cheers

wafarmer
AnswerID: 417614

Reply By: Motherhen - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 00:20

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 00:20
If someone steps out in front of a traveling vehicle they can expect to be just as dead if it is a 4wd with bullbar or a sedan without.

Motherhen
Motherhen

Red desert dreaming

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 417619

Follow Up By: Fiona & Paul - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 09:22

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 09:22
Agree absolutely with that one Motherhen, this is just another ploy proposed by some self seeking individual to get attention I reckon.

Regards
Paul H
Paul H
OZ Downunder

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687711

Reply By: Flynnie - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 00:23

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 00:23
There is and always will be a need for bull bars on some vehicles. The right to have a bull bar should be defended in rural areas and vehicles that pass through rural areas and even some city areas. Where I am even the ambulances have them.

But there is sometimes no need for the massive steel bullbars that are sometimes seen complete with a set of rocket launchers (for fishing rods) as some sort of status symbol. I am puzzled by rocket launchers on vehicles hundreds of miles inland. I see them most days and shudder at the thought of what they would do to a pedestrian in a collision. Many of them, I fear, are more likely to collect a pedestrian than a roo.

Selection of a bull bar or roo bar should be based on functional requirements not on status or ego. If travelling in some areas and time of day a massive steel bull bar is appropriate. For others it is not. Some consideration could be put as to what is appropriate in a particular situation. Opinions will vary greatly.

In any event we will have a battle on our hands shortly. There will be no point blustering. We will need good arguments, well presented.

Flynnie
AnswerID: 417620

Follow Up By: jeep cherokee - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 14:17

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 14:17
Quite agree Flynnie,why have fishing rod holders attached to the bull bar when not in use.It only take a minute to remove them to avoid gutting someone in an accident.I very rarely see a vehicle with rods in the holders.
0
FollowupID: 687984

Reply By: Ray - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 09:16

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 09:16
Things seam very strange???? What is considered to be a 4WD? Does this include AWD vehicles? I have an 80ser Landcruiser AWD and my son has a Holden Adventurer AWD. Are both these vehicles vehicles considered 4WDs or only mine. There are more and more cars coming on the road with AWD, what category do you place these vehicles? So the term 4WD and AWD is a bit of a myth.
Regarding roo or bull bars If a pedestrian wonders into the road and is either hit by a car fitted with a roo/bull bar or your little sedan travelling at 60kph they are equally dead. This includes trucks and buses as well.
I can never imagine trucks not being fitted with roo/bull bars, for if a truck were to hit a roo or bull or any other large animal it would be off the road, insurance premiums would rise and in the case of freezer trucks the cargo is spoilt and our cost of living would rise.
Yes I do have roo bar on my vehicle. I have hit quite a few roos and come off unscathed because the roo has always been shoved under the vehicle rather than come through the windscreen. The same thing would happen to a pedestrian (God forbid)
AnswerID: 417632

Reply By: ob - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 10:53

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 10:53
More years ago than I care to remember in my primary school days we had a policeman come around to the school about 4 or 5 times a year and all us kids were taken out into the playground and had basic road survival skills drummed into us. It covered a simple "look right, look left, look right again before crossing" and how not to run you pushbike under the wheels of a car. Do they still do such lessons? If they don't maybe they should start. I wonder if we should have to have a system of pedestrian licencing before being allowed to cross roads where those big bad cars and trucks live????
Leaving those anti-social 4WD's for a moment how about all those thousands of delivery vans and small trucks that don't have a bonnet and spend most of their lives in cities. The front is basically flat and the metal bit extends to about shoulder height of the average person. After that is a fairly hard windscreen. How do you make that design "pedestrian friendly".

ob

PS
I know...........mount the air bags on the front
AnswerID: 417640

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 13:44

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 13:44
Hey ob,
Yep, I remember when the local copper came to the school and spoke to us about road safety. He told us that even at a pedestrian crossing you come to a stop and WAIT for the traffic to stop before crossing.
As I under stand the NSW road act now, there are to parts to the rule. Pedestrians have right of way, And a vehicle must NOT be traveling at a speed that they can not avoid a collision with a pedestrian. For the life of me I can find the section in the RTA's mine feild of a web site that deals with this.
We've been trying to get a copper to come to our primary school for over 12 months without any luck, let alone get a H/way patrol sit and watch the moron parents, speed, do unsafe U-turns and park how ever they wish in the school zone.
Pedestrain Safeety Is an interesting read.
Doesn't it come down to self preservation?
Just because I have a right to step out in front of a 2000kg vehicle that is traveling at speed, doesn't make me want to.

0
FollowupID: 687740

Follow Up By: Fred G NSW - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 18:54

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 18:54
Good comments there Jon. There used to an offence of "Jaywalking" written into the motor traffic act...don't know if it still exists, but I do know it used to be enforced in the big smoke years ago, when traffic cops controlled intersections, not computer controlled lights. It was a offence to cross a road if there was a Ped X'ing within so many (can't remember) yards, and ped's had to cross roads at right angles, not willy nilly. Wouldn't that make for a sensational revenue raiser if it was resurrected.
BTW in my retirement I drive buses, and if I could get a $ for every person I see with a bl@@dy mobile phone stuck to their ear, oblivious to the outside world, creating havoc all around, I wouldn't need to drive buses in my retirement.

Fred.
0
FollowupID: 687781

Follow Up By: SDG - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 19:31

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 19:31
"jaywalking" is still an enforcable law. Just not enforced. A few weeks ago there was a news story about one of the councils in Melbourne starting to enforce it. Apparently the pedestrians were not happy about getting fined for "Jaywalking" withing 50m of a Pedestrian crossing.
0
FollowupID: 687788

Follow Up By: Fred G NSW - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 19:51

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 19:51
Ta SDG, thought so but wasn't sure..... compare pedestrians oblivious to the outside world, to MV drivers , wouldn't ya think the revenue raisers would get this right LOL LOL (and take care of the budget deficit) probably in the too hard basket, so take the easy option, situation normal !!!!!
0
FollowupID: 687796

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 22:34

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 22:34
I believe the biggest, Fault/down fall of law enforcement is actually having officers, those that can fine law breaker/offenders( I know that sounds very American) out on the streets.
Many times in this forum we hear of people being disturbed or inconvenienced by other camper/travelers that have NO regard for others and are wanting those to be fined or prosecuted. It is not going to happen until the authorities put man power on the ground and back these enforcers up AND make an examples.
Rant over,
Off my soap box for now.
:)

0
FollowupID: 687825

Follow Up By: Alloy c/t - Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 09:11

Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 09:11
Once every 6 mths or so a "jaywalking" blitz is carried out in the Brisbane CBD by the office bound officers from police HQ , funny part is that on any other days the same officers are among the main offenders,
0
FollowupID: 687847

Reply By: Capt. Wrongway - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 12:18

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 12:18
This has got way off track. It started with bullbars and now it's, who should own 4x4's and how they should use them.
Personally, I have no issue with mums buying 4x4's to take their kids to school. Each to their own. If this was everyone's view motoring would degenerate back to having someone walk in front waving a lantern.
If we're not very careful, as someone else suggested, someday we all will be driving yellow Hyundai's.
AnswerID: 417649

Reply By: Super (NSW) - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 18:00

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 18:00
Having hit a steer at around 80K at night and seen the effect I would strenuously oppose ANY attempt at banning bull bars. My NM Pajero was eventually written off - but the wreck bought by a panel-beater who restored it to its former glory INCLUDING re-using the Smart Bar plastic bull bar! I survived with no injuries whatsoever; the air bag didn't deploy and the beast came up the bonnet about half-way before rolloing back off. I was VERY lucky - something I attribute to the Smart Bar! Figured out the cause of not seeing the cattle on the road - went through a mud patch earlier and had mud covering both the headlight covers and the spotlight covers. Now avoid driving at night and also ensure I carry water and cliths to clean the light covers if I go through any mud (and do it as soon as I get out of the mud). Whilst I hope to never need the bull bar again I would not contemplate driving in the bush without one.
Regards,
Phil

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 417692

Reply By: Dave B ( BHQ NSW) - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 23:10

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 23:10
One of the main reasons for a bullbar as far as I am concerned is the fact that there is a fair chance that you will be able to drive your vehicle after hitting an animal.
If you hit an animal and it pushes your radiator into your fan, then you can't go anywhere.
If you headlights are broken and you get some panel damage, but you radiator is still OK, then you can still probably drive to the nearest populated place for help or repairs.
If you can't drive your vehicle and you are immobilised a long way from help, it might even be days before you see anyone.
I think many of us have been on roads that we haven't seen anyone for a day or two.
In some instances, that could even be life threatening.
To me, that is the main reason that I have a bullbar, to give me a chance to drive at least to the next town if I am unlucky enough to hit an animal of some description.
I live in the bush, and, driving for work and pleasure and I have unfortunately hit more roos than I want to think about.
Maybe we should get Clark Rubber to design and build the front of our next vehicle.

Dave
'Wouldn't be dead for quids'

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 417737

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 08:27

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 08:27
Hi Dave

Certainly in my waying up of the arguements for one , I think that is a main reason. For me it isn't enough so I don't have one on my patrol , but I do recognise that if I hit something really big then the car will probably be undriveable as it progressively collapses as it protects me, then it will be the phone or HF radio for assitance I guess.

Where I am we have a divison the manufactures them and puts them thru some impressive tests but my overall conclusion is that the costs don't outweigh the benefits , despite having a place in Kangaroo alley and hitting one at about 40 once.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687959

Follow Up By: Dave B ( BHQ NSW) - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 10:15

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 10:15
Robin, out here, about 30-40% of the vehicles in the panel shop are there because of hitting roos.
In the main, the occupants aren't injured, and they can drive home.
Sometimes, however, people are injured, and then there is a chance that they can still get back for medical attention if necessary.

No offence, but I see that you haven't got spotlights on your vehicle.
I assume that you don't do much driving at night out in the bush.
If you did, that would be a reason to put on a bullbar.
If you didn't, your spotlights wouldn't last very long because they wouldn't have any protection and any decent spotlights would probably also protrude out the front of your bumper and create a pedestrian hazard.
Not to mention some clown in the supermarket car park parking by feel and breaking maybe a grands worth of lights.

I think the whole point about this post is the possibility that we might have some completely irrelevant European standard foisted upon us.

Look at the issues that have cropped up because we now have engines that have had to comply with Euro standards with emissions.
How many people are regretting the passing of the 4.2 Nissan and the earlier Toyota engines.
That only happened because they couldn't get those engines to comply with the new Euro standards.
Hell, someone boffin is bound to say we should change over to the Euro currency because we do a bit of trade with them occasionally.
Where is it all going to end?

Dave
'Wouldn't be dead for quids'

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687968

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:02

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:02
Hi Dave

A lot of this is perceptions - for example my headlights etc are carefully engineered to put out more than twice the light of standard without back reflections or impediments.

Spotties like bullbars seem an easy fix to some problems but often bring with them there own set of disadvantages, and I prefer winning solutions.

But so much depends on what each of us values - hence loss of car to an animal strike is bad, but acceptable to me, if it saves you and my judgement, for my situation, is that I would survive better without a bar. Maybe on the Canning in a few weeks I might wish differently !

We could both write scenario's which favour each side of the case, probably fairly to, because we may have different situations, hence I don't argue for or against most acessories rather that anyone really look at their situation, get informed and then make a decision.

So many times I have had people comment on the weak plastic bumper on my Patrol, but they have never looked behind the plastic at an intricate 16kg of carefully placed steel framework designed to assist and absorb an impact with saftey as the design critera.

So many things are brought more or less automatically by people, and people carry around big heavy bars and chew up extra fuel for something they never need.
We will maybe never know, but I suspect a number of accidents, when in marginal situations, a car understeers into a tree, assisted by 70 extra kg forward of its front wheels.

Others - like some we supply to, have economics as their prime bullbar reason, one the other week, while getting a replacement bar confessed to 16 full on cow hits and simply cannot afford to have the truck off the road, as per your first point.

So in the end we probably agree that we need regulations that support , not hinder our own particular senario's.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687972

Follow Up By: Dave B ( BHQ NSW) - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:36

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:36
Robin, what are the authorities going to do about legislation if this proposal gets through.
What about the emergency services and their need for extra emergency lights and winches etc.
Imagine the CFS and the SES without winches and extra aerials and lights.
Where are they going to mount those without protruding into the pedestrians knees?
What would be the reaction to "Duty of Care' regarding the workers safety if the was no allowance for protection up front?
There would be so many people and organisations applying for exemptions to the legislation, the rule book would be as thick as the taxation book.

Just curious too, what changes have you made to your headlights to make them twice as bright as standard?
I would like to improve my lights as much as possible.
If I can see the roos in the distance, I have got more chance of avoiding them.

Dave
'Wouldn't be dead for quids'

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687977

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 18:31

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 18:31
Hi Dave
I wouldn't be arguing for the new bullbar regs - but there have been some
obviously bad designs particularly in regards to dangerous fish rod type
holder and to this extent the industry has shot itself.
The European situation has to be seen in the context of the whole picture
which includes standards for light output and other saftey related issues etc
thats why it would be dangerous to introduce just part of there regulation regime.
For more light, there are several things you can do, at least to a patrol like mine.
I begin with using Fatboy globes(expensive), then as opposed to a commercial wiring loom (which works) , I have gone over my actual wiring looking for drops and have rewired
both +ve and -ve paths to virtually eliminate drops, and because output is very critical around 13v this helps a lot.
My car still has glass lenses which can with stand extra heat output, so if you are keen you can cross wire the high beams with diodes back to the low beams so that when high beams come on they power low beams as well - better done with a series switch though.

P.S. My car has winch fitted inside the original bar such that their is no protrusion.

Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 688023

Reply By: SDG - Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 23:26

Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 23:26
This arguement has been going around for years, and years. A few years ago it was bought up again in parliement because a politicians wife was severly injured (not sure wether killied or not) by a bullbar.

I remember the greenies are concerned because of the amount of wildlife that are killed by bullbars.

Every few years this discussion resurfaces. Then it dies out. Personally I don't think it will happen. The Government may decide to ban them on vehicles that reside in the cities, but then I can see many vehicles suddenly being registered in the country with friends/relatives addresses.
AnswerID: 417738

Reply By: Alloy c/t - Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 09:03

Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 09:03
Send the fools who say bullbars are unecessary out to the centre of Qld on a driving trip between the hrs off 4pm thru to 9am , if they can drive from Longreach to Muttaburra without hitting a roo I'll vote for them.
AnswerID: 417757

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh - Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 13:46

Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 13:46
Alloy c/t you spot on, they wouldn't have a clue why we actually need them.
If they did have to drive any distance after dark without a bar, and they hit something, I bet the moment they did get back, they would be calling for bars to be compulsory on all vehicles, LOL
0
FollowupID: 687870

Reply By: Nargun51 - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:31

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 12:31
The press release states: 'As a signatory to the UNECE, the Australian Government is obliged to consider the introduction of all regulation developed via this process and the lead agency is the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The Department is in the process of preparing a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) which will seek public input into the possible adoption of the regulation to assist them in developing a cost/benefit analysis.'

The Government is only obliged to consider the matter. It not obliged to adopt or implement any part of the regulations.

Yet the AAAA states: ‘As such, full adoption of the standard would spell the end of the bull bar as we know it and would have a devastating impact on the 4x4 parts and accessories industry in Australia’.

The industry is protecting their cash stream by wedding themselves it already operating business structures. Notice how they have jumped from considering the introduction of all regulation by the lead agency to their position being based on the full adoption of the standard ending of the bull bar as we know it. They’re spinning it!

If they are innovative entrepreneurs, the discussion paper may open new markets or close others. Some may even welcome it.

Rather than whinging about Governments and giving anecdotal comments deriding other road users, use the offer and provide input. Whinges will be filed under WPB by the Department.

Of course, this will require firm information based on provable statistics. The press release states ‘developing a cost/benefit analysis’.

Prove your case in the manner bureaucrats understand and the expectation of tax payers; how much is it going to cost (lives and dollars) and how much will it save (lives and dollars). Prove it by figures and costings and make a reasoned, non emotional submission. Anonymous postings on an internet forum are as helpful to the cause as spitting over the windward rail.
AnswerID: 417924

Follow Up By: Dave B ( BHQ NSW) - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 13:28

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 13:28
Nargun, let's start by the relevant authorities providing accurate statistics regarding the figures for pedestrian injuries attributable to bullbars.

Firstly, to get it all into context, how many injuries are attributed to pedestrian negligence in crossing onto the path of the motor vehicle.

The figures I have seen on the net state about 200 odd pedestrians per year are injured because of bullbars.
It does not state how many pedestrians walked in front of the vehicle without looking each way first.
I would assume that the biggest percentage didn't look each way first, so that the accident should be chalked up to the pedestrians lack of concentration.
Why should the vehicle owners rights be taken away because of some careless pedestrian?

To get the whole thing into perspective, what about getting all the figures for the different makes and model vehicles that are involved in pedestrian accidents too.
Maybe there will be evidence that pre 2000 manufactured vehicles are involved more than others, so let's put all of them off the road as they are clearly a danger to pedestrians.

Surely you cannot penalise the large percentage of Aussie drivers who need or want extra protection because of some European law.

Dave
'Wouldn't be dead for quids'

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 687983

Follow Up By: Nargun51 - Monday, May 24, 2010 at 14:27

Monday, May 24, 2010 at 14:27
Read what I wrote carefully!

I’m not proposing penalizing ‘the large percentage of Aussie drivers who need or want extra protection because of some European law’.

I’m saying that the relevant Department has opened the process up for discussion. If you want the current situation to remain it is imperative you participate in this process.

I bet Messrs Scrubby and his ilk will be already sharpening their quills and will have numerous graphs, statistics and are making financial estimates to support their argument. They are probably already making calls to A Current Affair and Today Tonight for a 15 second sound bite.

He AAAA has a vested interest in the status quo; they have invested hugely. They are making a call to arms, but their call can be dismissed as an industry pressure group ensuring their own survival (doesn’t help that they made such a blatant spin).

I’m saying that unproven anecdotal ‘evidence’ will be ignored; hard evidence, especially backed by analysis from non partisan sources, is harder to ignore.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of getting the whole issue into context, number of accidents, injuries, costs to the medical system, earnings etc, etc. Make a submission on that basis. The relevant authorities may or may not have the evidence or may or may not have analyzed on this basis. If the evidence is there, analyze it. Any pressure group worth its salt would be trying to obtain evidence to support their stance.

Rather than make comments on a specialist forum, unsupported by hard evidence (a whinge session), put the same amount of time in providing some concrete evidence assist the discussion. If you don’t, it will be a lay down misere.
0
FollowupID: 687986

Sponsored Links