Bye bye bullbar...

Well seems there is a push to have the bullbar ditched. That includes the winch and additional driving lights.

This has all to do with pedestrian safety. But if you have to drive distances in the country tough if you hit a roo, at least it will be safer, but definitely the end to the vehicle, possibly driver and front seat passenger.

paper link:
Safety rules just a load of bull | News | NT News | Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia | ntnews.com.au

Quote:

---

FOUR-wheel-drive owners are outraged over reports the Federal Government is considering European-style pedestrian-safety rules that could see bullbars banned.

The regulations, based on rules developed for European environment and road conditions by the United Nations Economic Cooperation for Europe also would see a ban on roo bars, nudge bars, driving lights, and winches.

Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association director Stuart Charity said the European standard would not work on local roads or local conditions.
...

---

Officer:
Can I see your licence please driver?

Driver:
Of course sir, which one? My licence to drive car, or the one to ride a bike, or drive a bus, or drive a forklift, or operate machinery, or drive a boat, or ride a jetski, or to own a firearm. Or the one to drive a 4WD with a bullbar, with the endorsement to drive within 500Km of a populated area. Or the one that lets me come to a foriegn country, and drive on the wrong side of the road, without being able read the signs, and without knowing any of the road laws.

Or is it the one that I only got yesterday, to drive a car at 100km/h on a wet road, at night, on a twisty road I've never travelled before, in a car I've hardly driven?


Bullbars don't kill people... People kill people!!

Very well articualted Yonnee. :2tsup:

:minigun: idiots who float stupid ideas I reckon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cultana

This has all to do with pedestrian safety.

---

There are laws that don't let us drive on the footpath. Put laws in to stop them walking on the road. Want to cross the road then walk to the overhead bridge and use that.

Oops ... not enough overhaed bridges are there...so they wasted the money on other things....

Well said Yonnee ...People kill people and you can't legislate against stupidity

The guys and girls at 4WD Action magazine are jumping all over this, and have set up an email template to send to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese. Follow this link.

Better still, compose your own and send it to: [email protected]

Its been tried before. What a complete pack of tossers.
The 1st to complain will be country police (in SA anyway) all country highway patrol cars have factory bull bars.
2nd will be insurance companies.
Iam not worried political hopheads doing what only they do best, yapping before engaging brain.

I would suspect that country police will get an exemption not much different to the police being allowed to using mobile phones while driving their vehicles.

As for the insurance companies they will just jack up country premiums. Also no doubt add increases with every animal hit you make a claim on.

The matter of bullbars and pedestrian accidents is based on this report:
CR 200: Bullbars and Road Trauma (2000)
link: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa.../BullBar_1.pdf

Unfortunately the report does not define the demographics of where the accidents occurred, ie country of metropolitan.

The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association in their submission don't follow through unfortunately with much of a convincing argument considering other reports that would make the bullbar issue look as stupid as it is.
01-Jan-97 Alcohol and pedestrian fatalities
others:
Publications by keyword

The main reason that bullbars will be banned is due to the metro perception of big 4x4s being dangerous. The only dangerous item is not the vehicle but the driver.

The most disturbing aspect here is there is no requirement for the pedestrian to take responsibility for their actions. It is always the vehicle/drivers responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cultana

As for the insurance companies they will just jack up country premiums. Also no doubt add increases with every animal hit you make a claim on.

---

My Brother in law, who drives 4WDs and has done so for the last 25 years tells me that his insurance company increase their premium if the vehicle is fitted with a bullbar because of the extra damage they can cause to other vehicles..

This has been tried before and got nowhere. In my opinion, It will never happen.

Think you guys have it wrong. I believe you have to show the need for the bullbar. What gets up the nose is the Toorak Taxi which is seldom seen outside the better streets of Melbourne etc etc getting into an accident and creating horrific damage,
HGV trucks have a steel girder in their front but they dont bob up and down Chappel street. So we need a bit of reality here. Most bullbars are unlikely to ever meet a roo, so lets remove those not needed and keep those that are and save some lives.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa.../BullBar_1.pdf

Quote:

---

extract from above link
Conclusion:
In summary, the lack of comprehensive data on bull bars in the vehicle fleet at large
and for vehicles involved in crashes precludes drawing detailed conclusions with
regard to bull bar attributable road trauma. With respect to the negative impact of bull
bars, it would appear, on balance, that bull bars present an additional risk to
pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, and also possibly to occupants of side
impacted vehicles. It is postulated that the extent of this risk is not likely to be great
because it is difficult to isolate the influence of the bull bar from other factors known
to be strongly associated with injury outcomes, such as vehicle size and speed.
Recent improvements in the design and fitting of bull bars may have reduced the risk
below that imposed by the older style bull bars used in the experimental studies and
present in many of the crash records analysed here. Issues concerned with air bag
deployment and the proper operation of crumple zones appear to have been addressed
by recent improvements in bull bar design.

This report provides no conclusive basis for opposing the use of newer-style bull bars.

There does, however, appear to be some case for considering measures to phase out

the use of older style, protruding, rigid bull bars, especially in urban areas. This
would not be a panacea for road safety. It would have a minor effect on the road toll
as a whole. Nevertheless, there is the potential to save pedestrian lives and those of

other relatively unprotected road users, such as bicyclists, as well as to reduce the risk

to both the occupants of other vehicles and to the occupants of bull bar-fitted vehicles themselves.

---

I'll say again;

Bullbars don't kill people... inattentive drivers kill people. (And inattentive pedestrians kill themselves.)

There is no be all and end all solution.

Ban all 4WD's from suburban streets. - So how does a family of 6 go and visit family who live in town?

Ban bullbars from suburban streets. - Are 4WD owners required to remove driving lights and bulbars every time they go into town? What about Tradesman who use their bullbars and roof racks to carry longer lengths of material?

While we're at it, ban all vehicles from suburban streets!! That way we'll dramatically reduce the road toll... oh but wait... where will all the "road safety" revenue come from?? Not to mention all jobs from the entire Motoring industry.

The drive for the removal of bullbars is not some “bash the Bush” thing, it is driven by trauma doctors in major hospitals.
As human beings, we all make mistakes, We all get distracted, and we all suffer from blank moments, This is what causes accidents, and we all have had some in one form or another
Benjamin Disraeli is credited with the statement. “There are three types of lie. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics. Statistics being trouped out are usually for effect. Without the factors to create them, they seldom depict a full story. Smoking poses no health risks etc.etc
In Victoria vehicles are registered as country or city, is it then so difficult to require a city registered vehicle to show need for a bulbar or have it removable for normal city use.
In the USA the saying is guns don’t shoot people its people that shoot people. But the facts state that the USA shoots more of its people than any other developed nation
In a war there can be but a winner and a looser. In a negotiation middle ground can be found, a solution that saves lives on the streets and in the country.
No one wishes to remove the Tradesmans rack or a bulbar in the bush or the odd visit to town, that’s not the issue. The issue is the Toorak taxi is killing and smashing beyond that of normal cars. Who cares who is at fault when the victim is a child smashed to pulp on steel bars in a place lomg abandoned by roo's

I don't like statistics. I like models even less. I like data a lot. Properly presented data is a very good base for decisions.

Guns: If you can be bothered looking closely at gun laws you will find a close correlation between incident rates and severity of those laws. The USA isn't homogenous, different states and locailities have different laws about gun ownership. The highest rates of misuse occur in areas with the strongest laws. The highest rates of gun/violent/property crime occur worldwide in areas with the lowest incomes/highest unemployment/poorest education.

4WD's/Bullbars etc: There was a push on a while back to "ban" 4wd's on urban roads. First problem is what's a 4b ? I've got a subaru forester with 4wd and low range, is it an inappropriate car for the city ? and more to the point is it less appropriate than a chevy impala ?

I don't accept quoting someone famous makes their words more valid. Here is something I think: the price of freedom is tolerating other people doing stuff I don't like..up to the point where it demonstrably endangers others.

Pig ignorant self righteous city people have been dictating to rural people in this country on all sorts of things for the last few decades, from stupid ineffective gun laws to arbitrary "enviromental protections". We are a democracy and the vast majority live in the cities, but with the demise of manufacturing the very great bulk of this countries wealth comes from rural and reigonal australia. The nutter left have already reduced agriculture and forestry, tourism is flat. Let them kill off mining and watch our country go the way of Zimbabwe...how will you afford your skinnymochachino then ?

If we look at Queensland today, the state has recorded the worst floods in recorded history. Now a cyclone is about to hit.
Can anybody prove this is global warming? No. But it caused havoc and destroying tourism. Should we then not lean to the side of caution just in case?
To suggest that the city dictates to the bush is plain wrong. If you check correctly you will find old farming methods almost reduced Australia to a salt pan. Without banning certain practices Australia would not be as fertile today.
Mining etc is financed not by the bush but by investors, it is a national or international enterprise.
This is not an argument about the total banning of bullbars or should not be. Its not a country issue or should not be. It is about stopping the city dweller running around city streets in an armour plated vehicle.
The argument on guns, to an extent I agree. But look at where your USA area’s are. Not some nice dreamy country town, no the shootings occur in the city slums. You will also find that the law reacts, and toughens. The facts you suggest, prove that. So where is the horse with the relationship to your cart.
Being a farmers son I know the two sides. Also driving the streets of Toorak and South Yarra, I have experience of the ladies driving their armoured cars.
So lets get realistic, register a car in Toorak, bulbar must be removable and cause shown if its on. Register a car in Tootgarook, bulbar is accepted.
As I said in the last post, a cool head working with a problem will find a solution.
Stubborn denial of a problem leads to head butting, winners and losers.
Australia is a democracy, we all get the vote. But its more than that; we are all responsible for Australia, like it or not.
So if a bushy wants to clear all the tree’s, shoot all the wildlife or grow drug plants, the majority will have its say. So please a democracy is one man one vote, no more or less.
There is no such thing as democratic anarchy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rrobor

So lets get realistic, register a car in Toorak, bulbar must be removable and cause shown if its on. Register a car in Tootgarook, bulbar is accepted.

---

You are of course overlooking the fact that lots of these Toorak ladies (and their husbands) own a "weekender" in Tootgarook and it would be a simple matter to register their armoured car at their "weekender" address.

Fact of the matter is that we can't wrap every citizen of this country in cotton wool and protect them from every possible hazard from the cradle to the grave.

We made bicycle helmets compulsory, one of the few countries in the world to do so, has this stopped bicycle riders getting head injuries?

There is an argument to be made for every "safety" measure, however they all contribute to the "nanny" state we now live in and take away the responsibilty of the citizens to ensure their own safety and contributes to the feeling that we are no longer in control of our own destiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rrobor

Australia is a democracy, we all get the vote. But its more than that; we are all responsible for Australia, like it or not.
So if a bushy wants to clear all the tree’s, shoot all the wildlife or grow drug plants, the majority will have its say. So please a democracy is one man one vote, no more or less.
There is no such thing as democratic anarchy

---

You are of course way off the mark here, we do not have a "one man-one vote" democracy, if we did then a handful of the "latte set" in inner suburban Melbourne could not elect a Green member to our Federal parliament, or a small number in a country electorate could not elect an "independent" member.

We do not have proportional representation in this country, but we should have, that is however a different argument.

take the warning labels off everything and let the problems sort themselves out:rolleyes:

Have just put a deposit on a 4WD ute, better get my bullbar on it before someone tells me I can't have one:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corbs

take the warning labels off everything and let the problems sort themselves out:rolleyes:

Have just put a deposit on a 4WD ute, better get my bullbar on it before someone tells me I can't have one:D

---

......and don't forget to wear your bicycle helmet:D (you of all people Andrew!)

I always wear my helmet and it even has a video camera mounted on it now for when some silly bugger decides to open their door infront of me:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rrobor

If we look at Queensland today, the state has recorded the worst floods in recorded history. Now a cyclone is about to hit.

---

No they aren't, no they so aren't. Take a look at the bom website, there are many wonderful pages there about queenslands flood history. I am well fed up with people claiming every weather event is a "record", like that flamin drought we just had.

Quote:

---

Can anybody prove this is global warming? No. But it caused havoc and destroying tourism. Should we then not lean to the side of caution just in case?

---

Not when a greedy corrupt finance industry is driving us toward a crushing tax regime. The carbon tax won't break me, I've got money, but I watched as Hawke threw out thousands of the most vulnerable workers in australia in teh early 80's bowing down to "economic rationalism". I'm not going to stay quiet while working class people's energy bills are doubled with no solid proof.

Quote:

---

To suggest that the city dictates to the bush is plain wrong. If you check correctly you will find old farming methods almost reduced Australia to a salt pan. Without banning certain practices Australia would not be as fertile today.

---

Quite right, but inner city yuppies caused me to have not 1 but 3 vpo's on my land. Years ago before they came into effect no one went mad clearing, now strictly speaking I can't even mow without a permission from a Brisbane council beaurocrat. On landline a few weeks back was the story of a bunch of loggers in NSW who had been SUSTAINABLY logging a patch of redgums for 120 years. They were assured they had access indefintely or at least another 5 years, then htey got shut down. Why ? because the enviroment MIGHT change in future and the practise become unsustainable. No proof, no credible science, 30 blokes out of work. It's not like they were clear felling. And don't even get me started on the victorian bush fires and the anti clearing laws. I went through those mongrel things in 93, give me a flood anyday.

Quote:

---

Mining etc is financed not by the bush but by investors, it is a national or international enterprise.

---

It's still being throttled by taxes and (supposedly enviro but mostly) mentalists. The majority of shareholders in the majority of australian mining companies are australians either directly or through super funds and the mining industry is the single biggest component of Australia's GDP and THE big difference between our standard of living and comparible western countries.

Quote:

---

This is not an argument about the total banning of bullbars or should not be. Its not a country issue or should not be. It is about stopping the city dweller running around city streets in an armour plated vehicle.

---

That is exactly my point. It doesn't matter 2 hoots whether Janie Richwife drives an armoured vehicle or a kia reo. Unless you can prove she poses a threat to other road users your doing nothing but inflicting your prejudices and preconceptions on her, and trying to back that up with legislation. The basis of ALL legislation should be rational proven need but instead it's driven by half truth, faith and prejudice.

Quote:

---

The argument on guns, to an extent I agree. But look at where your USA area’s are. Not some nice dreamy country town, no the shootings occur in the city slums. You will also find that the law reacts, and toughens. The facts you suggest, prove that. So where is the horse with the relationship to your cart.

---

That was my point. Poverty and inequity drive crime, guns are a tool which can be misused and legislation should and often does follow need. What YOU were implying is that the US is a homogenous situation where guns are everywhere and commonly being misused. The fact is where they are least regulated and most common crime rates do not follow the prevalence. Mny of the guns that are used in crimes over there as here are unregistered adn illegal.

Quote:

---

Being a farmers son I know the two sides. Also driving the streets of Toorak and South Yarra, I have experience of the ladies driving their armoured cars.

---

Yes but my question, and my point, is: Is the bullbar the problem or the driver ? Are you imposing a blanket penalty on everyone who wants to have a bullbar because it's easier than forcing bad drivers to improve ?

And I THINK that's what others are saying also.

Identify the problem, understand the root cause, attempt to address the root cause with effective action, assess impact, start over.

Not:

Notice popularist movement, think of easy way to appease, implement pointless and inconvenient law, wait till media stop covering story.

I am not for clear felling, dangerous driving and firearm misuse. I'm all for rational measures to combat all above. I can't see that banning bullbars is one.

The root reason most give against the proposal of banning city vehicles from having bullbars is that we should be responsible for self. We should drive better, we should be better trained.
I read another post on the subject of chopping a finger. “I never thought it would happen to me”. It did.
Why? Because we all make mistakes and will continue to do so. You can never stop accidents, we are not robots. The person who never had one is not born yet. All we can hope for is to decrease them, and to minimize the damage.
Seatbelts save lives but they can also kill, the averages though are for seatbelts.
People registering in other areas. Sure people will do that, have an accident though and they are in it deep.
I drove for 25 years between 100 and 300K per day in the streets and burbs of Melbourne, I do not talk from some mistaken belief. I speak from seeing it all.
Few people except police etc did as much city driving as us in our job.
Measures taken with safety devices, speed traps and the like, has dropped road trauma and no one can argue this is not so. I may not like paying a fine, but it sure slackens the lead foot..
It is then not only about safety, it is about cost to the community, and cost to the person injured. Road trauma costs the taxpayer billions.
Who’s fault it is means little. A workmate drove into another car at a junction rather than hit a child that shot out in front of him. Kill a child regardless of where the blame lies and its baggage you carry for life.
I will not continue the argument on global warming, there is no point. We watch shocking weather conditions increase around the world, as a one off, it means nothing but the one offs are getting very common. Conclusive proof is hard to find one way or other. It causes people to build their own little battle lines to defend to the end.
Tax is what a government needs to run and maintain the country. You can choose whether you wish low services hurting the working man harder than the wealthy or better services for all. I get sick and tired of hearing about poor hospitals in one breath and lower taxes in the next. Choose what you want but understand someone pays.

MEDIA RELEASE

The Hon Catherine King MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport
24 February 2011
CK006/2011
Pedestrian Safety and Bull Bars




The Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport, Catherine King, restated again that the Government will not be banning bull bars.
"Over recent weeks I have received strong feedback through the consultation process associated with the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) proposing the adoption of an international standard on pedestrian safety," Ms King said.
"Following careful consideration of the views and concerns put by individuals and stakeholders, I have decided that the proposal is not suitable for Australian conditions and I have directed the Department to withdraw the Regulation Impact Statement," Ms King said.
"While the Government is committed to improving the safety of pedestrians, we also recognise that bull bars play a positive role in the safety of vehicle occupants.
"In no circumstances will the Government consider banning bull bars or contemplate any lessening of the protection they provide. We are committed to ensuring that people remain fully protected in animal strikes and other hazardous situations where bull bars play a key role," Ms King said.
Ms King has now asked Department to consult with interested parties on the options for improving pedestrian safety.

Click here to view the official press release.

Hi Yonnee

bull bars are but the tip on the ice berg

the road safety brethern have a future vision that goes like this

is there a reasonable risk that a pedestrian will be struck by a vehicle? -- if yes, the speed limnit should be 30 km/h, or less

is there a reasonable risk of a T-bone crash (typical at intersections where one vehicle doesn't give way) -- if yes, the maximum speed limit should be 50 km/h

is there a reasonable risk of a head on crash -- if yes, the maximum speed limit should be 70 km/h

want to drive faster than 70km/h? -- you can, if the road is a dual carriageway "freeway" and the speed signs allow