Conference terri::cars_uk

    Bull Bars originate, as I understand it, from Australia. They are
    basically an iron bedstead strapped to the front of the car to fend off
    Kangaroos etc. There aren't however many Kangaroos in the UK. The fatality 
    rate, of pedestrians [children], is very much higher when the car,
    fitted with bull-bars, hits someone. 
    
    	These poser/fashion accessories are known to kill.
    
    
    Norm 

    These things are usually observed on 4wd vehicles, and for some
    peculiar reason, Ford Transit vans. At least one company, I think
    Mitsubishi, are devloping plastic bull bars, 'roo bars, to make them
    safer.
    It does seem strange that 4x4s got away with them at all as modern
    bonnets are designed to roll a pedestrian up on top whereas bull bars
    just whack straight in and, alledgedley kill them.
    
    Andrew

    They were mentioned on Watchdog, who said there'd be an extra 35 deaths
    per year because of them.  There's some EC ruling in the pipeline which
    will ban them, along with the Spirit of Ecstacy, the Jaguar on Jaguars
    and the symbol on Mercedesees.
    
    tmp

    How about Digital requesting that all Bull Bars are removed from
    Company leased vehicles?
    
    Chris.

    How about not hitting people in the first place?  Or am I missing the
    point...?  
    
    Mikef (no bull bars on my cavalier!)
              

    
    A tricky one this. Most vehicles fitted with Bull Bars weigh in at 50%
    heavier than your average car; they also don't have soft plastic
    bumpers that crumple when they come into contact with things like your
    average car does.
    
    I'm not sure that being hit by 1.5 tons of Landrover/Frontera/Shogun or
    whateva is a particularly clever thing to do anyway - Bull bars or not
    it'll prbably kill you.
    
    I agree that square section ones may do even more damage than tubular
    section ones due to the corners, but realistically I think pedestrians
    should be educated to stay on the pavement, not made to think that it's
    okay to get in the way of vehicles because they're soft and cuddly and
    pedestrian friendly.
    
    G.
     

How about air-bags on the outside - then we can all forget about looking before
we cross the road.....


 I'll just go and see if I've got any old cushions to fit on the front of the
motorbike.

    Isn't that missing the point ? Accidents happen, and apparently the
    problem with all types of bull-bar is that they concentrate the impact
    causing severe injury and even death at relatively slow speeds. As has
    been mentioned, vehicles are designed to spread the effect of an impact
    reducing injury and "rolling" the unfortunate person in question.
    
    There's absolutely no need for bull-bars on any vehicle. When was the
    last time you saw a bull running down the street and you thought, "eh
    up, it's ok if I hit that 'cause I've got bull-bars, and with them it
    won't cause me much damage".
    
    Jonathan

    re .7
    
    Toyota have demonstrated pedestrian air bags which explode out of the
    bonnet for the pedestrian to land on.
    
    Andrew

    I've yet to seeing any convincing data on pedestrian deaths and
    injuries. 
    
    I tend to think that a 2 ton vehicle with a 2�ft high solid steel bumper
    and a 3�ft bonnet height is not going to do you any good, with or
    without bullbars. This would particularly apply to young pedestrians,
    where the main concern lies.
    
    The most stupid thing I heard was where a cavalier had pull across the
    front of a LandCruiser VX. The flattening of the car was attributed to
    the bullbars rather than the 2� ton of LandCruiser.
    
    Brian

    
  >>  Toyota have demonstrated pedestrian air bags which explode out of the
  >>  bonnet for the pedestrian to land on.
    
    with most 4x4's you're not going to land on the bonnet anyway. Even
    without Bull Bars the bumper will impact high enough up the legs to
    knock a person down, not throw them into the air....
    
    ...still, there's enough ground clearance for a person underneath %^)
    
    Perhaps this is the answer, passenger 'refuges' of at least eighteen
    inches between the ground and the lowest suspension part, minumum width
    between the wheels of 6 feet - in case the pedestrian falls sideways.
    Then just train all pedestrains to throw themselves to the ground
    whenever a vehicle approaches.
    
    G 

    
    Couldn't we dig trenches in the roads? This would be easier than having
    to modify vehicles. Besides trenches would only be needed in areas
    where pedestrians were around.
    
    It might give an incentive to improved lane discipline as well.
    
    The more I think the more I like the idea as a positive contribution to
    road safety.
    
    Very like refuges in the sides of railway tunnels.
    

  >  but realistically I think pedestrians
  >  should be educated to stay on the pavement, not made to think that it's
  >  okay to get in the way of vehicles because they're soft and cuddly and
  >  pedestrian friendly.
    
    So pedestrians on the road are fair game them ? ;^)
    
    I know that you didn't mean it that way, but unfortunately I've seen 
    some drivers who have the attitude 'It's OK to kill or maim someone as
    long is it's *their* fault'.
    
    Graham

    Re .10
    
    Exactly, If I'm meandering down the high street in my 3 ton LM002 (with
    or without bull bars) and a little old lady walks out in front of me
    there is a pretty good chance she will die. Remember f=ma, there is no
    getting over the mass of a moving object. I know pressure is
    proportional to area (Bull bars provide a smaller surface area than a
    car bonnet) however I'd rather be hit by a 2CV with bull bars than a
    LM002 without.
    
    Rik Stop wineing,	massive objects traveling a high relative velocitys
    			(cars) kill - so what, it's the law.

	Re: -.1

	I have great difficulty with the blas� acceptance of any argument
	that states:

	"If a pedestrian steps out in front of my car (with or without
	 Bull Bars) - the chances are that I'm gonna kill 'em"

	I'd have respond by saying - you shouldn't be driving in
	a style that doesn't allow you to stop in the distance that
	you can see to be clear - hence if you are in an area where
	little old ladies are likely to step off of the pavement
	into your path, you should be driving as though one is
	DEFINATELY going to step out in front of you - i.e. with
	time to stop.

	However, we all suffer from lack of concentration at some
	time and it may be on this occasion that granny takes the
	plunge and wanders into your path with the subsequent
	squeeling of tires and rapid decelaration; these are the 
	occasions in which the lack of Bull Bars is likely to improve
	grannies chance of survival.

	I think that is the intent of the proposed legislation.

	I suppose someone could argue that a car equiped with 6ft
	steel spikes is no more likely to kill than car without
	...but that would be a silly argument...wouldn't it *;-}

	That's MHO,

	Kevin.

>    The most stupid thing I heard was where a cavalier had pull across the
>    front of a LandCruiser VX. The flattening of the car was attributed to
>    the bullbars rather than the 2� ton of LandCruiser.
    
    The flattening of the car should be attributed to the person driving
    it; If they hadn't pulled in front of another vehicle, it wouldn't have
    happened. Before long we'll end up with the dealership that sold the
    vehicle - or even the manufacturer - being responsible for any damage
    or injury caused by _the driver_ of the vehicle.
    
    G.
    

    There is of course the option of fitting plastic bull bars which are
    being brought out for many 4x4's now. This is something I will look
    into fitting to my frontera soon. (The frontera depends on the bull
    bars for the auxiliary lighting, and I find these too useful to do
    without).
    
    Let's also not forget that you greatly increase the chances of killing
    anyone you hit if you exceed the 30mph urban limit. I will presume that
    all the 'anti-bull-bar' people stick religiously below this limit,
    otherwise they are hypocrits. Most people I see on the road completely
    ignore the 30 limit.
    
    Tony I
    
    

re .15 

 I thought it was the 6inch steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel
which was the thing _most_ likely to reduce road accidents.... :-)

I accept that a lot of bull bars are a fashion accessory - but there are a few
farmers around who still round up cattle with a Landy.... 

....do have a licence for those bull bars, Sir?..... perhaps extend that to
making people justify why they need to have anything big or heavy like a
Landcruiser, surely they could manage with a 1.1 fiasco - with all passanger and
pedestrian safety options.....

 Anyway, I don't want any flying pedestrians landing on my lap when I'm driving
around - keep them on the outside where they belong :^) 

    >> Exactly, If I'm meandering down the high street in my 3 ton LM002..
    
    BTW RIK, did you get this on the scheme or have you opted out ? I quite
    fancy the version with the optional Heavy Machine guns, in 'Desert
    Storm' metallic ... 
    
    Graham

    The 'my' was hyperthetical and the reply was to some extent tongue in
    cheek. I think that air bags & ABS are the two most dangerous things as
    they encorage people to think that they will be safe in the event of a
    crash. The metal spike on stearing wheel would encorage safe(r)
    driving.
    
    	Rik with airbag, ABS and LSD(Not the drug!)

    Rik, I quite agree. Making folks think that they can stop faster and
    react quicker because of various gadgets and, should the worst happen
    that they'll be safe as houses because of all the safety features, just
    causes them to driver fastert, closer and take more risks. 
    
    If it was made clear that if you have an accident, you'll most likely
    get hurt, may sustain permanent injury and perhaps die regardless of
    what you're driving or what colour underpants you're wearing; then I
    think a lot of people would think twice about some of the things they
    do behind the wheel of a car.
    
    A lot people seem to think accidents don't happen to them, just other
    people; well it's not true - I've had several %^/
    
    G.
    

    
    this is my own opinion (ie not media hype),
    
    many people who seem to want "nudge bars" removed from cars spend all
    their time driving on "mettled" surfaces. Therefore they will never had
    slid down a muddy bank into a small bush/tree at under 2 mph. Such an
    accident is frequent for occasional
    off-roaders/poachers/gamekeepers/stalkers/widfowlers/country folk etc.
    Also how many townies get to see deer/sheep/cattle and horses using
    their road like a pedestrian would.
       The only way to prevent a need for inexpensive protection for road
    going vehicles is to stop people using vehicles.
    
         

    
    And what precentage of RAV-4s will ever see more than loose gravel?
    A lot fewer than the number sprouting metal bars. 
    
    Fine there is a need for bull bars on a genuine off read vehicle, but as 
    this 'style' of vechicle has become more and more popular as a 'round town
    posing pouch', these bars have more to do with styling than need.
    
    

    ... and what percentage of cars 'need' fuel injection, 16 valves or
    turbochargers?
    
    How many people out there 'need' more than, say, a 1.4?
    
    Who 'needs' a car that can do more than 70mph?
    
    ... but dec car parks are full of them!
    
    Tony I

    
    >>>	fuel injection, 16 valves or turbochargers?
    
    	Which implies a nice smooth bonnet for your pedestrian to slide
    	up on, slide over, and slide off again.
    	Thus minimising inconvenience all round.  You just carry on
    	driving :-)
    
    
    	As for 4WD, people movers etc. I say get a license to drive a
    	lorry and keep your 4WD, get a license for a coach and sure go
    	ahead and drive your people carrier.
    
    	When I see people carriers with single drivers I always wonder
    	how many people have just piled out of it half a mile up the
    	road.  When I see 4WDs with their undercarriage a couple of
    	inches off the ground and sporting perfect paintwork and bull
    	bars I think something that's unprintable in a family conference.
    
    	Pete

I often wonder why almost all 4WDs appear to be driven by young women, either 
to drop their kiddies off at school (and appearing to try to run all and 
sundry down upon their departure) or causing havoc in the local supermarket 
carpark...

Chris.

    ... maybe because women (of all ages) are so often intimidated by
    agressive male drivers they feel the need to drive something
    substantial.
    
    Tony I

Nahh - its because they KNOW whos boss and are just proving it.:-)))

Alan

    
    Mmmmm, this is worrying. My wife is pressing me to get a Frontera next.
    Not the sport one but the long wheel base thingy. Is there an ulterior
    motive here I wonder?
    
    Richard

>>
I often wonder why almost all 4WDs appear to be driven by young women, either 
to drop their kiddies off at school (and appearing to try to run all and 
sundry down upon their departure) or causing havoc in the local supermarket 
carpark...
>>

....for the same reason as most sporty image cars are either parked on the M25,
or are causing havoc  with iffy overtaking manoevers  - done by men who wouldn't
know what to do with the power and handling offered by the average Skoda! 

>....for the same reason as most sporty image cars are either parked on the M25,
>or are causing havoc  with iffy overtaking manoevers  - done by men who wouldn't
>know what to do with the power and handling offered by the average Skoda! 

don't look at me, missus, mine's usually parked in the residential car park - 
I hate driving, especially with all those floozies in 4WDs and useless gits in 
their sports cars out there!!!  :)

Chris.

    Hi,
    
    The ratio of people being killed by any vehicle fitted with bull bars
    and vehicles not fitted with bull bars in proportion to the
    total number of these two catogories of vehicles on the road does not
    support the argument for removing the bull bars.
    
    You people in your hi-powered drag efficiant earodynamic pedestrian
    sliding up yer bonnet whoops theres a radar trap sound barrier breaking
    bull barless cars should really slow down and watch where your going.
    
    Tell you what... You lot fit speed restricters and I`ll remove my Bull
    Bars.
    
    Regards,
    
    	     2.3TD Fully kitted, no speeding tickets, No
             accidents, Touch wooding Frontara owner. 

Try comparing like with like. Given that bull bars are "worn" by a limited
range of vehicles, it would make more sense to consider only those vehicles
when comparing fatalities in accidents. Additionally, you need to look at a 
sub-set of accidents. Then you are in a position to determine whether or not
bull bars increase the chances of fatal injuries.

Clive

    ...also, apparently, the problem with regards to the increased
    likelyhood of serious injury or death from bull-bars, is from accidents
    at relatively slow speeds at or below 30 mph and involving children.
    The faster you're going the less likely the difference it's going to
    make whether you've got these useless fashion accessories or not if you
    have an accident.
    
    Jonathan

    ... the reason speed is coming into the argument is that (allegedly)
    increasing the likelihood of killing by fitting bull bars to a vehicle
    (which a minority of people do) is morally no different than increasing
    the chances of killing by exceeding the urban speed limit (which the
    majority of people do).
    
    Tony I

    
    Hold on a minute....
    
    I thought megamillions had been spent on making cars safe what with
    crunch zones etc. And all this to meet emerging requirements from
    various countries. Surely cars have to be crash tested to get type
    approval in most countries and specifically here. 
    
    Surely fitting bull bars (and any other non standard fitting for that
    matter) totally nullifies all that work and money.
    
    Richard

Crumple zones only protect the occupents, not the soft
lumps of flesh and bone on the outside.

Not only that, cars that usually need bull bars don't usually
have crumple zones.

Simon

    Crunch zones / airbags / ABS(arguably) protect the occupents of the
    car, not the people it hits.
    
    Crash testing proves that :
    
    	At 5� mph the car is not damaged.
    	At 30� mph the occupents of the car are OK (On sharp bits of metal
    		flying about, burst petrol tanks, cut fuel lines etc)
           
    They say nothing about the outside of the car.
    
    As an aside in the 30mph crash test the LM002 destroyed the concrete
    block it was driven into - this is without bull bars and will certainly
    ruin gran's day. (The McLaren F1 was also drivable but needed a new
    front headlight section).
    
    	Rik
    
    �I think these speeds are correct

    So perhaps these vehicle manufacturers should stop building
    sherman tanks that apparently "need" bullbars!!!!
    
    pat

    
    But the trend in the car design of recent years (e.g. post Sierra)
    where cars have 'pointed' front ends is, to a certain extent, dictated
    by the need to throw pedestrians over the bonnet (rather than under).
    However, I don't think is a legal requirement.
    
    Richard

As the original submitter of the question "what are Bull Bars" I am really
pleased with all of the interaction it has envoked.

Now I don't know exactly how things are in Britain, but here in the U.S. 
everybody jumps at the opportunity to SUE (take legal procedings) to get 
finacial compensation for anything they possibly can.

I would have thought that if you modify a vehicle (by adding bull bars to it)
and then you hit some poor pedestrian, they could sue the pants off you by
saying that they were undully injured because of your modification. If the
vehicle is 'as built by the manufacturer' then any undue injuries would be the
responsibility of the manufacturer. There have been numerous law suits against
manufactureres here in the U.S., mainly because they have a lot more money than
individuals.

Bull bars are purchased by men with less than adequate equipment.

Dave.

    And women with too much?
    
    Matt

re.43:

Generally speaking, women don't buy bull bars, men do.

Dave.

    If we're going to be general, I wonder how many women utter them words
    
    "A 4x4 would be practical and these bars look nice"         :-}
    
    I think there is a valid use for them in some instances, e.g. Work
    (land surveying, quarying etc).
    
    Cheers,
    
    Chris

>Generally speaking, women don't buy bull bars, men do.

Not true; in these parts, at least.

Chris.

    Let's have a reality check here. Lots of people buy a particular car or
    accessory because of the way it looks. Style and image play a big part
    in the sales of cars. If this is a sign of some kind of personality
    deficiency (and I think it probably is, though not perhaps a sexually
    related one) then the vast majority of people must suffer from it.
    
    Getting back to the real point of pedestrian safety. This is a valid
    point, and my conscience is telling me to replace the bars on my car
    (which were already on it when I bought it, by the way) with safer
    plastic ones, but I'm not in any hurry to empty my wallet over this as
    I see the problem as minor compared to the general poor standards of
    driving I see every day, especially speeding. 
    
    How many other times do we see this concern from drivers over pedestrian
    safety? Things the police do to combat speeding such as unmarked cars,
    radar traps, speed humps and cameras all come in for much criticism in
    this very notesfile (maybe even from some of the same people who would
    ban bull bars!). 
    
    Tony I
                   

>    How many other times do we see this concern from drivers over pedestrian
>    safety? Things the police do to combat speeding such as unmarked cars,
>    radar traps, speed humps and cameras all come in for much criticism in
>    this very notesfile (maybe even from some of the same people who would
>    ban bull bars!). 
    
(maybe I should move this rathole sometime...)  Speaking as a person who's both 
a pedestrian and a driver in my locality, I feel that few of the things 
listed above do anything for pedestrian safety.  Unmarked police cars don't 
slow people down, because they can't see them, so there's no deterrent, and 
they can't nick everybody, so few people learn from the experience (as an 
aside, it was interesting to note that a few of the villages around here had 
speed traps set up because of complaints of residents about people using them 
as `rat runs'; in every case, I believe that the majority of tickets issued 
were to the locals themselves)

Our local road through our estate, itself used as a shortcut by many drivers, 
was subjected to `traffic calming measures'... I can honestly say that these 
have made the situation far worse, and average traffic speeds have increased 
from about 40mph (in a 30 limit) to around 50 - 60 mph since their 
introduction as people tend to try to `nip through' before traffic comes 
around a blind bend in the other direction, then once they've attained this 
speed they fail to slow down.

Speed cameras *could* make a difference, if they didn't adopt the usual policy 
of hiding them, but once people get wise to them they seem to slow down in the 
camera's vicinity and speed up once they're out of range.

The only real answer is to build proper roads, rather than letting people find 
their own way through residential areas (which they're *finally* doing 
here...) to take the bulk of through traffic away.  Then it's just down to the 
locals to drive in a responsible manner, although some people, even those with 
young kids, seem unable to do this.

Chris.

    > Lots of people buy a particular car or accessory because of the way 
    > it looks.
    
    Equinox, Channel 4, Sunday 10th December 1995, 19.00hrs +, discusses
    the X-Factor, which may have something to do with why we by a certain
    product over another one.
    
    I have also noticed that the driving in Basingstoke (possibly the south) is
    far more aggresive then in Nottingham.  The route many drivers take on
    the M3 roundabout verges on criminal.
    
    Bull bars or no bull bars, people should be driving slower in towns,
    which is basically Tony's point..
    
    Chris.
      

    I think Tony has an extremely good point in that there is far more risk
    of fatalities from speeding drivers than the minority of vehicles with
    'cow catchers'.
    
    However, I think they are two entirely seperate arguments.
    
    It seems quite clear and logical that bull bars are more of a danger
    to pedestrians than if they weren't fitted.
    
    If the only reason they are fitted is to provide a bracket for
    additional driving lights then shouldn't the manufacturer provide an
    alternative form of support for spots lights etc.
    
    Improving road safety is of primary concern to everyone. Speeding
    drivers is one problem. This is another. They are seperate issues.
    One is easier to remedy than the other.
    
    Royston

    So bull bars should be resitricted to business use ? and
    insurance premiums raised for personal use bull bars ?  That would
    be one way of changing things....
    
    Chris.
    

    Insurance premiums will find their own level. If there are enough cases
    of the insurance company having to pay out extra (eg law suits as
    mentioned before or excessive damage to 3rd party) because the person 
    they insured had bull bars fitted, they will raise their premiums.
    
    Tony I

    Whilst I'm in total agreement with the view that when a 4WD with bull bars
    hits somebody at speeds lower than 20Mph, the injuries sustained will
    be greater than if hit by a small saloon. However, IMHO, its probably
    academic at speeds in excess of this, whether you have bull bars or
    not. The chance of survival is more or less the same. 
    
    I'm in a mind to think that the majority of folk, with these sort of
    cars and who wish to remove them would be very reluctant to do so if
    such action incurred great expense and cosmetic damage to the bodywork.
    
    Any ideas on how HM Gov should proceed without loosing the bull bar vote?
    
    Will the DOT step in and outlaw them on new cars and but allow existing 
    vehicles to wear them?
    
    Dave                   
    
    
                                     

    >Whilst I'm in total agreement with the view that when a 4WD with bull bars
    >hits somebody at speeds lower than 20Mph, the injuries sustained will
    >be greater than if hit by a small saloon. However, IMHO, its probably
    
    The speed is a bit higher, something like 40mph.  
    
    In addition to being on Watchdog, some NHS document/health bulletin or
    whatever it is has been released.  It gave statistics to support not
    selling cars with bull bars.  The only query I had with the statistics
    was that they compared vehicles with bull bars, against other vehicles,
    i.e. not vehicles that are usually fitted with bullbars against
    vehicles with bull bars (e.g. not Frontera/Vitara with, against
    Frontera/Vitara without).  I hope that makes sense, it's 90 degrees in
    here and I'm having trouble staying awake.  I guess this means that on
    that evidence, it won't save 35 lives.  But I can't think straight
    enough to explain why.  But I believe it will still save some, so I
    think it is worth doing (certainly on new cars).
    
    tmp

    >>  The only query I had with the statistics
    >> was that they compared vehicles with bull bars, against other vehicles,
    >> i.e. not vehicles that are usually fitted with bullbars against
    >> vehicles with bull bars (e.g. not Frontera/Vitara with, against
    >> Frontera/Vitara without).
    
    that is exactly the point some of us have been trying to make, 1.5 tons
    of 4x4 with or without bull bars _will_ make a lot more mess than .75
    tons of cavalier/vectra or whateva. I don't think 4x4's have crumple
    zones as such - if they do then it'll take 1.5 tons coming the other
    way to make it crumple - the bull bars make very little difference to
    the damage they do to other vehicles, they do however stop the bodywork
    on the 4x4 getting damaged.
    
    As you have pointed out, the statistics are more than a little suspect -
    in my view _all_ statistics are suspect %^) - they should either
    compare like with like, or not bother.
    
    G.  

Aaaahhhhh STATISTICS..........

It seems appropriate at this point to include my two favorite definitions of
statistics:-

1. Statistics are like a streetlight to a drunk....................

     ..... more for support than illumination.

2. Statistics are like a bikini...........

    ..... what they reveal is enticing but what they conseal is vital.

nigel

re.46:

>>Generally speaking, women don't buy bull bars, men do.
>
>Not true; in these parts, at least.

Market research suggests otherwise. At a guess, I'd say you are going by driver
observation, which doesn't take into account who bought the vehicle.

Dave.

    Its funny but since following this note I can't help noticing all
    vehicles with bull bars and viewing them with an unrational hatred. 
    Its surprising how many small vans are also fitted with bull bars 
    as well as 4x4's.
    
    Ban 'em !
    
    Royston

    
    Of course, Minis never had Bull Bars. They were called 'nudge bars' or
    something!
    
    Richard

    
    ..    
    >> Of course, Minis never had Bull Bars. They were called 'nudge bars' or
    >> something!
    
    Nerf bars I think as in 'nerd' but ending in 'f'....
    
    

Another article from VNS - 8-December-1995

________________________________________________________________________________
Accident victim's mother joins fight to ban bull bars

    THE MOTHER of a teenage girl who was seriously injured when she was hit
    by a vehicle fitted with bull bars joined Labour MPs and road safety
    experts yesterday in calling for them to be banned
________________________________________________________________________________
   

>Market research suggests otherwise. At a guess, I'd say you are going by driver
>observation, which doesn't take into account who bought the vehicle.

ah, right you are.

Chris.