Bullbar bans

[killa]

Originally Posted by crawl3r

BULLBARS WONT BE BAND IN AUSTRALIA

Bull bars ROCK!!

[DavidJ]

Originally Posted by crawl3r

AND WE WIN!!!! BULLBARS WONT BE BAND IN AUSTRALIA

read about it here

http://www.minister.infrastructure.g...CK004_2011.htm

pretty much says were cool to have bullbars if you cant be bothered reading it lol

Ms King is just repeating what the proposal says: it was never the Govt's intention to ban bullbars. However, it is good to know that the scaremongering by elements of the 4WD aftermarket industry and the 4WD magazines that are supposed to have our interests at heart.

Now, if they were to mount a campaign against price gouging by oil companies and supermarket chains, they would have my support

[tazwegion]

Originally Posted by xjrob

I don't know just guessing, that majority of pedestrians hit by vehicles were hit by vehicles without bull bars and even those hit by vehicles with bull bars the injuries would not differ much with or without the bull bar, look at a standard XJ bumper and an XJ with a bull bar, or an old 40 series cruiser with the big recovery hooks that were standard on top of the standard bar.

That logic is so flawed it's downright scary... it's all about protrusions, strike height & the angles of bar work OR the neuvo' term FPS (Frontal Protection System).

Bull (or Roo) bars that closely follow the vehicle's contours provide the best compromise (and ADR compliance) because they behave similarly (in a pedestrian strike situation) to the same vehicle without said bar work installed.




BTW Glad you completed the survey!

[Steve F]

All sorted

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.

Cheers
Steve

[Pantsly]

[QUOTE=tazwegion;1168385]That logic is so flawed it's downright scary... it's all about protrusions, strike height & the angles of bar work OR the neuvo' term FPS (Frontal Protection System).

Bull (or Roo) bars that closely follow the vehicle's contours provide the best compromise (and ADR compliance) because they behave similarly (in a pedestrian strike situation) to the same vehicle without said bar work installed.

But look at the example you use its a sedan with a bar(and I havent seen any vehicle other than B&S utes running a hopper stopper type plow bar,least not any built in the last 20 years) most 4x4s are going to be hitting between stomach and chest height. Anyhow in the great Australian tradition why make the pedestrian responsible for their actions when we can legislate and make every vehicle with a bar responsible for them instead. Just my opinion..

[tazwegion]

Originally Posted by Pantsly

But look at the example you use its a sedan with a bar(and I havent seen any vehicle other than B&S utes running a hopper stopper type plow bar,least not any built in the last 20 years) most 4x4s are going to be hitting between stomach and chest height.

Whilst that is true (and that example isn't indicative of 4WD strike height), it does lend to an easy to visualised example in that you simply need to jack up the ride height to compare, I was only attempting to explain the ADR design concept in pictorial format

Bottom line an aggressively styled bar will cause greater injury to a pedestrian than the same vehicle without that bar work, that doesn't mean they'll get off easy (due to original vehicle strike height & body design).

Originally Posted by Pantsly

Anyhow in the great Australian tradition why make the pedestrian responsible for their actions when we can legislate and make every vehicle with a bar responsible for them instead. Just my opinion..

Pedestrians should be help accountable for their actions however as I stated previously the whole concept of the newer ADR designs is to reduce an exacerbated injury due entirely to aggressive forward projecting bar work.

FWIW my ol' stock XJ bull bar (the same as seen on many of it's era) fails the new ADR specifications due to it's lack of reclining angles but really this point is mute as Steven has already posted the Government aren't going to implement retrospective bull bar legislation