Should all Bull-bars be made illegal?

MadsL

Finally the govt has transposed Directive 2005/66/EC on 'frontal protection systems' aka Bull-Bars in law. This should cut the number of yummy-mummies driving their 'cute' SUVs with lethal chrome ram-rods already factory fitted.


Should the govt go the whole hog and ban them completely (including aftermarket ones?)

perhaps with an exception for farm vehicles where it can be proved the vehickle is a farm tool, bhoy.

152. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Transport when he expects to introduce regulations under Article 8 of EU Directive 2005/66/EC to curb the sale of bull bars sold as separate technical units. [21994/06]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): My Department is considering how best to implement control of the sale and use of component bull-bars pursuant to Directive 2005/66/EC.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20060607.xml&Node=1802

mik_da_man

Yes - with an exception for farm vehicles where it can be proved the vehicle is a farm tool

I know from my background that this is important

peasant

Yepp ...ban the pedestrian slicers ...all of them.

Can't see any use for them at all (not even on a farm, bhoy )

No more NCT / DOE certificate unless the bullbar comes off.

MarkR

But they are so handy for moving other cars out of your way in a car park! :rolleyes:

Vegeta

I am not saying they shouldn't be banned but looking at this arguement a little deeper

Would anyone survive if hit by a jeep/4x4/SUV without bull bars. I know it makes them even more lethal but they are pretty lethal on their own.

Was a passenger in a Golf that hit a Range Rover head on before, the Golf was a mess, complete write off. Range Rover had a broken head light.

any one have any more info on this as i'd like to read up on it if they know something on the subject

Anan1

Vegeta wrote:

I am not saying they shouldn't be banned but looking at this arguement a little deeper

Would anyone survive if hit by a jeep/4x4/SUV without bull bars. I know it makes them even more lethal but they are pretty lethal on their own.

Was a passenger in a Golf that hit a Range Rover head on before, the Golf was a mess, complete write off. Range Rover had a broken head light.

any one have any more info on this as i'd like to read up on it if they know something on the subject

How can the fact that SUVs are more dangerous than cars to start with justify making them even more dangerous?

mike65

Voted option 3, but I think all non-farm/forrestry bars should be removed retrospectivly.

Mike.

MadsL

any one have any more info on this as i'd like to read up on it if they know something on the subject

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/5f584b237987507aca256d09008051f3/00f35874756d401bca256d2c00184b06!OpenDocument

12 percent of fatal pedestrian accidents known to involve bull-bars.

1998 study by Australia's University of Adelaide found that the damage to a child's head when struck by a vehicle equipped with a small-diameter steel bull bar was 10 to 15 times worse than damage inflicted by a vehicle without one.

http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/newsdetail.jsp?id=293

peasant

Says it all:

The number one reason to buy a bull-bar is to protect the radiator and engine vitals from an animal strike. There is a much greater likelihood of hitting a donkey or deer while on an expedition, than to hit another vehicle. An animal impact can rupture the radiator, damage the fan and break intake components leaving you stranded.

The ARB bullbar is designed to catch and deflect the animals torso, sending the mass of the strike off to the sides or under the chassis.

taken from here

PaddyFagan

I voted "Yes, complete ban", but I think it's important to stress that I presume the directive covers the use of vechiles on the public road - I have no problem with their use on farms etc, but I do think that any vechile fitted with them should not be legal for road use even if it would otherwise.

I know would be a pain for farmers etc - but I think it is the only way to prevent the rules being abused - commerically registered, but really only for domestic use SUVs being fitted with them etc.....

Paddy

Vegeta

Anan1 wrote:

How can the fact that SUVs are more dangerous than cars to start with justify making them even more dangerous?

well my point is, if hit by a bull bar less SUV style vehicle at say 60kph, what are your chances of survival as opposed to being hit by one with bull bars?

Again I am not against their banning. I'd just like to know how much worse they are. Is it all hype? I'd like to make an educated decision rather than jump on the media/government band wagon.

MadsL

An animal impact can rupture the radiator, damage the fan and break intake components leaving you stranded.

Ah yes, I remember the last time a deer leapt out on me in Ranalagh. Terrible mess, we were totally stranded - had to hike all the way to Ballsbridge. We had to eat one of the kids... :rolleyes:

Tipsy Mac

No need for them on any vehicle in Ireland, also most people who fit them are unaware that in a crash with another vehicle they have the potential to do more damage than good as they will prevent the crumple zones working properly and hinder the inflation of the airbags.

Anan1

Vegeta wrote:

well my point is, if hit by a bull bar less SUV style vehicle at say 60kph, what are your chances of survival as opposed to being hit by one with bull bars?

It depends what you're driving , I suppose. As a pedestrian you'd be dead either way.

Vegeta wrote:

Again I am not against their banning. I'd just like to know how much worse they are. Is it all hype? I'd like to make an educated decision rather than jump on the media/government band wagon.

As a general principle, i'm also against the idea of banning anything without extremely good reason. That said, the purpose of bull-bars is to remove the crumple zone from the front of the SUV. The implications for whatever the SUV hits are obvious.

alias no.9

They should be banned on public roads, but that option wasn't given so I didn't vote. It wouldn't exactly be a huge engineering challenge to make a bullbar that could be quickly attached for agricultural use and just as quickly taken off for road use.

Re getting hit by an SUV regardless of bullbars, the bumpers and bodywork of any modern vehicle are desinged to deform upon impact to absorb some of the energy of the impact, bullbars are not so all of the energy is applied to the victim in an impact. In addition to this, the contact area between the bullbar and the victim is much smaller than that of an suv without, so the energy of the impact is focused on a much smaller area resulting in much greater trauma. Remember not all collisions happen at full speed. The driver may have reacted early enough to have slowed the vehicle nearly to a stop with the bullbar being the difference between a few weeks in hospital or the victim going to meet their maker.

Victor

mike65 wrote:

Voted option 3, but I think all non-farm/forrestry bars should be removed retrospectivly.

I concur.

Vegeta wrote:

well my point is, if hit by a bull bar less SUV style vehicle at say 60kph, what are your chances of survival as opposed to being hit by one with bull bars?

That is a stupid argument. Putting a projecting piece of metal on the front of a vehicle will invariably make the accident worse. The only place it is useful is where there is severe risk of hitting a large object - agriculture, forestry and driving cross country in Australia where you have to watch out for the kangaroos.

MadsL

At 60kmph, you are probably dead, especially if you are a child.

However what would you rather be hit by at 40kph

This?
http://www.bures4x4.cz/pictures/hyundai_tucson_1024_1.jpg
or
This
http://www.caradisiac.com/media/images/le_mag/mag260/hyundai-tucson-20-crdi-01bb.jpg

Moreover, what would you rather 'nudged' your five year old kid at 20kph outside a school? Amazingly, it's a lots of the mammies driving these to pick the kids up because they are 'safer'

prospect

Bull Bars are absoloutely pointless for about 95%* of SUV/4x4 drivers.

They have limited functionality on farm vehicles. However, if they were to be allowed on farm vehicles, there is a problem regulating these when vehicles are sold on.

* - These statistics can be considered 100% accurate and are compiled by the 'Prospect institute of higher imagination'

Vegeta

Victor wrote:

I concur.
That is a stupid argument. Putting a projecting piece of metal on the front of a vehicle will invariably make the accident worse. The only place it is useful is where there is severe risk of hitting a large object - agriculture, forestry and driving cross country in Australia where you have to watch out for the kangaroos.

What do you mean by "worse" what's worse than dead?

overdriver

Hit something with a hammer, and it's force is focussed, hit something with a wide, flatter object, and with the same force, and it's less focussed. That's why it's hard to drive a nail with anything other than a hammer.

I woudl agree with a total ban, all they do is injure and kill people.

Oh, and look cool...:rolleyes:

dubstub

I do think they look cool... but then again, so might bayonets protruding from the bonnet, flames shooting out the back and barb-wire around the roof. They're not worth the extra risk of injury they bring.

I thought it actually was illegal to sell a new jeep with bull-bars since 2003 - is this not the case?

bushy...

I don't think they make much difference if another vehicle is hit though........ MIRA test : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA

some aren't up to much at 30mph into concrete though http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1616576/context/tag:china

Tails142

My sister was in a head on collision a few years ago... she was in a Kia Sportage Jeep with bullbars, someone shot out at a T-junction and a car coming down the road in the opposite direction had to veer and smashed straight into the front of her - probably a 40/50 km/hr collision.

The other car, a Ford Fiesta/Ka was a complete wreck, front totally mangled, driver was OK. The jeep had a broken spotlight that was fixed onto the bullbars and the bullbars were slightly bent. Having to buy a new car vs. no repair bill... hmm I know which I'd prefer.

That being said; if her car had've been wrecked the insurance companies would have covered it, so my stance is that only vehicles operating off of public roads should be allowed to have Bull Bars in Ireland.

Car + Car collision, sure the bull bars will save you having to get repairs in a lot of cases, but the insurance companies will pick up the bill anyway.

Car + Person, every case will be a better outcome without bull bars.


NB. Even though my sisters jeep wasnt damaged, she still injured her back due to the more sudden stop caused by the bull bars. The more gradual absorption of energy by a crumple zone at the front of car probably would have reduced the speed of stopping. So taking bull bars off your car probably makes it safer for you too.

mloc123

I'm pretty sure all new jeeps with bullbars are purely cosmetic. They are not bolted to the chassis and do not channel the force into one area like strutural ones do.

I don't really care either way. Its just more of the SUV bashing. If somebody wants to drive an SUV in Dublin who am I to complain..

Fey!

I've gone with option 3, but with the inclusion of some rescue units (bars are good for pushing some obstacles out of the way).

Seth Brundle

prospect wrote:

They have limited functionality on farm vehicles.

Having dome plenty of farm work over the years I have never once seen a need for bull bars!
Most animals are de-horned so the ability for them to pierce anything is limited.
The windows and mirrors on these vehicles are also left unprotected so I don't see the excuse that they protect lights etc as being valid.
Also if there is a risk of an animal damaging something then just feckin park outside the gate or drive a tractor to the field!!!

Rabies

Option 3 voted for.

Allow those in the argicultural industry have them and commerical vehicles. They are definitly needed for argiculture, no question there. Commerical, maybe proof that they are required be better, builders (yes), sales reps (no).

Private vehicle, no. There is no need to have bull bars going to Smyths unless it is christmas eve.

Seth Brundle

Rabies wrote:

They are definitly needed for argiculture, no question there.

Why do you think they are 'definitley needed'?

maidhc

kbannon wrote:

Having dome plenty of farm work over the years I have never once seen a need for bull bars!
Most animals are de-horned so the ability for them to pierce anything is limited.
The windows and mirrors on these vehicles are also left unprotected so I don't see the excuse that they protect lights etc as being valid.
Also if there is a risk of an animal damaging something then just feckin park outside the gate or drive a tractor to the field!!!

As a farmer I agree fully. None of our tractors have such bullbars* and never have been damaged in such a way as to suggest they should be fitted.

* except those fitted with front loaders. They are necessary in this circumstance because you are always hitting off trailers etc when loading/unloading.

Stark

Vegeta wrote:

What do you mean by "worse" what's worse than dead?

Brain damage? Severe paralysis?

Rabies

kbannon wrote:

Why do you think they are 'definitley needed'?

Because they are often used as points to tie bales of hay on to the bonnet. Nudge cattle. Push a gate open. Driving through a hedge it is nicer to have a big set of metal bars go first.

Ok, they are not all the best or safest reasons, but that is what I have seen them getting used for.