Should all Bull-bars be made illegal?

maidhc

mloc123 wrote:

Oh well I'm glad you cleared that up because my very basic knowledge of physics had me thinking that force = mass x acceleration... now I know that the force of the van/4x4 hitting a child is completly irrelevant and that the important thing is if its a 'big lump of steel' or a nice smooth bumper....

In fairness, it can be the difference between life or death. It is why the EU get finicky about these things, and why people don't usually stick sharp pointy things onto the front of the car.

peasant

mloc123 wrote:

Oh well I'm glad you cleared that up because my very basic knowledge of physics had me thinking that force = mass x acceleration... now I know that the force of the van/4x4 hitting a child is completly irrelevant and that the important thing is if its a 'big lump of steel' or a nice smooth bumper....

Let yourself be hit by 2 kg of cotton wool doing 30 km/h ...and then try that again with a 2kg steel ball.:D

Same principle ...

mloc123

The issue isn't the weight of the bar..

With structural bull bars the force of the entire vehicle is concentrated into the area of the bullbars as they are bolted directly to the chassis. With non structural bars it is not, non structural are no different to old style metal bumpers.

As for..

"Let yourself be hit by 2 kg of cotton wool doing 30 km/h ...and then try that again with a 2kg steel ball.

Same principle ..."

An average SUV would weight 2tonne, the difference in the force with an extra 5-10kg(rough guess) of the bull bars makes little or no difference.

Edit: Just to clarify... I'm not saying structural bull bars are safe, they are not and that has been proven.

peasant

mloc123 wrote:

An average SUV would weight 2tonne, the difference in the force with an extra 5-10kg(rough guess) of the bull bars makes little or no difference.

The difference is whether a large section of the victim's body gets to absorb that force or if its concentrated and pinpointed (by the bullbar) into just a few square inches.

2kgs of cottonwool is a nice, big soft bag full and would hit most of your body ...it wont hurt at all ...even at 30km/h (pillowfight ?)

2kgs of steel ball at 30km/h would hit your body on a few square mm and break something underneath ...big time.


Being hit be the flat-ish front of a 2 ton SUV is by no means harmless ...but when that front isn't flat but pointed, it's most likely deadly.


EDIT

better example ...slam your fist on the surface of a table ...hurts, but not too bad ....now try again with the same force on the edge ...break anything?

Dar

mloc123 wrote:

Oh well I'm glad you cleared that up because my very basic knowledge of physics had me thinking that force = mass x acceleration... now I know that the force of the van/4x4 hitting a child is completly irrelevant and that the important thing is if its a 'big lump of steel' or a nice smooth bumper....

Force = mass x acceleration
Pressure = force/area

Next time you have a steak try cutting it with a pencil. Then try the same with a knife.

MadsL

A report by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide, for FORS in 1996 states:

Contrary to popular belief, pedestrians are run under by a striking car, rather than run over. This means that the shape and energy-absorbing properties of the bumper and the upper surface of the front of the car are the direct cause of injury to the legs and head of the pedestrian. In general, injuries resulting from being thrown to the road after being struck by a car are not as severe as the injuries due to the impact with the car itself.


Need to draw anyone a picture?

Capt'n Midnight

yes
They are designed so that when you hit a large mammal at speed, the damage to the vehicle is minimised, regardless of what happens to the mammal.

As for pushing cattle and stuff on a farm, you won't be doing that at speed, so bull bars / roo bars aren't needed. Perhaps some sort of padded beam with a large surface area ?

Rabies

Looking at some of the 'roo bars on trucks and cars in Oz, it doesn't paint a nice picture to get hit by them.

I was driving up the west coast of Oz over christmas, couldn't believe how many dead kangaroos were on the side of the road.

Some just jump straight across the road out of no where. Don't get me started on the bloody goats. Christ, they are looking to be killed.

Victor

Actually, army 4x4s don't have bull bars, so thats a bench mark.

kbannon wrote:

on one farm we rounded up yearlings for surgical castration.

angry? what are you doing to them to make them angry?

You might have answered your own question.

Rudolph Claus

They shouldnt be banned! I generally find the people calling for their ban are the same numptys that cant and never will afford a decent jeep to put them on. Pack of jealous/begrudgeing numpty`s.

overdriver

Nuttzy, again you wow me with your complete inability to make any kind of intelligent point. Yeah, we're all jealous of your penis-extension jeep. It's not the road deaths that bother us at all. :rolleyes:


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960215/ai_n14032105

70 deaths a year? That's good enough for me. Again, all the poncing around by supporters of these FASHION ITEMS on this board will not stop the inevitable. They WILL be banned. Thank God. And when it happens, it won't be a second too soon, even if you do drive around your farm protecting yourself from enraged bulls by crashing into them with your jeep.

Seth Brundle

Victor wrote:

You might have answered your own question.

Well given that one had to get a blood transfusion in the field the next day and there was no hassle from the rest of them, maybe removing their balls made them more docile!

Nuttzy wrote:

They shouldnt be banned! I generally find the people calling for their ban are the same numptys that cant and never will afford a decent jeep to put them on. Pack of jealous/begrudgeing numpty`s.

What has ones buying power got to do with not wanting to get killed by an unnecessary motor accessory?

Victor

Would it be possible to have bull bars, that aren't bars, but flat sheets?

oleras

Complete ban. Like the seatbelt push in the 80's where people were convinced they were worse for you than not wearing one, this will come around to a logical conclusion eventually. Why would you want an accessory that increases the risk of death in an accident ? No argument really.

Capt'n Midnight

oleras wrote:

Why would you want an accessory that increases the risk of death in an accident ? No argument really.

Because it increases someone else's risk of death not yours.
Because it makes you feel safer, so you can drive faster, harder and with less care knowing a minor collision won't dent your bonnet and probably won't scratch the paintwork.

The law states that if you should be travelling at a speed that enables you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. This means it should be illegal to have bull bars on public roads since there in no justification of their usage on a public road.

Anyone ever see the garda riot vans where they have a grid that swings down over the windscreen ? - bull bars if absolutely needed could be fitted on the bonnet and dropped down. - then again since pedestrians get bounced on to the bonnet you may have to have them on the roof with a longer arm - or padded. ( use of them in the lowered position on a main road would be penalty points / crushing )

And while at it can't those spike things for lifting hay on tractors be hinged so they are vertical when not in use ??

Capt'n Midnight

Here's a general road safety question.

Would you approve the use of bull-bars [or whatever] if you were the only person who wasn't allowed to use them and they were mandatory for everyone else.
Also would your answer still be the same if you were forced to do all short trips as a pedestrian or cyclist.

kenr

I voted for a complete ban.

Luxury 4x4s seem to be getting bigger with higher bonnets , stick a set of bars on the front and I don't want to imagine the damage they could do in a side impact scenario.
I saw a boy racer Fiat Punto a couple of years ago with a set of huge bull bars stuck on the front:eek: -- what's the point of that ?? does he use a small hatch back car for rounding up cattle? doubt it very much.

Ken

Mahatma coat

I think the solution is to fit them to pedestrians as well.

Its obviously a cultural diference thing but there is no way I would travel outside of Brisbane without Roobars attached.

they have many other avantages like being able to attach extra spotlights, winches, ariels and fishinrod holders. and as an aside I think they look cool

maidhc

Mahatma coat wrote:

Its obviously a cultural diference thing but there is no way I would travel outside of Brisbane without Roobars attached.

I can see a benefit in protecting the front of your vehicle from skippy who may jump out in front of you at any time, but I don't think you can apply the same logic to Mary Pedestrian!

Mahatma coat

Skippy has'nt been taught the green cross code, pedestrians have, therefore the onus is on them to stay out of the way.

people rant about the damage roobars do to people, I would consider it as a sort of Darwinism

overdriver

Sure. All the pedestrians who are killed every year, it's their own fault.

:rolleyes:

If there really was Darwinism, you wouldn't be able to climb into your D4 tractor for your knuckles scraping on the ground.

And we DON'T have 'Roos in Ireland.

maidhc

Mahatma coat wrote:

Skippy has'nt been taught the green cross code, pedestrians have, therefore the onus is on them to stay out of the way.

It isn't.

The onus is on the driver to avoid them EVEN if they are completely in the wrong and do stupid things. In Ireland at least, if you hit a pedestrian, even if in the right, you are completely and utterly screwed, and are absolutely guaranteed to be taking a few days off work to go to court.

Avoid hitting and injuring pedestrians at all costs.

unkel

The vast majority here is for a complete ban. Case closed

Seth Brundle

Mahatma coat wrote:

Skippy has'nt been taught the green cross code, pedestrians have, therefore the onus is on them to stay out of the way.

people rant about the damage roobars do to people, I would consider it as a sort of Darwinism

So if yoou had a kid that ran out innocently onto the road while you weren't looking and got creamed by some tosser who wanted to look good you would be understandably upset but satisfied that Darwinism is happening?

Anyhow how can the aggravated death of someone contribute to Darwins theory?