Thread: Courier Mail article- ban bull bars

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I have never seen any figures which show bullbars to have an impact on road safety. I would be very interested if you can produce any???

Here are some links to get you started:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...llBar_2pt1.pdf
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...llBar_2pt2.pdf
CR 200: Bullbars and Road Trauma (2000)
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publicat...ts/CASR059.pdf

And here is the link to the Regulation Impact Statement which details the options currently being considered:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...SULT_FINAL.pdf

Let it be clear here, I am not an advocate for the ban. Nothing is achieved by attacking the messenger. I am just providing some information and in earlier posts, suggested people who oppose the ban will be more effective wielding facts than emotions.

Cheers
KarlB

I dont think that the fact that bullbars are bad for pedestrian safety, they are. What is being argued is that there is 1) no need for them in city areas and 2) that they should be banned.

In an ideal world there would be no need for bullbars on 4wd's in the city, provided that the 4wd didnt leave the city. But a percentage, i'd like to know what percentage, do leave the city and use their 4wd in remote and outback areas where the possibility of striking a roo or other wild animal is high.

I agree 100% that the soccer mum school run taxis that are driven by people, which is their choice, for their room or what ever reason do not need a bullbar. But its a hard call to say that all bullbars should be banned in the city. I live in the country, at the moment, so does that mean I need to take the bullbar off before I enter the city limits? Where do you define the boundary of areas where they are banned and areas where they arent? Will they only be banned in the centre of sydney or melbourne or what ever, or will they be banned in the outer suburbs?

Originally Posted by Ace

In an ideal world there would be no need for bullbars on 4wd's in the city, provided that the 4wd didnt leave the city. But a percentage, i'd like to know what percentage, do leave the city and use their 4wd in remote and outback areas where the possibility of striking a roo or other wild animal is high.

That the incidence of animal strike is high in remote and outback Australia is a claim often made, but I have seen no reliable figures to verify this. The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association claims 25-30,000 per year and even if this number is a reasonable estimate, how many of the animal collisions are significant, and how many are with Galahs and Rosellas. There have certainly been reports on the forum from individuals about the number of roos they hit every year, but from other, how they have hit nothing over many years. Individual anecdotes are interesting but are not evidence.

There are probably figures from the insurance industry relating to claims and I would be pleased if any one can point me to these.

Cheers
KarlB

Originally Posted by KarlB

That the incidence of animal strike is high in remote and outback Australia is a claim often made, but I have seen no reliable figures to verify this. The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association claims 25-30,000 per year and even if this number is a reasonable estimate, how many of the animal collisions are significant, and how many are with Galahs and Rosellas. There have certainly been reports on the forum from individuals about the number of roos they hit every year, but from other, how they have hit nothing over many years. Individual anecdotes are interesting but are not evidence.

There are probably figures from the insurance industry relating to claims and I would be pleased if any one can point me to these.

Cheers
KarlB

How many are not significant because the vehicle is fitted with a bullbar?

Originally Posted by KarlB

That the incidence of animal strike is high in remote and outback Australia is a claim often made, but I have seen no reliable figures to verify this. The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association claims 25-30,000 per year and even if this number is a reasonable estimate, how many of the animal collisions are significant, and how many are with Galahs and Rosellas. There have certainly been reports on the forum from individuals about the number of roos they hit every year, but from other, how they have hit nothing over many years. Individual anecdotes are interesting but are not evidence.

There are probably figures from the insurance industry relating to claims and I would be pleased if any one can point me to these.

Cheers
KarlB

The incidence of your house burning down would be pretty low too, but that is no reason to go without insurance.

A bullbar is cheap insurance for your vehicle and potentially your life. I have one on my RRC which does mostly country driving. All of our work vehicles have them.

G'day. Once again ,up comes the same old argument-ban the bar-and to lead the charge an academic. Good move as then they can ask for funding [aka taxpayers money ,from the government].This also keeps the ''greenies on side.Well, now for reality-1-Roads are made mainly for vehicles so surely the onus is on the pedestrian/cyclist to ensure their own safety first.2-Intoxication -the onus must lie with the intoxicated person 3- One smart move would be fine peds.who fail to proceed against the traffic flow.4-Visible clothing at night time and maybe a torch.With or without a bull bar theres every chance the diff.will claim the victim.Finally,why do we have follow like sheep to every thing that is foisted on our o/seas friends,I haven't read that they adopt all our regulations and rules.Some one once said the only thing that comes out of some Universities is a well dressed Tutor at 5pm.Thats my 5c worth cheers Lochie

Originally Posted by Ace

How many are not significant because the vehicle is fitted with a bullbar?

I give up. How many?

Originally Posted by lochie

G'day. Once again ,up comes the same old argument-ban the bar-and to lead the charge an academic. Good move as then they can ask for funding [aka taxpayers money ,from the government].This also keeps the ''greenies on side.Well, now for reality-1-Roads are made mainly for vehicles so surely the onus is on the pedestrian/cyclist to ensure their own safety first.2-Intoxication -the onus must lie with the intoxicated person 3- One smart move would be fine peds.who fail to proceed against the traffic flow.4-Visible clothing at night time and maybe a torch.With or without a bull bar theres every chance the diff.will claim the victim.Finally,why do we have follow like sheep to every thing that is foisted on our o/seas friends,I haven't read that they adopt all our regulations and rules.Some one once said the only thing that comes out of some Universities is a well dressed Tutor at 5pm.Thats my 5c worth cheers Lochie

That sums up my 5c worth aswell so now its worth 10c