Those Contentious Bullbars

This has been a topic of discussion and argument on our Channel 9 TODAY show this week. These bull bars are fitted to the front of vehicles to supposedly protect the occupants in the event of running into a kangaroo.
These things are mostly illegal, but are tolerated by the police, with even some police vehicles fitting them. They often have sharp protrusions in them including fishing rod holders, and even some have outboard motors clamped onto them. The point was made that many vehicles fitted with these devices are never driven away from the city, but are paraded by their owners to create a macho image. In Melbourne they are called Toorak Tractors, and in Sydney Mossman Trucks.
In the event of a collision with a pedestrian, the pedestrian will suffer much more serious injuries from such devices. The point is also made that these prevent the crumple zone at the front of the car from working, and can also prevent the air bags from operating, making them more dangerous to the occupants in a collision.
The argument for these devices from some guy who lives outback is that if a vehicle runs into a kangaroo, and the roo comes in through the windscreen, the occupants can suffer serious or terminal injury. Also, running into a roo can disable the car in the outback, which could be very dangerous in remote locations.
So what are the implications? These devices only exist because the law against them is never enforced. Does the excuse that they may be needed in the event of an accident with a kangaroo justify its illegal usage?
And what is the answer to the problem? Bullbars that are properly designed to protect the occupants and the front of the car, but does not pose any more danger to pedestrians if fitted? Can such be made? How about fitting laminated windscreens? What do you think?

How about banning any car registered in the metropolitan zone from having one.

Simple

I'm against them because they damage the vehicle in accidents, creating an upward bending motion in the front, as well as folding back into bodywork that may not have been damaged otherwise..

The pedestrian issue is the most important, people with 'roo problems can fit a Shu-Roo. But right in the outback, in the Territory and Nth Qld there are issues with bulls... yeah, the ones for whom they were named...

Certainly they shouldn't be allowed in the city, not at all, no matter where they live.

I'm definitely not a fan of them in metro areas. While there are some quite legal ones and even Ford have designed an integrated one for the Falcon which is better (still not good though) for pedestrians.

There are also so-called nudge bars fitted to some cars just in case they "nudge" another car. And there are quite a few people who fit tow-bars for similar reasons.

And they can also affect airbag deployment by adding a delay into when the sensors pick up a crash due to where the mounting of the bullbar is, which as Ray said, causes more damage too.

Just a thought but maybe the government should look into who is at fault in most pedestrian accidents. Anyone who has driven in a city at lunch time or at about 5pm will know of the groups of lemming brains who stand on street corners waiting for one of the group to attempt to cross the road (usually against the large red flashing "DON'T BLOODY WALK" sign). Once one of the group goes they all go because they expect the car to stop for them. Sometimes the car can't stop and we get Darwin's theory of natural selection at its best.

I agree that suburban vehicles don't need bullbars, especially the Mosman Marauders but maybe some more road education for pedestians and drivers is needed as well. Everyday we read of pedestrian fatalities in the papers but rarely do they say that the driver was charged.

Also as far as airbags go, the bullbar can cause the airbag to trigger too early or at low speeds such as 10kmh impacts in a car park because the bar transfers the shock to the chassis.

there was a lot of discussion about these in england. i think they're banned on new cars now, and only allowed on old ones when they're standard.
here, in general, they're pointless. we don't have problems with kangaroos, only the occasional badger and deer. my mum's little old suzuki has them, and they have saved her car from being toast when a couple of olds ran into the back of her.
luckily, mothers looking for child wagons/posing cars have switched from old land rovers and range rovers to new ones and estate cars, which means there are hardly any bullbars on the roads any more.

Originally posted by redback
Just a thought but maybe the government should look into who is at fault in most pedestrian accidents.



I hate to hijack my own thread, but I cannot help but share this with you guys. I very nearly hit this young man one night - he was dressed in tennis whites and simply charged across the street in front of me without looking. What went through my mind: this guy was probably a cute young boy loved by him Mom, and raised with loving care. Sent through school with lots of parental sacrifice, told to do his homework and so on...... Suddenly, in the blink of an eye I would have destroyed all that if I did not have my foot over the brake pedal because I was about to turn left just up ahead. It was sheer luck that I did not kill him, and I would never have been able to live it down or forgive myself.

Sorry about changing teh subject slightly, but if I had hit this young man with a vehicle fitted with bullbars wit protrusions, fishing rod holders, this guy would have been a gonner. I was driving a Peugeot 505, and I suppose if I had hit him, he may have survived with only injuries - what a helluva load for me to carry for the rest of my life. Thanks but no thanks. PHEW. So, even if some pedestrians can be stupid, we don't need the anguish of killing the guy in an accident. I don't think I am making much sense, am I? I'll post this anyway.