|
Agree too.That is most definately rubbish.
|
1) watch the language
2) there is a big difference between "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence". It may be that the first is true in this case, but that doesn't mean that the second is.
Surely common sense says that these things are dangerous.
|
Sorry about the bad language, I thought the "@@" instead of "ll" etc covered it.
Thanks.
|
|
About 12 years ago, Land Rover were experimenting with foam bull bars on the P38A new Range Rover, they look the same as the matt black steel ones but are more pedestrian friendly. Anyone know what happened to that idea?
|
There is evidence, but I can't now recall the source except that it was one of the national road research centres .It was pretty detailed and conclusive.
The point was that the bullbars (either) lifted the pedestrian and onto the bonnet ,or pushed them down an dunder the car .Whichever it was the person hit spends more time in contact with the vehicle .
I guess given the weight of most 4x4s the bullbars add relatively little , but the weight of the object hitting you will make a difference.
I think it was after the research that bullbars were banned from being fitted to new cars , but the after-market was left alone.
I find them pretty offensive , a waste of money and energy and yet another example of people missing the point about what being a driver is about.
|
They may be a waste of money, but its not mine. Styling can even be ludicrous, but I couldn't say it offends me. And its not for me to say what the point of being a driver is about for someone else.
However, bullbars are solid, unbending and ungiving. I wouldn't fancy getting slapped with a lump of bullbar in someone's hand, never mind it smacking me in the face at 40mph.
I don't like legislation, and I like restrictive legislation even less, but there comes a point where something is just sooo unneccessary and harmful that it needs to be stopped - and bullbars definitely cross that line.
I don't really understand why new car bullbars would be banned yet after-market permitted. Generally I would have thought that aftermarket stuff was more likely to be ill-fitted and dangerous.
Mind you, I wish they would focus on a bit of pedestrian training and pedestrian punishement as well and not always default to the side of "its the vehicle's fault/responsibility/etc.".
|
Mark,
Thank for making the amends.
I agree with your comments 100% however there are some things in life that should so clearly be legislated against, in my mind Bullbars fit this category.
With regard to pedestrian training, schools are taking this seriously, and have for many years (remember the Tufty Club), parents need to reinforce it as well.
|
|
|
|
Over a decade ago there was a bill going through parliament to ban them after surgeons had complained about the seriousness of the injuries they caused, such as more severe multiple bone fractures.
A well know character, still on around on the London scene, who had a commercial interest in the motor trade, and was a politician, stood up in parliament and talked for long enough for the bill to run out of time!
|
|
|
No axe to grind. I don't have a strong view on bullbars either way. This is purely in the interests of fair play.
After an admittedly brief search of the net there appears to be no evidence that bullbars increase pedestrian deaths. The research is mainly from Australia and the result is inconclusive, saying that even if bullbars were banned, the effect on accidents would be negligable.
Bullbars do not lift or push down a pedestrian on impact. The impact is the same as if they were not there, and it's actually better for the pedestrian to be hit by a 4x4 then a car. The bars can cause additional injury to the torso. Head injuries are about the same, so it's likely that the person impacted would have been killed even if the bars were not there.
More searching might find other results of course, but that's what I've seen so far.
|
The impact is the same as if they were not there, and it's actually better for the pedestrian to be hit by a 4x4 then a car.>>
I don't know about existing accident stats, but I believe that a crash test dummy scenario would show up the difference between being hit by a 2 or 3 inch diameter steel bar fixed rigidly to the chassis, and a plastic bumper, radiator grille and a flat piece of steel bonnet. Push down in the centre of a bonnet and it'll flex nicely, a bull bar won't.
For "it's actually better for the pedestrian to be hit by a 4x4 then a car." Is this for a 4x4 with or without bull bars?
|
|
|
There's a bit on bullbars in the UK here. Seems that the danger is overstated.
gd.tuwien.ac.at/faqs/faqs-hierarchy/uk/uk.transpor...Q
There are also many other interesting Qs&As there.
|
|
|
After an admittedly brief search of the net there appears to be no evidence that bullbars increase pedestrian deaths. Bullbars do not lift or push down a pedestrian on impact. The impact is the same as if they were not there, and it's actually better for the pedestrian to be hit by a 4x4 then a car. The bars can cause additional injury to the torso. Head injuries are about the same, so it's likely that the person impacted would have been killed even if the bars were not there.
1/ I do not subscribe to the "I found it on the net so it must be true" club.
2/ The little common sense that I have tells he that a few feet of 3" diameter chrome bar wrapped around the front of a vehicle does not mae it any safer to be hit by. To follow on from Mark (RLBS)'s point I would rather be hit over the head by Lennox Lewis holding a bonnet panel than by Willy Carson holding a 3" dia metal bar.
3/ I do not believe that 4x4's are no more likely to cause injury than conventional cars (of course there are exceptions both ways), just look at NCAP stats, also 4X4 braking distances are generally longer.
|
Be as angry as you like but I heard a report some time ago on the radio saying that there is no evidence that bull-bars have caused any injuries that would not have occurred had they not been fitted.
I do not like bull-bars, I would never fit one to any vehicle I owned.
I have witnessed a nasty incident with a bull-bar when someone tried to recover a Range Rover which was stuck in mud while off roading. The foolhardy people involved attached a kinetic rope to its bullbar and tried to yank it out of the mud with another 4x4. The rope ripped the bull-bar clean off the Range Rover and catapulted it through the air. Had anyone been in its path they'd have been killed. But that's outside the scope of the 'ban bull-bars' argument.
Cheers, SS
|
Hi SS,
At risk of repeating myself it must be clear to all that 3" diameter chrome bar wrapped around the front of a vehicle makes it more dangerous to pedestrians in the event that they are hit by the vehicle!
Regards.
|
So impact absorbing materials and construction are a waste of time then? It is also better to be slammed into the road than knocked into the air? I thought recent work on pedestrian safety, by the car industry, had concluded that it is much better to have a lower point of impact?
Big 4x4s are also much heavier than average saloon cars, so will hit a body with more force for a given speed (a bit like comparing the punch of a heavyweight with that of a featherweight).
|
Before I give anyone apoplexy, let me 'unpack this issue' a little, to borrow a bit of NewLabourSpeak.
Obviously bull-bars look like they could cause serious injury. Common sense would say that. I was quoting a piece of 'evidence' in comparison to the general 4x4 safety topic. I distinctly remember this guy on the Radio 4 saying that no deaths or injuries had been directly attributatble bull-bars. I don't know if that's true, I'm just quoting it. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
However thinking about it, most 'real' bullbars are fitted to Land Rovers - Defenders, Series 2 or 3 models and older Range Rover Classics. These vehicles have a substantial steel bumper, a high ground clearance and in some cases a rounded bonnet leading edge that is probably as hard as tubular steel if it hits you. Maybe it's more a case of these vehicles being so pedestrian-unfriendly that adding a bull-bar wouldn't make things worse!
SS
|
Please go and search the net for yourselves. Maybe everything you find isn't a fact, but read a few articles and then make a perhaps more sensible decision. It has to be a better bet than the speculation being posted here. There seems to be a few comments along the lines of 'They look dangerous so they must be...' - 'Common sense tells me they kill people'. Australian research shows that they don't.
Vehicles with bullbars have been involved in extremely few collisions resulting in pedestrian death. In those that did occur there is no evidence that the death was caused or made more likely by the bullbars - the pedestrian would have died in any case, bullbars or not.
It is a fact that being hit by a 4x4 is less likely to kill than being hit by a car as the pedestrian's head is unlikely to be slammed down onto the bonnet, wipers or screen edge, and that's where the damage occurs. Didn't Top Gear or 5th Gear or one of them test this last week?
I would not fit bars if I owned a 4x4 just because I don't much like the look, and they are just useless extra weight imo.
I believe in freedom, and until there is scientific evidence that they do harm, I can't see any reason to object to them being available to those that want them.
|
|
The various contributions to this thread suggest that there are few hard facts from which to draw conclusions, so those conclusions have been drawn from 'common sense', often a useful arbiter in many (but not all) cases. However let no-one be lulled into thinking that 'there is NO evidence that ..' means the same as 'there IS evidence that .. isn't true'.
|
A moment of brevity, if you will allow me.
Picture a Porsche Cayenne...... bad isn't it. Now picture it with bullbars.
I'll leave you with that thought.
|
Eugh....Cheers Alan!
Bullbars look nice on one car and one car only. A Mark 1 Mishi Shogun. That is the only car...ever.
Other than that, I can't say I have anything useful to contribute to this thread now so I will leave/
:-)
--
Adam
|
>>A moment of brevity, if you will allow me.
Alan - look up "levity" & "brevity" in a dictionary and see if you wish to reconsider your request.
The effects of yesterday still there, are they ?
|
>>A moment of brevity, if you will allow me. Alan - look up "levity" & "brevity" in a dictionary and see if you wish to reconsider your request. The effects of yesterday still there, are they ?
Ugh. Well, yes, but that's pretty poor of me. I think I'll go and get an early night.
|
So, I took the suggestion and had a look. What evidence there is in Australia seems to be suggestive that there are bad, but that it cannot be proved or quantified due to thelack of appropriate data.
Essentially an abence of evidence rather than any evidence of absence.
However, I did get reading a couple of their reports while I was there. They are worth the effort if only to consider the difference between these and similar reports I have read here.
A quick browse tends to suggest that there is a lot less politics and more genuine concern about road safety than you find here.
www.atsb.gov.au/road/pdf/bull-bars.pdf
www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/Page.asp?PageID=...8
www.atsb.gov.au/road/pdf/mgraph7.pdf
www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn27.htm ("4WDs are about as risky as large cars")
ncb.intnet.mu/mpi/tmrsu.htm (I know its not Australia)
|
Thanks for the references, Mark.
www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn27.htm ("4WDs are about as risky as large cars")
Interesting point in that article (which doesn't appear to consider pedestrian safety):
In general, 4WDs reduce injury risk for their occupants but raise the risk facing everyone else, according to a Monash Accident Research Centre report.(3) In using a 4WD, instead of a normal car, one's chance of death or serious injury falls by 4 in 1000. But the chance of killing or injuring others rises by 11 in 1000, with a resulting cost to the community.
Which is precisely why some folks want restrictions on their use.
|
If anyone was going to selectively quote from a report to their own ends, I could have bet it would be you.
Try looking at the overall more pragmatic, less-biased, less-soapbox, less controlling, less know-it-all and generally less irritating approach of those documents, especially in comparison to those that you normally spout.
Did you read on further ??
"There is an argument that people need to be taught the correct ways to drive, rather than only be sanctioned and penalised. However, currently, the primary response appears to be a push for tougher punitive sanctions against those responsible for road deaths and injuries. Maybe both measures have a role."
or even....
"Overall, 74 per cent of pedestrians involved in fatal crashes were primarily responsible for the crash and a further 8 per cent were partially responsible"
Those reports seemed reasonable and objective to me, and therefore worthy of attention.
Your opinions and approach would fail both of those tests.
|
Did you read on further ??
Indeed.
The points you quote are interesting (though I'd disagree with some of them), but they are looking at a different question -- how vehicles are used.
Any vehicle can be driven dangerously or more safely, but that doesn't alter the fact that some vehicles are more dangerous when collisions do occur.
"There is an argument that people need to be taught the correct ways to drive, rather than only be sanctioned and penalised. However, currently, the primary response appears to be a push for tougher punitive sanctions against those responsible for road deaths and injuries. Maybe both measures have a role."
I would agree fully. More enforcement and more driver training.
or even.... "Overall, 74 per cent of pedestrians involved in fatal crashes were primarily responsible for the crash and a further 8 per cent were partially responsible"
>>Those reports seemed reasonable and objective to me, and therefore worthy of attention.
Now that gets interesting: it all depends on how you define responsibility. That could be a purely subjective assessment, or it could be based on an application of the current rules of the road. Those rules could be framed in alot of different ways, so it's a much more complicated question than the simple 74% figure suggests.
|
>so it's a much more complicated question ....
I see. So those that support your point of view can be taken at face value, whereas those that don't are *so* complicated and need to be considered with so much more interpetation.
Complete and utter claptrap.
|
>so it's a much more complicated question .... I see. So those that support your point of view can be taken at face value, whereas those that don't are *so* complicated and need to be considered with so much more interpetation. Complete and utter claptrap.
Defining responsibility starts from a presumption about what is the appropriate way for both parties to behave: change the assumptions, and you get different resulks. That's not just about pedestrian safety: think, for example about the difference in behaviour required by the French prioite a-droit rule.
It's much more straightfoward to compare what happens when object X is hit by two different vehicles.
|
"Overall, 74 per cent of pedestrians involved in fatal crashes were primarily responsible for the crash and a further 8 per cent were partially responsible"
I understand the point however this is no argument against making cars safer in respect of accidents involving pedestrians. Otherwise it is a bit like saying:
.. we won't put railings on the new bridge across the 500ft gorge, afterall if anyone walks to close to the edge and falls off it is their fault, not ours ...
|
|
Just out of interest, has anybody ever carried out any reserch into how pedestrians fare in a collision with a bus? Not very well, I should think!
|
|
I've trimmed the thread a bit. Ho hum.
|
|
I haven't really had an answer to the points I raised. Is the industry working to a common standard in trying to reduce pedestrian injuries, or is there no common agreement on which basic design features will reduce the severity of injuries? I thought this was the next big step forward for car manufacturers, after years of developing in-car safety features.
|
Is the industry working to a common standard in trying to reduce pedestrian injuries
I can't remember where I read it (beware of unsourced rumour!), but I thought that the EU was legislating for new standards which would include soft, bluff, front ends to cars.
|
I saw a TV programme not long ago (I can't remember what it was), where the principle of being knocked up onto the bonnet was put forward as a much better option than being flattened onto the road, basically because some give can be built into the bonnet of a car but, obviously, not into a road surface.
This seems to be an accepted principle by the majority of car manufacturers and the road safety lobby. The front ends of most modern saloons are now much lower and have more slope on them than they ever used to, unlike most 4x4s, which remain much squarer and higher.
|
To be honest, if you are hit by a car whether you roll up a pedestrian friendly front and crack your head on the winscreen or whether you are thrown to the ground and hit your head on that is largely irrelevant, it's going to hurt. How much depends mainly on how hard you are hit.
As 80% of car/pedestrian accidents are said to be the pedestrians fault that is the problem that most needs to be addressed. Little or no road safety is taught in schools when it really ought to be given prominance, especially in the most formative years before secondary school. Teaching children how to put condoms on bananas is one thing, but the time could be better spent on basic road safety lessons. Might mean a few more pregnant bananas, but most parents would accept that if their kids were less likely to end up under a car.
|
The only disadvantage a bullbar has for the pedestrian is that is is generally unyielding. That is to say that there will be no give, as opposed to a car bonnet, which does offer some give in a collision with a pedestrian. There have been cases where pedestrians' lack of survival has been put down to the fact that bullbars are fitted.
Whether the same give is available to the pedestrian in the bonnet of my Discovery, I don't know.
I am surprised no manufacturer has considered an option of a spring loaded bulbar that can move back a couple of inches to soften the blow.
IMO Bullbars are a good tool for offroading as they do reduce damage by inanimate objects that you may hit if you're unfortunate. Also they are seen as useful to farmers who may wish to protect fragile parts of their cars from livestock. I agree they have little use on the roads except to protect the vehicle from other drivers!
To that end I can understand why some off road vehicles around me have them whilst on the road. I live on the Devon Cornwall boarder in a rural area about 20 miles north of Plymouth. However, I am seeing fewer bullbars on SUVs etc but more on vans, cars, pickups etc!
It seems that if people cannot afford a 4x4 they then go and spend good money making sure their vehicle looks like one!
And, no the Discovery hasn't got bullbars. However I do have a set for it. I am reluctant to fit them permanently but for off roading etc they are a useful tool. They support a pair of spot lights, which you tent to need with headlights on the 200TDi Discovery as the standard headlights are not brilliant.
However, after reading this thread, I think the spots will be fitted on the front bumper or on a light bar.
H
|
< >
Stags dashing into the paths of cars, esp if they are red deer stags, can make a bit of a mess. And in some parts of the Scottish Highlands, sheep roam free, and ocassionally leap in front of cars. Bullbars might help protect vehicles in such cases.
|
|
I plan to stay on the pavement.
|
Stags dashing into the paths of cars, esp if they are red deer stags, can make a bit of a mess.
A couple of years back a red deer stag quite literally jumped on to the bonnet of my BiL's (then brand new) disco and rolled onto and over the roof. The front of the car was untouched and a bull-bar would have been useless. Thankfully it was only him in the car and he was unhurt, just very shaken. The car was written off or at least he didn't want it back.
|
However, after reading this thread, I think the spots will be fitted on the front bumper or on a light bar.
Well done Hugo, one less set of Bullbars on the road, makes starting the thread worthwhile!
Many thanks.
|
Just out of interest, has anybody ever carried out any reserch into how pedestrians fare in a collision with a bus? Not very well, I should think!
>>
A bus with Bullbars would be worse.
|
|
How many of the people with bull bars fitted have told their insurance companies that they have modified their car/4x4????
|
>> "Overall, 74 per cent of pedestrians involved in fatal crashes were primarily responsible for the crash and a further 8 per cent were partially responsible" >>
a bit like saying: .. we won't put railings on the new bridge across the 500ft gorge, afterall if anyone walks to close to the edge and falls off it is their fault, not ours ...
Hammer, head of nail, direct hit. Sadly the idea that we can prevent accidents that are not our fault if we do a little work is an alien concept to many.
|
>>a bit like saying: .. we won't put railings on the new bridge across the 500ft gorge, afterall if anyone walks to close to the edge and falls off it is their fault, not ours ...
Not really, because what tends to happen all too often in this country is that efforts are made to stop *everybody* using the bridge.
The risk that someone could walk on the bridge and then climb on the railings and then fall off when trying to balance on one leg in a pink tu-tu with a bucket on their head is such a risk that more normal people should either be banned from crossing the bridge, or at least should have to pay a very large tax to try and discourage them from doing so.
Put all the railings up that are deemed neccessary, but don't stop me crossing the bridge simply because some moron is incapable of doing so. Attack the morons for the moronic behaviour, not me.
>>Sadly the idea that we can prevent accidents that are not our fault if we do a little work is an alien concept to many.
Equally, the idea that life involves some risk, even if you are sat still in your armchair at home, and that there is a level of personal responsiblity involved in life falls by the wayside.
We are all pushed to the lowest common denominator. If one person is incapable of understanding the rules, then we are all penalised - its just so much easier and more fashionable than actually trying to address the more difficult problem.
|
Not really, because what tends to happen all too often in this country is that efforts are made to stop *everybody* using the bridge.>>
Agreed, this is sadly true.
>>We are all pushed to the lowest common denominator. If one person is incapable of understanding the rules, then we are all
penalised>>
As above.
Back onto bullbars, the law was changed in the 1980s (I think) to stop manufacturers putting mascots etc on the bonnet because of pedestrian safety although people were still allowed to put them on afterwards. I vote for something similar with bull bars - it's not a necessity for manufacturers and I think people should be trusted to make their own decisions and be responsible for the consequences.
|
Equally, the idea that life involves some risk, even if you are sat still in your armchair at home, and that there is a level of personal responsiblity involved in life falls by the wayside.
The question of risk is interesting: sadly, resources are rarely directed in the most effective ways. So we are spending a fortune on electronic train safety systems, rather than the much cheaper and more effective option of restoring integrated control over the railways. (Talk to any of the folks managing the new balkanised control structures on London Underground, and hear endless examples of the chaos that is causing).
We are all pushed to the lowest common denominator. If one person is incapable of understanding the rules, then we are all penalised - its just so much easier and more fashionable than actually trying to approahc the more difficult problem.
Sometimes it's the rules themselves that are the problem. Bullbars are one example of where the absence of a rule stacks the odds against those who don't have them.
But more generally on pedestrian safety, the problem in urban areas is that the folks who bare the greatest risk (pedestrians) are the ones deemed at fault by the current rules. Shifting the responsibility around to those who cause the risk (i.e. drivers) woukd rebalance the equation.
|
Your point on the railways is valid, but your point on the pedestrians is flawed.
Right now the equation has swung ridiculously the wrong way. It is a reasonably simple concept in that pedestrians have paths and people roads. Now clearly, and incident between the two and the pedestrian is going to lose.
Clearly the car driver needs to accept that as a responsibility, even if not his fault, and understand that some restrictions will be in place on him for the protection of others, more stupid than he.
Hwoever, where is the other side of that effort ? Responsiblitiy and common sense of the pedestrian ? Sadly lacking and deeply unfashionable.
|
>> Clearly the car driver needs to accept that as a responsibility,even if not his fault, and understand that some restrictions will be in place on him for the protection of others, more stupid than he. Hwoever, where is the other side of that effort ? Responsiblitiy and common sense of the pedestrian ? Sadly lacking and deeply unfashionable.
We are all pedestrians at some time aren't we? Do we all act responsibly when driving a car and then irresponsibly when we switch to being pedestrians?
|
Your point on the railways is valid, but your point on the pedestrians is flawed. Right now the equation has swung ridiculously the wrong way. It is a reasonably simple concept in that pedestrians have paths and people roads. Now clearly, and incident between the two and the pedestrian is going to lose.
Motorways are (rightly) vehicle-only, and any dual carriageways can be similarly pedestrian-free. Anyone walking on one of those roads needs psychiatric help as well as prosecution.
The problem is that many roads cannot be made into exclusive vehicle-only zones: on plenty of urban roads that simply doesn't work. Residential streets are the starkest example: they are criss-crossed all day by children and by adults, and
short of putting in a crossing point every few yards, there is no way of entirely separating pedestrians and vehicles. These areas are effectively shared space.
You're right to say that pedestrians need to exercise common sense (as do all road users), but at the moment the emphasis is overwhelming on the pedestrian.
In that shared space, cars win every time in a collision, so cars tend to predominate. Plenty of those roads can only be crossed by walking out in front of the traffic, and hoping that it will stop, but the highway code tells the pedestrian not to do that: "If traffic is coming, let it pass".
That sort of priority to vehicles shifts the responsibility onto the most vulnerable road-user, which is why I would argue the rules need to be rebalanced to recognise that these streets are shared space.
But I suspect that many backroomers might not accept the notion of shared space, and that's where this discusion gets heated, with each side accusing t'other of being illogical.
|
Oh heck. A post from No Wheels that I agree with. Err..... nope, can't argue with it.
Damn, I'm losing my edge.
|
"You're right to say that pedestrians need to exercise common sense (as do all road users), but at the moment the emphasis is overwhelming on the pedestrian."
No, I don't think the emphasis is overwelming on the pedestrian as opposed to the car driver.
As drivers we are all taught during the many lessons we have had to pay particular attention where pedestrians may be such as schools, old peoples' homes, city centres etc. Indeed there is usually a run of TV commercials about speed in built up areas. Does the one about a car going at 35mph hitting a child ring any bells?
I agree that the pedestrian is most at risk (who wouldn't?) and it's in his or her interests to keep a sharp look out for drivers not paying attention. However, whilst learing, drivers are taught and encouraged to keep a sharp look out for jay walkers whereever they may appear from, even in places they are least expected. In addition, parking near pedestrian areas is strictly controlled (Zig zag lines near crossings etc). The IAM driving ethos is to keep looking ahead and predicting any potential hazards that may arise. Am I right that there is now, as part of the test hazard recognition testing via CD Rom?
H
|
>>a bit like saying: .. we won't put railings on the new bridge across the 500ft gorge, afterall if anyone walks to close to the edge and falls off it is their fault, not ours ... Not really, because what tends to happen all too often in this country is that efforts are made to stop *everybody* using the bridge.
Exactly my point, if we build bridges without railings, the legislators will stop us using them. Likewise if we build cars with Bullbars, or steel spikes sticking out of the front, red hot ehaust running along the side, etc etc the legislators will stop us using them.
|
|
Drivers (with a licence anyway) are only a part of the population. Many pedestrians are too young, too old, or have other reasons why they can't or don't drive. How many of the pedestrians seriously injured or killed were of the segment unable to drive, and possibly impaired, if only by lack of experience? How many were fully compus mentis? Not a lot of sympathy for those impaired by drink or illegal drugs BTW, in either camp! However, frequently there are no pedestrian-priority crossings, so its not a simple matter of "roads for the driver" "pavements for the walker". Drivers can get frustrated and become rash: so can everyone else thwarted in their journey. In more gentle days steam gave way to sail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely "evidence of absence" is akin to proving a negative whcih is impossible??
|
|
|
|
|
