Anti Bull Bar Campaign
Jeremy Vanke
> think so I have taken the liberty of cross posting to rec.autos.4x4.
> The statistics Dr Vanke quotes worry me: 40 deaths per year caused by
> BBs and there are not that many around. It has been pointed out to me
> that a lot of van fleet operators use them: Federal Express is an
> example. I think consumer pressure should be applied against such
> organistions and I would like to know which other companies routinely
> fit BBs to inappropriate vehicles.
>
> Marcus
>
>
Watch for two House of Lords questions on Thursday about the statistics. Also
look for an announcement from one of Federal Express's main competitors next
week - the message is getting through.
--
Dr Jeremy Vanke
Head of Public Policy, RAC
Marcus Jones
>
> In article <3sms8b$29...@unixfe.rl.ac.uk>
> m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk "Mike Ellwood" writes:
>
> > Marcus Jones (M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk) wrote:
> > : Birmingham Friends of the Earth are considering a campaign against
> > : Bull Bars. I gather there was some discussion on uk.rec.cycling
> > : before and would appreciate any info. people can give me. Why is an
> > : environmental group dealing with road safety you may ask? Think about
> > : it: we want a radical shift in peoples transport modes away from the
> > : car and onto foot, bike and public transport. This means making roads
> > : safe for pedestrians so they can walk to their bus as a fundamental
> > : isue. Environmental groups have widely supported 20 mph zones in
> > : residential areas because you will probably survive being hit by a car
> > : at 20 but not at 30. It therfore makes no sense to support such measures
> > : which improve road safety if we do not oppose bull bars which make
> > : 20 mph zones irrelevent. If you get hit by bull bars at 20 you will
> > ------------------------------------------
> > : probably die.
> > ---------------
> >
> > I instinctively want to support this, but is that factually true,
> > i.e. do bull-bars really make it that much worse?
> > Mike.E...@rl.ac.uk
> >
>
> Yes it is factually true - the RAC has been campaigning against them for two
> years.
>
> Bull bars concentrate the force of an impact over a very small surface area -
> it's like being hit by a crowbar or hammer. Police data suggests that of 967
> accidents involving bull bars there were 216 serious injuries or deaths
> (22.3%)his compares with 19.4% for vehicles without. This translates to an
> additional 40 deaths and 400 serious injuries per year. These figures are
> consistent with the Transport Research Laboratory's own research. Needless to
> say, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are likely to bear the brunt of
> this fashion.
>
> Unfortunately there is an impasse between the UK government and the European
> Commission - both think dealing with the problem is the other's responsibility.
> Our judgement is that both could (and should) actually act.
> --
> Dr Jeremy Vanke
> Head of Public Policy
Jim McCorison
> think so I have taken the liberty of cross posting to rec.autos.4x4.
> The statistics Dr Vanke quotes worry me: 40 deaths per year caused by
> BBs and there are not that many around. It has been pointed out to me
> that a lot of van fleet operators use them: Federal Express is an
> example. I think consumer pressure should be applied against such
> organistions and I would like to know which other companies routinely
> fit BBs to inappropriate vehicles.
>
> Marcus
>
>
the Bull Bar" as opposed to caused by impact with a Bull Bar. If someone
is hit by a truck with a BB travelling at 50mph and dies, do they count
that as a death cased by a bull bar? I have a bull bar on my Toyota and
can see where it might be a little more damaging to a pedestrian then the
stock bumper. But how much more? Frequently statics are twisted to support
a predefined position.
-Jim McCorison
jim...@halcyon.com
Marcus Jones
>
> >
> >
> I'd be curious to know if these deaths have been documented as "caused by
> the Bull Bar" as opposed to caused by impact with a Bull Bar. If someone
> is hit by a truck with a BB travelling at 50mph and dies, do they count
> that as a death cased by a bull bar? I have a bull bar on my Toyota and
> can see where it might be a little more damaging to a pedestrian then the
> stock bumper. But how much more? Frequently statics are twisted to support
> a predefined position.
>
> -Jim McCorison
> jim...@halcyon.com
I refer you back to Dr Vanke's posting. It is clear that in collisions
at speeds below 30 mph BBs can make the difference between surviving
and dying. "A little more damaging" you say! For heaven's sake we
are talking about dead pedestrians and cyclists who would otherwise be
alive but for the pointless use of BBs.
There was an inquest in Solihull last week following the death of an
old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
"broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
Marcus
Teo Keary
|> Jeremy Vanke <j...@vankerac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|> >
|> > In article <3sms8b$29...@unixfe.rl.ac.uk>
|> > m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk "Mike Ellwood" writes:
|> >
|> > > Marcus Jones (M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk) wrote:
|> > > : 20 mph zones irrelevent. If you get hit by bull bars at 20 you will
|> > > ------------------------------------------
|> > > : probably die.
|> > > ---------------
|> >
|> > it's like being hit by a crowbar or hammer. Police data suggests that of 967
|> > accidents involving bull bars there were 216 serious injuries or deaths
|> > (22.3%)his compares with 19.4% for vehicles without. This translates to an
|> > additional 40 deaths and 400 serious injuries per year. These figures are
|> > consistent with the Transport Research Laboratory's own research.
|>
|> BBs and there are not that many around.
Call me a Doubting Thomas, but I'd like to see the calculation behind
"this translates to..." Seems to me that a valid formula would include
current numbers of deaths and injuries, percentage of vehicles on the
road with bullbars, numbers of accidents for both bulbarred and non-
bullbarred vehicles, etc etc.
I'm not saying that bullbars aren't more dangerous or deadly, I'm just
the type that wants to have all the information. Every other message
in this thread has picked up on the "40 extra deaths per year" without
questioning the math.
Oh, and I assume these figures are for the UK? Not to be callous, but
it seems that in the USA there are so many automobile deaths per year
that something which caused 40 more or fewer would be small news.
Unfortunately, you have to do something which impacts thousands of lives
(or at LEAST hundreds) before Americans blink.
- Teo
Jim McCorison
: I refer you back to Dr Vanke's posting. It is clear that in collisions
: at speeds below 30 mph BBs can make the difference between surviving
: and dying. "A little more damaging" you say! For heaven's sake we
: are talking about dead pedestrians and cyclists who would otherwise be
: alive but for the pointless use of BBs.
According to his figures it was 22.3% fatality rate with bull bars and
19.4% without. The margin of errors for these figures were not published.
I question two things:
1) Without a margin of error we can't tell how significant these
percentages are. That is to say (and this is only an example) if
the margin of error was 5% it could be 27.4% with and 14.4% without
which is quite significant. But the opposite, 17.3% without and
23.4% with is equally significant but certainly not what the study
was supposed to discover. Quoting comparative percentages without
the margin of error says nothing.
2) Were fatalities classified as bull bar related if the person would
have died even without the bull bar? The figures quoted indicate
that a death was counted as bull bar related based upon wether the
vehicle was bull bar equipped, regardless of whether the bull bar
caused the injury. (To give an example on how figures are twisted:
If a truck backs over a pedestrian and kills them, but has a bull bar
mounted on the front, the death would be counted as "caused by a
vehicle with a bull bar".)
I'm not opposed to changes which save peoples lives, but everything must
be looked at in balance. The specifics of an issue must also be examined.
Unfortunately, when a specific group wish to push a piece of legislation
they look for studies which support their point of view, frequently without
examining the total picture.
Another approach is to resolve the problem of pedestrians being hit. I
agree with a previous poster who said "Call me a stupid american but isn't
the real problem here people getting hit by cars?" If all the effort which
is being spent on trying to outlaw bull bars were spent on trying to
reduce vechicle/pedestrian accidents I think you'd see better results.
After all, if the aim is to save the lives of pedestrians/bicyclists/etc
then the reduction of collisions is the optimal path. Not changing the
configuration of what they get hit with.
-Jim McCorison
jim...@halcyon.com
Kerry L. Embry
> jim...@coho.halcyon.com (Jim McCorison) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > I'd be curious to know if these deaths have been documented as "caused by
> > the Bull Bar" as opposed to caused by impact with a Bull Bar. If someone
> > is hit by a truck with a BB travelling at 50mph and dies, do they count
> > that as a death cased by a bull bar? I have a bull bar on my Toyota and
> > can see where it might be a little more damaging to a pedestrian then the
> > stock bumper. But how much more? Frequently statics are twisted to support
> > a predefined position.
> >
> > -Jim McCorison
> > jim...@halcyon.com
>
> I refer you back to Dr Vanke's posting. It is clear that in collisions
> at speeds below 30 mph BBs can make the difference between surviving
> and dying. "A little more damaging" you say! For heaven's sake we
> are talking about dead pedestrians and cyclists who would otherwise be
> alive but for the pointless use of BBs.
>
> There was an inquest in Solihull last week following the death of an
> old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
> "broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
> the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
> your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
Marcus,
Really now, do you think a bumper caused the death of that little old
lady or the collision with a several ton truck. Oh sure, we could all
bolt soft padding to the front of our vehicles couldn't we? You could
make the same type of arguement you are using against the BB to try to
eliminate large trucks. Bull Bars are not pointless and do serve a
function - to protect the truck on which it is mounted. I believe your
energy and bandwidth would be better off trying to stop the accidents in
the first place - you are trying to fight the -symptom- and not the
-problem-, get it? Some people might have a need for something stronger
than a little 5mph crumple-bumper ya know.
Sorry for the digression from rec.autos.4x4, I'll shut up now.
A somewhat annoyed at people trying to point a hollow finger lamely at an
easy target, Kerry -Happy Trails-
Kerry L. Embry
> The thing is, you only have to look at most bull bars and it's quite easy
> to see how they can cause more injuries in an accident. Isn't the whole
> idea behind bull/roo bars to throw the animal out of the way instead of letting
> the animal damage the vehicle? Wheras cars, at least in countries where
> you're not very likely to hit any bulls or kangaroos, should be designed
> to let "animals" or more likely pedestrians to slide smoothly over the bonnet
> with minimum injuries?
>
I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
Happy Trails
Kerry L. Embry
> > This is very interesting. I would like to hear what users of the things
> > think so I have taken the liberty of cross posting to rec.autos.4x4.
> > The statistics Dr Vanke quotes worry me: 40 deaths per year caused by
> > BBs and there are not that many around. It has been pointed out to me
> > that a lot of van fleet operators use them: Federal Express is an
> > example. I think consumer pressure should be applied against such
> > organistions and I would like to know which other companies routinely
> > fit BBs to inappropriate vehicles.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
>
> Watch for two House of Lords questions on Thursday about the statistics. Also
> look for an announcement from one of Federal Express's main competitors next
> week - the message is getting through.
> --
> Dr Jeremy Vanke
> Head of Public Policy, RAC
Dr Vanke,
I am assuming by your statement above that you are in some way against
the use of BB's. I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
a cause.
Kerry
Matthew Wild
References: <3smke7$3...@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <3sms8b$29...@unixfe.rl.ac.uk> <804243...@vankerac.demon.co.uk> <3sp4dl$n...@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <804270...@vankerac.demon.co.uk>
> This is very interesting. I would like to hear what users of the things
> think so I have taken the liberty of cross posting to rec.autos.4x4.
> The statistics Dr Vanke quotes worry me: 40 deaths per year caused by
> BBs and there are not that many around. It has been pointed out to me
> that a lot of van fleet operators use them: Federal Express is an
> example. I think consumer pressure should be applied against such
> organistions and I would like to know which other companies routinely
> fit BBs to inappropriate vehicles.
>
> Marcus
>
>
I'd be curious to know if these deaths have been documented as "caused by
the Bull Bar" as opposed to caused by impact with a Bull Bar. If someone
is hit by a truck with a BB travelling at 50mph and dies, do they count
that as a death cased by a bull bar? I have a bull bar on my Toyota and
can see where it might be a little more damaging to a pedestrian then the
stock bumper. But how much more? Frequently statics are twisted to support
a predefined position.
-Jim McCorison
jim...@halcyon.com
I'm also curious. I have a LandRover with bullbar and I can't see it making
much difference to the risks. If anything, at low speeds, it might improve
them as the bar flattens off the front rather than leaving a rather solid
bumper sticking almost a foot out at the front. At high speeds, there isn't
much crumple or roll over protection for a cyclist or pedestrian anyway.
I think one of the biggest problems with bullbars is where they are put on
cars or vans where they remove any crumple zones or roll over protection
that was designed in by the manufacturer.
It would help if more training went into awareness of cyclists and pedestrians
on the roads. When cycling to work, there are some cars that skim cyclists
pretty closely, just to avoid slowing down a bit.
Matthew
--
Matthew Wild
M.W...@rl.ac.uk
World Data Centre C1 - Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX
Jo Fay
to see how they can cause more injuries in an accident. Isn't the whole
idea behind bull/roo bars to throw the animal out of the way instead of letting
the animal damage the vehicle? Wheras cars, at least in countries where
you're not very likely to hit any bulls or kangaroos, should be designed
to let "animals" or more likely pedestrians to slide smoothly over the bonnet
with minimum injuries?
Jo
Tim Morley
Adrian Adams <a...@dogmatix.inmos.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.95062...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> There is no way to remove 100% of crap drivers
>from the road, you'd have to have a 2hr test every time
>you got into the vehicle to ensure that. So, measures
>such as banning bull-bars protect the potential victims.
I remember seeing a suggestion once that all cars be fitted with a
6inch steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel, this would
encourage drivers to be a little more careful so they don't end up
speared on the bloddy thing 8-)))
Tim M
David S.A. Stine
Marcus Jones <M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>I refer you back to Dr Vanke's posting. It is clear that in collisions
>at speeds below 30 mph BBs can make the difference between surviving
>and dying. "A little more damaging" you say! For heaven's sake we
>are talking about dead pedestrians and cyclists who would otherwise be
>alive but for the pointless use of BBs.
Would they be alive? Even if hit by a full-size American pickup truck or
utility vehicle? I tend to doubt it, with or without the bull bar.
>There was an inquest in Solihull last week following the death of an
>old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
>"broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
>the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
>your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
Old ladies, bless their hearts, break bones from simple falls; they often
have osteoporosus and low bone density. Such women would doubtless be
severely injured or killed by being hit by any car at 30MPH. My gram broke
her hip (rather severely) from tripping on a lawn at the age of 72 and
landing on the grass. Falls don't come much easier than that.
As for getting rid of bull bars: folks in Europe probably have no concept
of what is left of your car or you when you hit a range steer in the
American West, a moose in New England or Alaska, or a deer (just about
anywhere in the US).
Here's what you can expect to have happen to you in a light pickup when you
hit these critters square-on at highway speeds (60 to 70 MPH)
- deer: you will likely walk away; your car or light truck might
be totalled.
- range steer/cow (such as you find in Nevada, California, Utah, Wyoming,
Montana etc): you will likely be seriously injured and quite possibly
killed and they will have to cut you out of the vehicle.
- moose: if your car is low to the ground or you are driving a 2WD pickup,
you stand a likely chance of being killed as 1000 lbs of moose comes
through the windshield. They will likely have to cut you out of the
vehicle.
Lemme put it this way: if you were driving a Mini and you hit a whitetail
deer (which are exceedingly common in the US, even in suburban settings),
you are in *very* serious trouble. If you go driving a Mini at highway
speeds in areas of open rangeland, you'd better be very aware of what is
ahead of you; hitting a steer in a Mini would basically be giving the
undertaker a ready-made, form-fitting coffin in which to plant you.
Bull bars are very useful bits of safety equipment in many areas of the US.
That doesn't mean that they serve the same purpose in urban settings. But
if you do lots of driving off the freeways in the West, you may find
yourself turning inside out trying to stop before you hit that stupid steer
who just hopped out on the road, who wants to make friends with your
vehicle.
dsa
Tim Costen
"Bull bars" are being removed from vehicles patrolling royal parks amid
concerns they could injure pedestrians.
Jo Fay
> I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
>be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
>responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
>vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
>human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
>
>Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
>own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
>Happy Trails
>
That is one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard. Getting hit by ANY
vehicle is going to hurt, but there is no excuse for any one to drive around
with unnecessary attachements that increase the injuries in an accident.
And what about blind people, deaf people, old or disabled people who need
a long time to cross the road, little kids who slip away from their parents
and of course victims of speeding vehicles. I suppose you'd prefer pedestrians
to stay off the roads altogether. Unfortunatly there arren't that many
subways around and we all have to cross roads sometimes.
Fortunately I've never been hit by a vehicle, but my brother was hit
while crossing a pelican crossing with the lights in his favour. Is that HIS
fault?
Jo
Marcus Jones
>
> I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
> be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
You are assuming, maybe through some exaggerated notion of your own
driving skills that it is never the fault of the driver that pedestrians
or cyclists get killed. How about "protect me from the arrogance of
drivers of big macho trucks?"
> Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
> own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
> Happy Trails
>
You are refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of
accidents involving your own vehicle in a completely illogical way.
Marcus
Marcus Jones
>
>
> > old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
> > "broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
> > the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
> > your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
Kerry:
> Really now, do you think a bumper caused the death of that little old
> lady or the collision with a several ton truck.
The coroner clearly thought so, I suppose you know better?
Oh sure, we could all
> bolt soft padding to the front of our vehicles couldn't we? You could
> make the same type of arguement you are using against the BB to try to
> eliminate large trucks. Bull Bars are not pointless and do serve a
> function - to protect the truck on which it is mounted. I believe your
> energy and bandwidth would be better off trying to stop the accidents in
> the first place - you are trying to fight the -symptom- and not the
> -problem-, get it?
There is plenty that could be done to reduce accidents sure. But as
we are not going to eliminate them we have also to minimise the tragic
consequnces of those that occur. Surely it makes sense to protect the
most vulnerable participant of the accident, especially when it is
likely to be the well protected driver who has caused it? Anyway, I
suspect that you would also protest about your freedoms being eroded
by a lot of the extreme measures which would be needed to completely
eliminate accidents: would you support much stricter speed limits,
a complete ban on drinking, painting your truck day-glo yellow so it
can be seen more clearly?
I really don't see your problem. By eliminating BBs from public
roads (I'm not talking about moose country) we have a simple way to
reduce the danger traffic presents to non-vehicular road users.
Some people might have a need for something stronger
> than a little 5mph crumple-bumper ya know.
In Birmingham? Bollox they do.
> Sorry for the digression from rec.autos.4x4, I'll shut up now.
I think this is a legitimate subject for rec.autos.4x4 given the main
users of Roo bars.
Paul Thomas
klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu "Kerry L. Embry" writes:
> > Watch for two House of Lords questions on Thursday about the statistics. Also> > look for an announcement from one of Federal Express's main competitors next
> > week - the message is getting through.
> > --
> > Dr Jeremy Vanke
> > Head of Public Policy, RAC
>
> Dr Vanke,
> I am assuming by your statement above that you are in some way against
> the use of BB's. I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
> freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
> on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
> explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
> that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
> involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
> a cause.
Eliminate collisions; a worthy goal. Maybe we should put horrid
spikes and blades all over the fronts of our vehicles. No pedestrian or
cyclist would then *dare* to leap out in front of it! Or we could
simply ban motor-vehicles altogether.
--
Paul
/*------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Paul Thomas ******** email : Pa...@tmsl.demon.co.uk */
/*------------------------------------------------------*/
Paul Thomas
klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu "Kerry L. Embry" writes:
> I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
> be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
So if some little child makes an error of judgement, as children
will, then it is just tough shit? And what about cyclists? Over
80% of car/bike collisions are the fault of the motorist. Who
needs to be protected from whom?
Jeremy Vanke
klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu "Kerry L. Embry" writes:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 1995, Jeremy Vanke wrote:
>
> > > This is very interesting. I would like to hear what users of the things
> > > think so I have taken the liberty of cross posting to rec.autos.4x4.
> > > The statistics Dr Vanke quotes worry me: 40 deaths per year caused by
> > > BBs and there are not that many around. It has been pointed out to me
> > > that a lot of van fleet operators use them: Federal Express is an
> > > example. I think consumer pressure should be applied against such
> > > organistions and I would like to know which other companies routinely
> > > fit BBs to inappropriate vehicles.
> > >
> > > Marcus
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Watch for two House of Lords questions on Thursday about the statistics. Also> > look for an announcement from one of Federal Express's main competitors next
> > week - the message is getting through.
> > --
> > Dr Jeremy Vanke
> > Head of Public Policy, RAC
>
> Dr Vanke,
> I am assuming by your statement above that you are in some way against
> the use of BB's. I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
> freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
> on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
> explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
> that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
> involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
> a cause.
>
> Kerry
>
>
Yes I am strongly against their use. You are quite right that too
little emphasis is given to addressing the causes of accidents (as with, for
example, arguments over cycle helmets, coach seat belts, motor cyle conspicuity
etc). Nonetheless accidents do happen and bull bars make their consequences
worse. Surely causing death or serious injury is far more of an infringement
of personal freedom than the banning of bull bars?
--
Jeremy Vanke
Adrian Adams
>I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
>freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
>on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
>explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
>that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
>involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
>a cause.
Quite right.
But the government in the UK consistently refuse to do
anything about the "cause", which is crap driving.
So, it's a matter of practicality. There is no reason
for any vehicle to have bull bars on a public tarmac-ed
road. So there should be no reason not to ban (or
severely limit) vehicles with them fitted. If you wish
to use bull bars off-road you can have bolt-on bars
and remove them when you return to the road. People
should have no argument with this.
The point is that the person who is usually the victim
of bull-bars is not the crap driver who causes the
accident. There is no way to remove 100% of crap drivers
from the road, you'd have to have a 2hr test every time
you got into the vehicle to ensure that. So, measures
such as banning bull-bars protect the potential victims.
I belive that everyone should have the freedom to kill
*themselves* through crap driving (or whatever), but
others should be protected.
=Adrian
Jonathan Abbott
On Wed, 28 Jun 1995, Kerry L. Embry wrote:
> I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
> be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
>
> Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
> own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
> Happy Trails
>
>
>
Kerry,
As someone who has surrvived being hit by a fast car (his estimated
speed was about 50 mph) I know which type of bumper I would like to be
hit by. The car which hit me was a mark III Ford Granda ( the one just
replaced by the Scorpio). The opinion of the doctors who treated me was
that had the car not had a bit of a slope on the front then instead of
being thrown into the air I would have been smashed down into the road
and killed. Now you might say the bars are there to protect the vehicle
but I have owned two land rovers and used for off road use and the best
vehicle protection is careful driving I have found, in case you wonder I
work part time on a farm with 4x4's and we have no need for these bars.
Now please ask your self which would you rather hit you a vehicle with
bull bars (you can fit them to pick up trucks and they are aero dynamic)
or one without?
Jon
monsieur HAINEUX
m...@ansa.co.uk (Mark Madsen) wrote:
| Followups should go to talk.bizarre and alt.folklore.urban as well.
The teeDOTbee Community FAQ
talk.bizarre is a virtual community
Unlike other Usenet Newsgroups, the denizens here all know each other --
perhaps not in person, but definitely in spirit. This is not a ``bulletin
board'' or a ``message area.'' It is a community.
We strive together to create something out of the ordinary, to express
ourselves well, to create texts that defy mundanity and boggle the mind.
You can be part of our community. How:
1. Read Before You Post. (We call this "Read Learn Evolve.")
2. Never post non-bizarre things. (We call this: "Fail to Suck.")
3. Keep postings short and well-written. (We call this: "Editing.")
That's it. That's all you have to do.
Except for one thing, of course. You must report to reprogramming to have
the Monty Python portion of your brain removed. We don't DO Python here.
Here is a handy list of some other things that are not considered bizarre:
advertisements,
surveys,
moneymaking schemes,
crossposts,
smileys,
Monty Python,
net "celebrities" (we created them),
any posts which could contain boastful uses of the words "me too,"
long .signatures,
personal ads,
anything that belongs in a newsgroup containing the name CONFIG,
FAN, FLAME,
HUMOR, IRC, MISC, RELIGION, STARTREK, or TASTELESS,
and especially...
unattributed work of other artists.
Kerry L. Embry
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.950628141804.3994B-1000
> klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu "Kerry L. Embry" writes:
>
> > I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
> > be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> > responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> > vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> > human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
>
> So if some little child makes an error of judgement, as children
> will, then it is just tough shit? And what about cyclists? Over
> 80% of car/bike collisions are the fault of the motorist. Who
> needs to be protected from whom?
Paul, I would like to point out that a child hit by a truck will not be
any better off with or without a Bull Bar - yes, sadly -tough shit-.
Obviously, motorists need to be extreamly cautious in populated areas as
do cyclists and pedestrians on the road. Teaching or reminding poeple to
be cautious will do far better than removing strong bumpers. What about
the person driving a small pickup truck that strikes a moose or deer?
Ooops, sorry buddy - you can't protect yourself with a large bumper your
just SOL. Get the jaws of life, no, nevermind, just bury the whole
truck. I think you will create as many deaths as lives you think you
save - and in the process destroy yet another personal freedom.
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.95062...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> >I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
> >freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
> >on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
> >explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
> >that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
> >involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
> >a cause.
>
> Quite right.
>
> But the government in the UK consistently refuse to do
> anything about the "cause", which is crap driving.
Agreed.
> So, it's a matter of practicality. There is no reason
> for any vehicle to have bull bars on a public tarmac-ed
> road. So there should be no reason not to ban (or
> severely limit) vehicles with them fitted. If you wish
> to use bull bars off-road you can have bolt-on bars
> and remove them when you return to the road. People
> should have no argument with this.
Do you think this is practical? One would have to carry the (very heavy)
bull bar to a off road site or stretch of road where large animals may be
a problem. Then remove the "city" bumper and bolt on a bull bar - only
to repeat this process before going home.
> The point is that the person who is usually the victim
> of bull-bars is not the crap driver who causes the
> accident. There is no way to remove 100% of crap drivers
> from the road, you'd have to have a 2hr test every time
> you got into the vehicle to ensure that. So, measures
> such as banning bull-bars protect the potential victims.
I'm not convinced banning bull bars would protect anyone in all but very
special cases. Certainly not 100% of the time.
> I belive that everyone should have the freedom to kill
> *themselves* through crap driving (or whatever), but
> others should be protected.
As I mentioned (and someone else I believe) in another post, you are
failing to see the danger of large animals jumping in front of vehicles
traveling at high speeds. Do you know what kind of damage that does?
Responsibility comes with privelage.
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
> >
>
> > I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
> > be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> > responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> > vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> > human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
>
> You are assuming, maybe through some exaggerated notion of your own
> driving skills that it is never the fault of the driver that pedestrians
> or cyclists get killed. How about "protect me from the arrogance of
> drivers of big macho trucks?"
You miss my point altogether. Note above I state "resposibility of the
driver/operator" - this includes driver and cyclist. Just because you
don't own a "big macho truck" doesn't mean you have the right to limit my
freedoms. If you feel threatened by shared responsibility, then grow
up. I realize the danger of driving a 4000lb+ vehicle - I also realize
the danger of cycling on the street. I do both and don't have a problem
with either.
>
> > Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
> > own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
> > Happy Trails
> >
>
> You are refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of
> accidents involving your own vehicle in a completely illogical way.
Marcus, let me first say Ha! I will further add that accepting
resposibilty is -exactly- what I am talking about. If I was unclear
before, let me bluntly state: I am saying that -all- people on the road
share this responsibility; drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. Why not
require pedestrians wear bright orange vests while crossing the road? Do
you understand what I'm getting at?
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>
> > I think pedestrians should be designed (learn it, how hard can this
> >be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> >responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> >vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> >human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
> >
> >Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
> >own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
> >Happy Trails
> >
> That is one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard. Getting hit by ANY
> vehicle is going to hurt, but there is no excuse for any one to drive around
> with unnecessary attachements that increase the injuries in an accident.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Protecting yourself and family from accidental collisions with a 1000lb
animal is hardly useless. But that's just my stupid idea.
> And what about blind people, deaf people, old or disabled people who need
> a long time to cross the road, little kids who slip away from their parents
> and of course victims of speeding vehicles. I suppose you'd prefer pedestrians
> to stay off the roads altogether. Unfortunatly there arren't that many
> subways around and we all have to cross roads sometimes.
Oh wait, I didn't know eliminating bull bars would keep the blind, deaf
and young from accidentally being hit! And a speeding vehicle will kill
with or without a bull bar. Come on, if you want to argue, don't set up
a straw man and then knock it down - I am a pedestrian as often as a driver.
> Fortunately I've never been hit by a vehicle, but my brother was hit
> while crossing a pelican crossing with the lights in his favour. Is that HIS
> fault?
> Jo
That's very unfortunate, but has little to do with the arguement. You
see, I don't contend that accidents don't happen - I said that people
should learn to avoid accidents. Don't get defensive, I mean especially
drivers like the one who hit your brother. I don't believe you will save
more lives than you endager by bull bar elimination. Ya know, Jo?
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There was an inquest in Solihull last week following the death of an
> > > old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
> > > "broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
> > > the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
> > > your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
>
> Kerry:
> > Really now, do you think a bumper caused the death of that little old
> > lady or the collision with a several ton truck.
>
>
> The coroner clearly thought so, I suppose you know better?
Do you think (or does the coroner think) that a collision that broke
"every bone" in someone's body would have been surviviable without a bull
bar?
>
> Oh sure, we could all
> > bolt soft padding to the front of our vehicles couldn't we? You could
> > make the same type of arguement you are using against the BB to try to
> > eliminate large trucks. Bull Bars are not pointless and do serve a
> > function - to protect the truck on which it is mounted. I believe your
> > energy and bandwidth would be better off trying to stop the accidents in
> > the first place - you are trying to fight the -symptom- and not the
> > -problem-, get it?
>
> There is plenty that could be done to reduce accidents sure. But as
> we are not going to eliminate them we have also to minimise the tragic
> consequnces of those that occur. Surely it makes sense to protect the
> most vulnerable participant of the accident, especially when it is
> likely to be the well protected driver who has caused it? Anyway, I
> suspect that you would also protest about your freedoms being eroded
> by a lot of the extreme measures which would be needed to completely
> eliminate accidents: would you support much stricter speed limits,
> a complete ban on drinking, painting your truck day-glo yellow so it
> can be seen more clearly?
I would support bi-annual retesting for driver permits, or an
appropriately sized pedestrian/cyclist path (even if it means more
traffic). Wouldn't this help more than the above suggestions? I don't
understand why people see the need to eliminate freedoms to solve a
problem - there are other ways.
> I really don't see your problem. By eliminating BBs from public
> roads (I'm not talking about moose country) we have a simple way to
> reduce the danger traffic presents to non-vehicular road users.
In Kentucky almost every two lane highway is deer country. Do you
suggest that anyone who wants to protect their family from this danger
park the car at the city limits? This is not the kind of thing you can
just restrict in certain areas.
> Some people might have a need for something stronger
> > than a little 5mph crumple-bumper ya know.
> In Birmingham? Bollox they do.
>
> > Sorry for the digression from rec.autos.4x4, I'll shut up now.
>
> I think this is a legitimate subject for rec.autos.4x4 given the main
> users of Roo bars.
Then let us continue.
Kerry
ROBERT SAUNDERS
here in the UK there are very few large animals to protect a car from
especially in city streets. It is true that being hit by a car is potentially
fatal, however bull bars increase the likelihood of fatality. Why have a
dangerous object attached to the front of a car when there is no necessity for
it? How many bulls, mooses, hippos etc roam an average street? Why should
the lives of other road/pavement users be made more dangerous for a trendy fad?
Robert
Shaun C. Murray
wi...@wdcc1a.bnsc.rl.ac.uk says...
>
>I think one of the biggest problems with bullbars is where they are put on
>cars or vans where they remove any crumple zones or roll over protection
>that was designed in by the manufacturer.
Crumple zones aren't there for the sake of pedestrians or cyclists. They are
for use in 'accidents' where the vehicle hits something large and
possibly stationary. A pedestrian/cyclist won't crumple a crumple zone at any
speed where the pedestrian will survive. They are there for the drivers
benefit, not the outside world and therfore have no bearing on road safety at
all. Rather the opposite.
4x4's have zero roll over protection and are not suited to an environment
involving other road users especially pedestrians and cyclists. Bull bars just
make it worse making low speed impacts more dangerous too as the RAC figures
show.
>
>It would help if more training went into awareness of cyclists and
pedestrians
>on the roads. When cycling to work, there are some cars that skim cyclists
>pretty closely, just to avoid slowing down a bit.
too true.
Shaun
Kerry L. Embry
> On Wed, 28 Jun 1995, Kerry L. Embry wrote:
> > On 28 Jun 1995, Jo Fay wrote:
> > > The thing is, you only have to look at most bull bars and it's quite easy
> > > to see how they can cause more injuries in an accident. Isn't the whole
> > > idea behind bull/roo bars to throw the animal out of the way instead of letting
> > > the animal damage the vehicle? Wheras cars, at least in countries where
> > > you're not very likely to hit any bulls or kangaroos, should be designed
> > > to let "animals" or more likely pedestrians to slide smoothly over the bonnet
> > > with minimum injuries?
> > >
> > be?) to stay out of the front of large vehicles. Certainly, it is the
> > responsibility of the driver/operator to maintain control of the
> > vehicle. How can you accuse a heavy bumper for the damage caused by
> > human error - sounds to me like more "protect me from myself" crap.
> >
> > Kerry, who is still annoyed that people refuse responsibilty for their
> > own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
> > Happy Trails
> >
> >
> >
> As someone who has surrvived being hit by a fast car (his estimated
> speed was about 50 mph) I know which type of bumper I would like to be
> hit by. The car which hit me was a mark III Ford Granda ( the one just
> replaced by the Scorpio). The opinion of the doctors who treated me was
> that had the car not had a bit of a slope on the front then instead of
> being thrown into the air I would have been smashed down into the road
> and killed. Now you might say the bars are there to protect the vehicle
> but I have owned two land rovers and used for off road use and the best
> vehicle protection is careful driving I have found, in case you wonder I
> work part time on a farm with 4x4's and we have no need for these bars.
>
> Now please ask your self which would you rather hit you a vehicle with
> bull bars (you can fit them to pick up trucks and they are aero dynamic)
> or one without?
Jon, glad to hear you are still with us! Of course nobody -wants- to be
hit by any vehicle, especially a large one. If the vehicle that had hit
you had been a land rover without a bull bar, you would quite likely be
dead. Certainly most vehicles that will hold a bull bar do not have the
aerodynamic slope which saved your life. I'm glad to hear you've never
needed one as well, because the time you need one may be when a thousand
pounds of unlucky animal bounces off your front end and into your
windshield. Anyway, I'm not trying to advocate their use - I'm trying to
maintain personal freedoms. Yes, I would rather live free or die. Note
however, that this does not mean I would like to live free and forget
any danger to anyone, blah blah blah. I just don't see the bull bar as a
significant danger, but I'm sure someone will twist my words for me.
Kerry
Mark Madsen
: On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:
<snip>
: > I think this is a legitimate subject for rec.autos.4x4 given the main
: > users of Roo bars.
:
: Then let us continue.
: Kerry
Yes, fine, but why do we have to have Kentucky redneck impressions, by
people who think that motorised vehicles are a higher life form than
humans, filling up uk.rec.cycling?
I mean, I'm really in favour of putting UV filters on all my SLR
lenses, but I don't post it to rec.autos.4x4 do I?
Oh, dear, I think I just have :-)
Please do not reply by email as I often used to read this group before
I unsubscribed.
Followups should go to talk.bizarre and alt.folklore.urban as well.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Madsen: <m...@ansa.co.uk> <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/Staff/msm.html>
Information Services Framework, The ANSA Project, APM Ltd., Castle Park,
Cambridge CB3 0RD, U.K. <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/>; <a...@ansa.co.uk>
Voice: +44-1223-568934; Reception: +44-1223-515010; Fax: +44-1223-359779
Chris Malcolm
>I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
>freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
>on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
>explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
>that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
>involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
>a cause.
Am I correct in presuming you are also against the legislation which
made it illegal to have non-retractable spiky hood ornaments on cars,
and the vertical blade license plates on the front of motorcycles.
These caused serious injuries to pedestrians, but you would argue that
removing them was simply fighting a symptom not a cause, would you
not?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" -- Paul Valery
Marcus Jones
>
> On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:
>
> > driving skills that it is never the fault of the driver that pedestrians
> > or cyclists get killed. How about "protect me from the arrogance of
> > drivers of big macho trucks?"
>
> You miss my point altogether. Note above I state "resposibility of the
> driver/operator" - this includes driver and cyclist. Just because you
> don't own a "big macho truck" doesn't mean you have the right to limit my
> freedoms. If you feel threatened by shared responsibility, then grow
> up. I realize the danger of driving a 4000lb+ vehicle - I also realize
> the danger of cycling on the street. I do both and don't have a problem
> with either.
>
> >
> > > own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
> > > Happy Trails
> > >
> >
> > accidents involving your own vehicle in a completely illogical way.
>
> Marcus, let me first say Ha! I will further add that accepting
> resposibilty is -exactly- what I am talking about. If I was unclear
> before, let me bluntly state: I am saying that -all- people on the road
> share this responsibility; drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. Why not
> require pedestrians wear bright orange vests while crossing the road? Do
> you understand what I'm getting at?
>
> Kerry
>
I understand exactly what you are getting at. I just don't agree with
you. Do you expect children to take full adult responsibilty for their
actions, and for society to make no provision for the fact that they
can not? If I were to hit a child I would get no reassurance from
the fact that the child might not have been paying sufficient attention.
I would have hit a child, and if my vehicle was equipped with a device
which made that child less likely to survive I could not console
myself with the thought that he/she shouldn't have been in the way. Nor
I suspect would you.
There is an inequality of risk on the road also which you do not consider.
Yes, all road users must take responsibility for their safety, but
it is the duty of those who will cause the greatest damage to look
out for those who are not protected. If I make a mistake on my bike
I could die, if a motorist makes a mistake then again, it is me that
is most likely to die. As we also have responsibilty for the safety
of those with whom we share the road it is only reasonable that we
all try to minimise the consequnces of an accident should it happen.
I assume you have no problem with measures which protect the driver
of a vehicle: air bags, bumpers, side impact bars, seat belts etc.
Why then do you wish to absolve yourself from having any responsibilty
for those outside the vehicle?
I really don't think that removing dangerous bars on public roads is
more of an infringement of your "rights" than you could bear. Certainly
equiping your vehicle in such a way as to increase the danger for others
is an infringement of their freedom. Certainly within Europe there is
absolutely no need for BBs on most vehicles, and it is getting more
and more likely that they will be banned. If you would accept the, not
very difficult idea, that BBs are dangerous, and that it is therefore
right to do something about them, then we could have a more constructive
discussion on how off-road vehicles, and those with a genuine animal
problem, can be protected without compromising the safety of more
vulnerable road users. I am NOT saying that people at risk from deer
or moose can not protect themselves, but I do think their numbers are
small enough for us to find a safer solution.
Marcus
Marcus Jones
> > Jo
>
> That's very unfortunate, but has little to do with the arguement. You
> see, I don't contend that accidents don't happen - I said that people
> should learn to avoid accidents. Don't get defensive, I mean especially
> drivers like the one who hit your brother. I don't believe you will save
> more lives than you endager by bull bar elimination. Ya know, Jo?
>
> Kerry
>
1 If accidents happen why can't we try to reduce their effect?
2 It is likely that Jo's brother would have received more serious
injuries if the car had bull bars. I doubt the fact that it was not
his fault would be any consolation.
3 It should be bloody obvious that BBs will cause more serious
injuries than a conventional bumper. Even if you don't accept the
(official UK Transport Research Lab) figures quoted by Dr Vanke just
think about physics. Bars represent a small inelastic collision
cross section. The energy of the impact will be delivered quickly
to the body rather than being more slowly dissipated in a crash with
a more conventional vehicle front. It is exactly the same as being hit
by a baseball bat rather than a plank. Which would you rather?
5 Don't expect me to beleive that the numbers of deaths through
unprotected animal collisons would equal the number of deaths avoided
by banning BBs, In Britain such things are almost unheard of, and in
any case i am sure we could find a better way to protect the minority
of motorists who are at risk.
marcus
huckleberry
Instead of trying to inact legislation to ban Bull Bars. Why not just
tell people to be more aware/alert !! That's the much easier solution....
I'm just catching the tail end of this thread on the 4x4 group, approx.
how many deaths are supposedly contributed to Bull Bars (besides
the little old lady with every bone in her body broken, get real, I
seriously doubt 3ft. of foam on the front of that vehicle would have helped
her any - This is sort of like banning coffee because some lady got
burned by McDonald's *hot* coffee) and not the
vehicles themselves ??
(Speed Kills not bumpers...)
- huckleberry
huckleberry
<snip>
>4x4's have zero roll over protection and are not suited to an environment
Do what ?? What do you consider roll over protection ?? (20ft *wings*
sticking out from each side of your vehicle???)
I can't think of one, if any 4x4's on the road that aren't designed strong
enough to withstand a trip rubber side up at minimal speeds !!
- huckleberry
Bill Robertson
In article o...@news.doit.wisc.edu, buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu (James A. Bucklew) writes:
>
[snip]
>
>I would like to submit that it is the Dr. Vankes of this world who pose
>the greatest threats to individual freedom. Burning with messianic
>zeal and glowing with good intentions, his ilk will not be satisfied
>until we have an ant society.
This is great, I love it: Dr Jeremy Vanke, Head of Public Policy of the RAC,
being slagged off for being anti-individual freedom. For those outside the
UK, the RAC is the Royal Automobile Club, the UK's second (?) most
prominent and vociferous pro-motoring organisation. And all this in
uk.rec.cycling.
- Bill -
James A. Bucklew
Not only does speed kill but also knives, bathtubs, electricity, etc. The
solution is obviously to ban them!! I'm fucking glad I don't live
in Britian, though this country is obviously going more and more
that way.
Kemasa
Marcus Jones <M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>1 If accidents happen why can't we try to reduce their effect?
So why not make laws regarding how ALL vehicles are designed. A truck
tends to not have a sloping front which can cause more damage should
a person be hit by it. We should make laws to reduce their effect.
There are many other things that could be changed to reduce the
negative affects. How far do you want to go?
>2 It is likely that Jo's brother would have received more serious
>injuries if the car had bull bars. I doubt the fact that it was not
>his fault would be any consolation.
Had it been another type of car there would have been more serious
injuries. Had it been a truck it would have been more serious. Had
it been a train it would have been more serious yet. Had it been
a pillow car it would have been less serious. What is your point?
Make laws so that everyone is safe? Think about the long term
and what the overall result will be. Motorcycles are more dangerous
than cars in case of an accident, ban 'em. If there were full roll
cages and harnesses in every cat there would be less injuries, so
force 'em. If no one drove then there would be less injuries, so
ban 'em. Where do you draw the line? If we reduced the speed of
cars down to 5 mph think of how safe things would be. If all cars
had sloping fronts then people would be safe, well, except if you
hit a large animal, but since *I* don't drive in areas like that
*I* think it is ok to force others to do what *I* think they should
(actually the last is not true, but was added for effect). It is
not a problem for you since you would not have to take the things
on and off and you are not concerned if it is not as effective
since you don't have one (BB). Perhaps we should pay extra taxes to
make a raised walk way for people and otherwise separate cars and
people. That would save many lives, but then *YOU* would also have
to pay the price, so perhaps that is NOT an acceptable solution.
>3 It should be bloody obvious that BBs will cause more serious
>injuries than a conventional bumper. Even if you don't accept the
>(official UK Transport Research Lab) figures quoted by Dr Vanke just
>think about physics. Bars represent a small inelastic collision
>cross section. The energy of the impact will be delivered quickly
>to the body rather than being more slowly dissipated in a crash with
>a more conventional vehicle front. It is exactly the same as being hit
>by a baseball bat rather than a plank. Which would you rather?
It is more serious to be hit by a truck than a pillow car, so
what is your point? Any type of car is not all that elastic.
The only hope you have is for either a pillow car (unlikely) or
a sloped front car (not all that likely).
As to the bat or the plank, it depends on the velocity, mass and
comparative cross section to each.
>5 Don't expect me to beleive that the numbers of deaths through
>unprotected animal collisons would equal the number of deaths avoided
>by banning BBs, In Britain such things are almost unheard of, and in
>any case i am sure we could find a better way to protect the minority
>of motorists who are at risk.
Hmmm. Interesting. So if a driver is killed because they were NOT
allowed to protect themselves by installing a BB that is acceptable
because of *possible* less other deaths? What if that person is you?
Should we not force everyone to drive a vehicle which is safer for
hitting people? So what if it costs them more, as long as it is safer
for us that is all that counts.
Freedom, a lost concept. Make laws to "protect" people and to make
them "safe". It is for their own good after all.
It is easy to attack something which you have no interest in having,
but please realize that if you do so then others may not feel like
protecting that which you want. I don't fly much, so ban planes, it
will be safer. I don't take the train much, so get rid of them to
make it safer. I don't drink alcohol, so ban it to make things
better (opps, they tried that once before in the US and it did
not work, but this time it will). Ban tobacco, high fat foods,
high sugar foods, recreational items, sports, etc. Where do you
stop????
--
Kemasa.
Just because the Net makes it easy to be obnoxious without feeling the
consequences doesn't mean we should give in to the temptation to be
rude!! - April H. Olberding
Marcus Jones
>
> Huckleberry,
>
> Not only does speed kill but also knives, bathtubs, electricity, etc. The
> solution is obviously to ban them!!
These things have a legitimate use so we have to cope
with that and find safe ways to use them. e.g Holding the knife by
the handle, and not letting kids play with them. In any case with
these the user takes the risk, not just bystanders. Bull bars are
completely different: they have no use to the majority of the population
and the risk from them is carried entirely by bystanders. The user
often believes he is made safer by their use.
You keep emphasising personal responsibility. So you bolt bars to
your vehicle whose risk is borne entirely by other people, including
children. Passing personal risk onto others is NOT being responsible,
it is being selfish.
> I'm fucking glad I don't live
> in Britian, though this country is obviously going more and more
> that way.
>
I'm fucking glad I live in a country where offensive weapons aren't
considered a fundamental human right. At least we have fewer hung ups
about getting rid of things which are a menace to public safety.
Marcus
Stuart
: In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.95062...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> writes:
: >I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
: >freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
: >on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
: >explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
: >that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
: >involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
: >a cause.
: Am I correct in presuming you are also against the legislation which
: made it illegal to have non-retractable spiky hood ornaments on cars,
: and the vertical blade license plates on the front of motorcycles.
: These caused serious injuries to pedestrians, but you would argue that
: removing them was simply fighting a symptom not a cause, would you
: not?
In the same vein, I have found that since installing a chainsaw projecting
outwards on each side of my bike, car drivers have been inclined to
give me more room when overtaking. After all, I sometimes take my
bike off the road, and they are just the trick for clearing a path
throught forests and jungles...
:)
Maybe people should start leafleting cars with bull bars - it would
not have such a pose value if everytime they offered a "bird" a lift
home in their "motor", they had to remove signs such as "Bull Bars
Kill Children" from under the wipers first...
A big tabloidy headline and some justifying statistics should do the
trick...
Stuart
--
Even if this isn't a figment of your imagination, and even if GEC would agree
with what I said, which is not what I mean anyway, which I didn't write (I
left myself logged on), which they won't, I wouldn't want them to, but it is.
huckleberry
>From: buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu (James A. Bucklew)
>Subject: Re: Anti Bull Bar Campaign
>Date: 29 Jun 1995 16:18:39 GMT
>Huckleberry,
>Not only does speed kill but also knives, bathtubs, electricity, etc. The
>solution is obviously to ban them!! I'm fucking glad I don't live
>in Britian, though this country is obviously going more and more
>that way.
... and stairs, fuel, and on and on .......
I think the UK way of solving this problem would be to just kill all the
animals in the world then there would simply be no need for Bull Bars!!
Problem Solved !!!
- huckleberry
Dave Rotheroe
>I understand exactly what you are getting at. I just don't agree with
>you. Do you expect children to take full adult responsibilty for their
>actions, and for society to make no provision for the fact that they
>can not? If I were to hit a child I would get no reassurance from
>the fact that the child might not have been paying sufficient attention.
>I would have hit a child, and if my vehicle was equipped with a device
>which made that child less likely to survive I could not console
>myself with the thought that he/she shouldn't have been in the way. Nor
>I suspect would you.
So we should all drive small, lightweight easily deformed vehicles with very
good brakes and wimpy motors. After all, that would probably reduce
injuries. If I hit a child with that rather than my very large and heavy
full size pickup, surely they would be more likely to survive?
>There is an inequality of risk on the road also which you do not consider.
>Yes, all road users must take responsibility for their safety, but
>it is the duty of those who will cause the greatest damage to look
>out for those who are not protected. If I make a mistake on my bike
>I could die, if a motorist makes a mistake then again, it is me that
>is most likely to die. As we also have responsibilty for the safety
>of those with whom we share the road it is only reasonable that we
>all try to minimise the consequnces of an accident should it happen.
>I assume you have no problem with measures which protect the driver
>of a vehicle: air bags, bumpers, side impact bars, seat belts etc.
>Why then do you wish to absolve yourself from having any responsibilty
>for those outside the vehicle?
I'm not sure what you mean by inequality of risk on the road. Of course
there is. Each different vehicle has its own risk. The operator,
passengers, cargo, road conditions, weather, ... all affect the risk. This
is not an inherently evil thing, but is part of life.
You also seem to be implying we should be responsible for each others
actions. Possibly on the basis of the "inequality of risk"? I cannot
agree. Each persons must be responsble for their own actions, including the
vehicles we drive and how we react to other things that may be encountered
while driving, but cannot be held responsbile for other peoples actions.
Or are you saying that the level of responsibility changes simply because of
the vehicle being operated. I might buy this somewhat for a bus or maybe a
vehicle carrying hazardous waste, but that is about it. The level of
responsbility a person is held to cannot change based on the vehicle they
are operating. In other words, I must not be held more responsible for my
actions simply because my vehicle has a higher "risk" score, nor must I be
held less responsible for my actions simply because my vehicle has a lower
"risk" in a given situation. To do so would radically change the justice
system in most free countries of the world. People should be held to the
same responsibility whether they are walking, riding a bike or motorcycle,
or driving a small car, light duty truck, ot tractor trailer. They are
responsible for their actions (or inaction) to the same degree no matter
what they are doing. As long as things aren't added to the vehicle to
intentionally cause harm in the event of an altercation, I see no reason to
outlaw them. Especially if they might tend to increase the safety of those
in the vehicle.
>I really don't think that removing dangerous bars on public roads is
>more of an infringement of your "rights" than you could bear. Certainly
>equiping your vehicle in such a way as to increase the danger for others
>is an infringement of their freedom. Certainly within Europe there is
>absolutely no need for BBs on most vehicles, and it is getting more
>and more likely that they will be banned. If you would accept the, not
>very difficult idea, that BBs are dangerous, and that it is therefore
>right to do something about them, then we could have a more constructive
>discussion on how off-road vehicles, and those with a genuine animal
>problem, can be protected without compromising the safety of more
>vulnerable road users. I am NOT saying that people at risk from deer
>or moose can not protect themselves, but I do think their numbers are
>small enough for us to find a safer solution.
For the moment, lets assume it was proven that bull bars are X% more likely
to cause human injury or death in an accident to the other vehicle (some
think they are, some think they aren't, and there is no real proof either
way - if so, please site a study by a respected source, and not someone's
personal opinion). But let's also assume that the proven likelyhood of
injury to the operator/passengers of the vehicle equipped with the bull bars
is reduced by Y%. Even if Y% is slightly lower than X%, should the driver
of the Y% vehicle be prevented from using a device known to reduce their
risk of injury at the expense of possibly increasing the risk to another?
This is not an easy question to answer, and many different people will
come to different conclusions.
Depending on how one answers, they may have to look further. What is the
difference between a 6000 pound truck with a very solid and non-deforming
front end, and a 6000 pound truck with a very solid and non-deforming front
end with "dangerous bars". Not much in the collision with a much smaller
object - both are going to cause about the same damage in an accident with a
smaller vehicle/object. To carry one argument to it's logical conclusion,
no-one should be allowed to have a 6000 pound inherently evil truck, but
everyone should be forced to by a tiny econo-box. After all, this would
reduce the danger to others far more than whether or not the vehicle had
"dangerous bars", right?
Dave
PS - I don't have bull bars on the front of my truck, but don't really
think it would make much difference in an accident anyway - the front
is pretty darn solid.
Phil Pinel
In article
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Do you think this is practical? One would have to carry the (very heavy)
>bull bar to a off road site or stretch of road where large animals may be
>a problem. Then remove the "city" bumper and bolt on a bull bar - only
>to repeat this process before going home.
If you're a 4x4 driver you already have an enormous vehicle to cart around the
not-so-vast bull bar which you think is a problem. Besides, it can't be
beyond the wit of man for suppliers of bull bars to develop an extremely
sturdy quick-release mechanism which doesn't require lengthy mucking around
with nuts and bolts when you need to attach/detach the bull bar.
>> The point is that the person who is usually the victim
>> of bull-bars is not the crap driver who causes the
>> accident. There is no way to remove 100% of crap drivers
>> from the road, you'd have to have a 2hr test every time
>> you got into the vehicle to ensure that. So, measures
>> such as banning bull-bars protect the potential victims.
>
>I'm not convinced banning bull bars would protect anyone in all but very
>special cases. Certainly not 100% of the time.
Fine, but that is what the statistics say. Any help that drivers can provide
to save lives has by definition to be a good thing.
>> I belive that everyone should have the freedom to kill
>> *themselves* through crap driving (or whatever), but
>> others should be protected.
>
>As I mentioned (and someone else I believe) in another post, you are
>failing to see the danger of large animals jumping in front of vehicles
>traveling at high speeds. Do you know what kind of damage that does?
Damage to your car is probably the least concern to the animal (or pedestrian)
that you have just run over. Rest assured that a Land Rover having hit a red
deer would take negligible damage compared to that sustained by, say, a Ford
Fiesta in the same predicament.
>Responsibility comes with privilege.
Fine. So don't drive at high speeds when there is a danger of animals running
into the road. Responsibility comes with privilege as you said. Driving a
large vehicle tends to make some people complete idiots on the road as the
arrogance of the high driving position settles in. The privilege is the power
and good feelings of driving something ridiculously powerful and probably
quite over-engineered for road use. By the same token, you then have to be
more careful on the road with respect to other road users, be they drivers,
cyclists, pedestrians or water buffalo.
Phil Pinel, Designer/Implementor | How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
TeamVISION Video Conferencing | To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!
ICL Volume Products, Bracknell UK | "Ulysses" - Alfred Lord Tennyson
The views expressed above are mine alone and not those of ICL
James A. Bucklew
With great interest I have been following the debate about bullbars.
It seems that if Dr. Vanke's (and others)
arguments were carried to their natural
ends, we would have requirements that all automotive front ends be
encased in pillows and have speed regulators not allowing anything
over 20 mph. Perhaps instead we could require someone with a
lantern to proceed in front of any powered vehicle carrying signs
with suitable warnings? Why not just ban the noisy infernal things? (Cars
not bullbars.) Think how safe little old ladies would be then!
I would like to submit that it is the Dr. Vankes of this world who pose
the greatest threats to individual freedom. Burning with messianic
zeal and glowing with good intentions, his ilk will not be satisfied
until we have an ant society. Our motto (from the Once and Future
King) will be "ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY).
I regularly get off road out west in Montana and here in my home state
of Wisconsin (primarily for hunting and fishing). Brush and fender
guards are a necessity if you don't want the front of your vehicle
to be totally trashed out. I've worked on several farms/ranches during my
formative years. Believe me they are extremely useful for not only for
recalcitrant cattle but for general shoving and pushing equipment, wagons,
etc. around.
Banning things is easy gentlemen. It takes little thought and gives the
banner a nice selfrightous feeling. Taking personal responsibility
is a much tougher road. It is sort of like the difference between being
an adult and being a child.
jim bucklew
madison wisconsin
Steve Davis
>From: Paul Thomas <Pa...@tmsl.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Anti Bull Bar Campaign
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.950628145154.3994C-1000
> klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu "Kerry L. Embry" writes:
>> > Watch for two House of Lords questions on Thursday about the statistics. Also> > look for an announcement from one of Federal Express's main competitors next
>> > week - the message is getting through.
>> > --
>> > Dr Jeremy Vanke
>> > Head of Public Policy, RAC
>>
>> Dr Vanke,
>> I am assuming by your statement above that you are in some way against
>> the use of BB's. I believe there are enough restrictions on personal
>> freedoms already to add to the list. I don't see how mounting a Bull Bar
>> on a vehicle infringes on anyone elses rights, so I would like you to
>> explain how you justify this position. It is, after all, the collision
>> that does the damage - not the bumper. A more appropriate solution would
>> involve the eleimination of collisions - you are fighting a symptom, not
>> a cause.
>Eliminate collisions; a worthy goal. Maybe we should put horrid
>spikes and blades all over the fronts of our vehicles. No pedestrian or
>cyclist would then *dare* to leap out in front of it!
What a great idea! Can you tell me where I can buy such a device? Sounds
like it would be much more effective than the guard I was planning on
installing. I wonder if this would scare animals out from in front of my car
while driving on country roads. I'll bet that it will even scare tree
branches away from the front of my truck offroad.
Shaun C. Murray
says...
>
>
>I would like to submit that it is the Dr. Vankes of this world who pose
>the greatest threats to individual freedom. Burning with messianic
>zeal and glowing with good intentions, his ilk will not be satisfied
>until we have an ant society. Our motto (from the Once and Future
>King) will be "ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY).
Unlikely as Dr. Vanke works for the RAC (Royal Automobile Club) and
looks after policy. The RAC are definitely pro automobile.
>
>I regularly get off road out west in Montana and here in my home state
>of Wisconsin (primarily for hunting and fishing). Brush and fender
>guards are a necessity if you don't want the front of your vehicle
>to be totally trashed out. I've worked on several farms/ranches during
my
>formative years. Believe me they are extremely useful for not only for
>recalcitrant cattle but for general shoving and pushing equipment,
wagons,
>etc. around.
We're not arguing against off-road use of bull bars by legitimate users.
We're saying, and the RAC are saying, that use of bull bars on roads
should be banned. If you want bull bars for off-road use, fit them when
you go off-road and take them off again when you're back on the road. All
you need is a couple of split pins and a few holes drilled here and
there. Not exactly rocket science.
The original thread started as a uk discussion which someone has
crossposted to rec.autos.4x4. In the UK there is very little call for
off-roaders although they do sell well as a 'lifestyle concept' never
seeing mud.
I imagine the figures on deaths due to bull bars would translate quite
well to the US though.
>
>Banning things is easy gentlemen. It takes little thought and gives the
^^^^^^^^^
and ladies
>banner a nice selfrightous feeling. Taking personal responsibility
>is a much tougher road. It is sort of like the difference between being
>an adult and being a child.
Taking personal responsibility would be someone removing bull bars from
there vehicle when not needed or driving a much more suitable vehicle for
the task in hand.
Shaun
Rob Streno
Marcus Jones <M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>jim...@coho.halcyon.com (Jim McCorison) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> I'd be curious to know if these deaths have been documented as "caused by
>> the Bull Bar" as opposed to caused by impact with a Bull Bar. If someone
>> is hit by a truck with a BB travelling at 50mph and dies, do they count
>> that as a death cased by a bull bar? I have a bull bar on my Toyota and
>> can see where it might be a little more damaging to a pedestrian then the
>> stock bumper. But how much more? Frequently statics are twisted to support
>> a predefined position.
>>
>> -Jim McCorison
>> jim...@halcyon.com
>
>I refer you back to Dr Vanke's posting. It is clear that in collisions
>at speeds below 30 mph BBs can make the difference between surviving
>and dying. "A little more damaging" you say! For heaven's sake we
>are talking about dead pedestrians and cyclists who would otherwise be
>alive but for the pointless use of BBs.
>
>There was an inquest in Solihull last week following the death of an
>old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
>"broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
>the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
>your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
>
>
Come on and get real.
I know someone who was shot and paralyzed by someone who was driving a car at
the time. The doctor specifically mentioned the fact that the gunman was in a
car. Therefore, a car paralyzed that man.
You are using false logic. You anti-bullbar people have yet to show a
*scientific* study that shows bullbars cause more problems than the same
collision without.
You quote a coroner. How many bullbar vs. non-bullbar collisions has he
autopsied? Two? Three? Fifty? Even fifty is too low a sample to make any
scientific judgements.
Look, bullbars aren't the issue here, it's infringement of peoples rights by
the government.
Give it a rest.
-------------------------+-------------------------
Robert M. Streno, | Current Skillset:
Consultant | C/C++ (shiny)
(513) 320-2623 (W) | PowerBuilder (shiny)
(614) 785-9958 (H) | MVS/COBOL (dull)
| Fortran/Pascal (rusted)
-------------------------+-------------------------
Phil Pinel
jim...@coho.halcyon.com (Jim McCorison) wrote:
>Another approach is to resolve the problem of pedestrians being hit. I
>agree with a previous poster who said "Call me a stupid american but isn't
>the real problem here people getting hit by cars?" If all the effort which
>is being spent on trying to outlaw bull bars were spent on trying to
>reduce vechicle/pedestrian accidents I think you'd see better results.
>
>After all, if the aim is to save the lives of pedestrians/bicyclists/etc
>then the reduction of collisions is the optimal path. Not changing the
>configuration of what they get hit with.
Jim, I don't believe the two points are mutually exclusive. We should of
course always look at reducing the number of accidents, but try as we might, I
don't know of anyone who claims that we can reduce this number to zero (due to
bad luck, carelessness or plain stupidity). Since we know that there will
always be a number of accidents however small we all have a responsibility to
reduce the number of fatalities caused in these events. At present the
evidence suggests (who did this research anyway... I'd heard it was the TRRL -
Transport & Road Research Labs in the UK) that present designs of bull bars
significantly increase this chance of fatality.
Unless it can be demonstrated that some designs of bull bars are safe (which I
doubt considering what they are there to do in the first place) and thus
regulations can be imposed on their use, road users will be looking at a total
ban on the use of bull bars on the public highway.
To complain that governments should be looking to reduce accidents is purely
secondary and a waste of time. It's a bit like the motorist pulled over for
dangerous driving who asks the police officer why he/she isn't out arresting
*real* criminals. If we concentrate on the real issue and don't get
sidetracked, we hopefully should be able to piece together the real picture of
how the issues will affect 4x4 users.
In the UK I'd estimate that well over 90% of 4x4 users only have a bull bar as
nothing more than a fashion accessory. Its real use *must* not be the
protection of the vehicle over that of other road users, animals etc.
Matthew Wild
In article <WILD.95Ju...@wdcc1a.bnsc.rl.ac.uk>,
wi...@wdcc1a.bnsc.rl.ac.uk says...
>
>I think one of the biggest problems with bullbars is where they are put on
>cars or vans where they remove any crumple zones or roll over protection
>that was designed in by the manufacturer.
Crumple zones aren't there for the sake of pedestrians or cyclists. They are
for use in 'accidents' where the vehicle hits something large and
possibly stationary. A pedestrian/cyclist won't crumple a crumple zone at any
speed where the pedestrian will survive. They are there for the drivers
benefit, not the outside world and therfore have no bearing on road safety at
all. Rather the opposite.
I wouldn't say they have no use in a low speed impact. Considering how much
a bonnet will deform if you press it, there must be some energy absorbed by
it when it hits a pedestrian. This unfortunately is not true of the slab frontage
of a LandRover woth or without bullbars.
4x4's have zero roll over protection and are not suited to an environment
involving other road users especially pedestrians and cyclists. Bull bars just
make it worse making low speed impacts more dangerous too as the RAC figures
show.
By roll over protection, I meant the slope of the bonnet, allowing pedestrians/
cyclists to roll over the car hitting them rather thanbeing thrust back in one
impact.
Matthew
--
Matthew Wild
M.W...@rl.ac.uk
World Data Centre C1 - Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX
Phil Pinel
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>> > > There was an inquest in Solihull last week following the death of an
>> > > old lady killed by a vehicle fitted with bars which were said to have
>> > > "broken every bone in her body". The coroner specifically mentioned
>> > > the BBs and was highly critical of their use. I suggest you get rid of
>> > > your bars asap before you live to regret having them.
>>
>> > Really now, do you think a bumper caused the death of that little old
>> > lady or the collision with a several ton truck.
>>
>> The coroner clearly thought so, I suppose you know better?
>
>Do you think (or does the coroner think) that a collision that broke
>"every bone" in someone's body would have been surviviable without a bull
>bar?
From the above, the coroner didn't necessarily say that. However, part of the
coroner's job is to determine how fatal blows were received and how
"reasonable" the damage sustained from such blows is. For him to come down
vehemently against bulls bars means that he must have had some quite pressing
reason to make such comments. Generally because coroners have to give
evidence in a British court of law, their testimony has to relate to what they
can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure that the coroner had seen
broken bones in the elderly before so he must be able to tell the difference
between this incident and, say, falling downstairs.
>> I really don't see your problem. By eliminating BBs from public
>> roads (I'm not talking about moose country) we have a simple way to
>> reduce the danger traffic presents to non-vehicular road users.
>
>In Kentucky almost every two lane highway is deer country. Do you
>suggest that anyone who wants to protect their family from this danger
>park the car at the city limits? This is not the kind of thing you can
>just restrict in certain areas.
Living in Berkshire we get a lot of deer wandering around on our roads late at
night. I know of several occasions where deer have been hit at high speeds
(usually by small family saloon cars) and although the deer didn't normally
come out of this sort of encounter too well, the damage to the cars was really
quite minimal considering the size of the animal. Deer tend to fold up when
hit and this reduces any physical damage to the vehicle and its occupants. In
the UK you're not going to hit anything much larger than a deer and bull bars
are almost completely unnecessary. For the US the situation where bull bars
apply should be different, but only where the animals involved are moose
rather than deer sized.
I can't help but come back to the idea of having bull bars with quick release
mountings. This would allow you your freedom to put bull bars on when you
were going out into really rough country but also allow you to pull over to
the side of the road when reentering more civilised climes and unclip the
thing and put it in the back of your 4x4.
>> Some people might have a need for something stronger
>> > than a little 5mph crumple-bumper ya know.
>> In Birmingham? Bollox they do.
Absolutely. The rest of the UK has to manage with Ford Fiestas and Fiat Unos
and you don't see them driving around with a draining board tied to their
front bumper.
Phil Pinel
ke...@news.an.hp.com (Teo Keary) wrote:
>Oh, and I assume these figures are for the UK? Not to be callous, but
>it seems that in the USA there are so many automobile deaths per year
>that something which caused 40 more or fewer would be small news.
>Unfortunately, you have to do something which impacts thousands of lives
>(or at LEAST hundreds) before Americans blink.
Does that mean I when in the US I can hit and kill 40 pedestrians and no-one
will notice? Oh boy, that's what I call taking civil liberties.
I appreciate that Americans may like to think big, but just saving one life
should be worthwhile.
Phil Pinel
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>should learn to avoid accidents.
Fine. So avoid that accident with the 1000lb moose and take your bull bars
off your vehicle.
Phil Pinel
buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu (James A. Bucklew) wrote:
>I would like to submit that it is the Dr. Vankes of this world who pose
>the greatest threats to individual freedom. Burning with messianic
>zeal and glowing with good intentions, his ilk will not be satisfied
>until we have an ant society. Our motto (from the Once and Future
>King) will be "ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY).
It's not forbidden to drink a pint of household bleach. Of you go then. Give
my love to the poor sod of a doctor who'll have to treat you.
>I regularly get off road out west in Montana and here in my home state
>of Wisconsin (primarily for hunting and fishing). Brush and fender
>guards are a necessity if you don't want the front of your vehicle
>to be totally trashed out. I've worked on several farms/ranches during my
>formative years. Believe me they are extremely useful for not only for
>recalcitrant cattle but for general shoving and pushing equipment, wagons,
>etc. around.
They're also pretty damn useful for pushing those pesky pedestrians off the
road and into the casualty department. What is good for use on a farm isn't
necessarily good for use on the road. In the UK nobody really complains that
mopeds, learner drivers and tractors aren't allowed on motorways because they
are not appropriate there.
>Banning things is easy gentlemen. It takes little thought and gives the
>banner a nice selfrightous feeling. Taking personal responsibility
>is a much tougher road. It is sort of like the difference between being
>an adult and being a child.
And after those comments, which toy would you like for Christmas this year?
Phil Pinel
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>
>> > own actions in ever increasingly subtle and obvious ways.
>> > Happy Trails
>> >
>>
>> You are refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of
>> accidents involving your own vehicle in a completely illogical way.
>
>Marcus, let me first say Ha! I will further add that accepting
>resposibilty is -exactly- what I am talking about. If I was unclear
>before, let me bluntly state: I am saying that -all- people on the road
>share this responsibility; drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. Why not
>require pedestrians wear bright orange vests while crossing the road? Do
>you understand what I'm getting at?
Whilst I understand and partly sympathise with your point of view I can't
agree with it. Drivers undergo much more rigorous examinations than cyclists
and indeed pedestrians (at least in this country) simply because they are a
much greater potential hazard. The greater hazard you represent, the greater
responsibilty you must take. Therefore, although I heartily agree with the
concept of shared responsibility, the balance of that responsibility shifts
strongly towards the shoulders of the greater hazard - and that means the
car/truck driver.
As far as freedoms go, why does the US have very strict regulations about the
height of your bumpers (fenders) if it isn't to limit fatalities in a
collision with a pedestrian?
Colin Tinto
>In article
><Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>I don't contend that accidents don't happen - I said that people
>>should learn to avoid accidents.
>Fine. So avoid that accident with the 1000lb moose and take your bull bars
>off your vehicle.
Having seen the aftermath of an accident with a moose in Norway, I
doubt if bull bars would help at all.
A fully grown Moose is quite a tall beast. A car hitting one will
usually knock its legs away, and the body of the animal lands on
the bonnet, and slides through the windscreen. Unless the bull bars
were 5ft high, they aren't going to push the whole moose away,
just its legs.
I'm sure someone told me moose related accidents are more common than
any other road accident in the north of Norway...
Col
Phil Pinel
By the same token, when I'm walking anywhere, I'll be sure to take a packet of
caltrops with me (those 4 pointed spikes that always land spike upwards) so
that I can sprinkle them onto the road before I cross. That'll make any
drivers think twice before coming near where I want to cross. Since this is
being seen on a 4x4 newsgroup I'd better make sure they are *large* caltrops.
Paul Smee
Phil Pinel <phil....@bra0102.wins.icl.co.uk> wrote:
>As far as freedoms go, why does the US have very strict regulations about the
>height of your bumpers (fenders) if it isn't to limit fatalities in a
>collision with a pedestrian?
Funny you should ask. Actually, the original reason was to limit the
damage caused in 'parking nudges', i.e. low-speed collisions with other
cars, by making all cars have their bumpers at the same height.
Pedestrians didn't enter into that one.
Pedestrian safety, however, was the reason that projecting hood
ornaments ('bonnet ornaments', such as the Rolls Winged Victory) are no
longer permitted on US cars unless they are properly spring-loaded to
give when you land on them.
--
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
P.S...@bristol.ac.uk - Tel +44 117 928 7865 - FAX +44 117 929 1576
Shaun C. Murray
>
>So we should all drive small, lightweight easily deformed vehicles with very
>good brakes and wimpy motors. After all, that would probably reduce
>injuries. If I hit a child with that rather than my very large and heavy
>full size pickup, surely they would be more likely to survive?
If the situation is suited to such a vehicle, why not? However, just because a
car is small doesn't mean it has a wimpy engine. Something the American car
manufacturers always seem to misunderstand. There's this thing called power to
weight ratio.
>Or are you saying that the level of responsibility changes simply because of
>the vehicle being operated. I might buy this somewhat for a bus or maybe a
>vehicle carrying hazardous waste, but that is about it. The level of
>responsbility a person is held to cannot change based on the vehicle they
>are operating.
Of course it does. You have to be more responsible to drive a larger,
potentially more dangerous vehicle, particularly in a situation not suited to
that vehicle. Adding bull bars to a 4x4 makes it even less suitable for
traffic or urban use.
>or driving a small car, light duty truck, ot tractor trailer. They are
>responsible for their actions (or inaction) to the same degree no matter
>what they are doing. As long as things aren't added to the vehicle to
>intentionally cause harm in the event of an altercation, I see no reason to
>outlaw them. Especially if they might tend to increase the safety of those
>in the vehicle.
Everyone has the same responsibility for their actions. What we are arguing
here is the responsibility of the consequences. If you hit someone and kill
them *because* you have bull bars where you could not have killed them without
the bull bars you'll have to accept the responsibility of that consequence.
>For the moment, lets assume it was proven that bull bars are X% more likely
>to cause human injury or death in an accident to the other vehicle (some
>think they are, some think they aren't, and there is no real proof either
>way - if so, please site a study by a respected source, and not someone's
You obviously missed Dr. Vanke's post quoting figures. The report is an RAC
report. I can't remember the exact figures but it was something like you have
a 19% chance of getting killed at 20mph which rises to 24% when bull bars are
fitted. Figures on injury alone weren't given.
>personal opinion). But let's also assume that the proven likelyhood of
>injury to the operator/passengers of the vehicle equipped with the bull bars
>is reduced by Y%. Even if Y% is slightly lower than X%, should the driver
>of the Y% vehicle be prevented from using a device known to reduce their
>risk of injury at the expense of possibly increasing the risk to another?
>This is not an easy question to answer, and many different people will
>come to different conclusions.
It has also been suggested by some 4x4ers that using bull bars increases the
risk to the driver themselves. Bull bars aren't there for the driver, they are
there to protect the bodywork of the 4x4. A proper study needs doing though.
>
>Depending on how one answers, they may have to look further. What is the
>difference between a 6000 pound truck with a very solid and non-deforming
>front end, and a 6000 pound truck with a very solid and non-deforming front
>end with "dangerous bars". Not much in the collision with a much smaller
>object - both are going to cause about the same damage in an accident with a
>smaller vehicle/object. To carry one argument to it's logical conclusion,
>no-one should be allowed to have a 6000 pound inherently evil truck, but
>everyone should be forced to by a tiny econo-box. After all, this would
>reduce the danger to others far more than whether or not the vehicle had
>"dangerous bars", right?
Well, it has to be a personal decision based on what kind of vehicle fills
your needs. If you want to be responsible, a small economic car is the right
choice. If you need a 4x4 (eg. a farmer) get one. If you just want a car for
carrying around the family and going shopping, an estate car is just fine
rather than the 4x4 which seems to be the rage these days for family, shopping
trips.
Shaun
Stephen Walker
>From: phil....@bra0102.wins.icl.co.uk (Phil Pinel)
>Subject: Re: Anti Bull Bar Campaign
>In article
><Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:
>>
>>> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>Marcus, let me first say Ha! I will further add that accepting
>>resposibilty is -exactly- what I am talking about. If I was unclear
>>before, let me bluntly state: I am saying that -all- people on the road
>>share this responsibility; drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. Why not
>>require pedestrians wear bright orange vests while crossing the road? Do
>>you understand what I'm getting at?
>Whilst I understand and partly sympathise with your point of view I can't
>agree with it. Drivers undergo much more rigorous examinations than cyclists
>and indeed pedestrians (at least in this country) simply because they are a
>much greater potential hazard. The greater hazard you represent, the greater
>responsibilty you must take. Therefore, although I heartily agree with the
>concept of shared responsibility, the balance of that responsibility shifts
>strongly towards the shoulders of the greater hazard - and that means the
>car/truck driver.
The idea of automatically attributing blame to the most protected party is
silly. If I throw myself in front of a train, does that make it the train
driver's fault, because he won't get hurt?
Steve.
|------------------------------------------| Steve Walker_________|
|------------------------------------------|swa...@wpo.nerc.ac.uk|
|------------------new---------------------|Of course they're_____|
|------------------sig---------------------|*my* opinions-________|
|----------------pending-------------------|sod off and___________|
|------------------------------------------|get your own._________|
Jonathan Abbott
On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Kerry L. Embry wrote:
> Jon, glad to hear you are still with us! Of course nobody -wants- to be
> hit by any vehicle, especially a large one. If the vehicle that had hit
> you had been a land rover without a bull bar, you would quite likely be
> dead. Certainly most vehicles that will hold a bull bar do not have the
> aerodynamic slope which saved your life. I'm glad to hear you've never
> needed one as well, because the time you need one may be when a thousand
> pounds of unlucky animal bounces off your front end and into your
> windshield. Anyway, I'm not trying to advocate their use - I'm trying to
> maintain personal freedoms. Yes, I would rather live free or die. Note
> however, that this does not mean I would like to live free and forget
> any danger to anyone, blah blah blah. I just don't see the bull bar as a
> significant danger, but I'm sure someone will twist my words for me.
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
Kerry, as you say if it had been a land rover I would have been dead, but
you live in America and I live in Great Britain and these are two totally
different countries with different terrains, now I have never been to
America but of what I have seen of it on T.V and in photo's etc there are
parts of your country where I think Bull bars are a must and if I was
going off-roading out there I would want them fitted and I can see that
in some remote area's of Scotland they might be needed but Britain on a
whole unlike America is a suburban country (unfortunately) and the people
who fit bull bars don't need them, there 4x4's wouldn't know what mud was
if it hit them. In Britain Land Rover have come up with a 'plastic'
bull bar for those who want to pose, this does offer some protection to the
vehicle but will absorb the impact from some errant pedestrian. I also
realise that a lot of 4x4's are pedestrian killer's (although I love the
look of them), but as I said before we are getting car derived pick-up
trucks (designed to offer some pedestrian protection) being fitted with
these pieces of metal, an example is the Ford P100 (sierra derived) and
the two wheel drive Hi-Lux ( the four wheel drive sits to high to offer
protection), these and other fashionable 4x4's are driven by people who
used to drive what we call the hot hatch, these are the sort of people
who drive to fast then wonder why they can't control there RAV-4 on a
corner.
I am not condemning 4x4's or people who fit bull bars for safety but in
Britain if you drive carefully, and the roads where deer leap out of
hedges are those which need to be drive with care, I know as I my boss had
his tractor run into by someone speeding on a blind lane, now a
bull bar would not have protected that guy (although he could have held it
up to stop my boss trying to kill him). Now what I'm trying to say is in
a long winded way, is that bull bars don't need to band but they are only
needed by people with wide open spaces around them (like people in parts
of America and a very few parts of Britain).
Jon.
P.s. I hit a deer at 40 m.p.h once and it made a mess of my car but the
deer survived and if it had been a person I'd like to think that they
would have survived to rather than having been hammered into the road.
Adrian Adams
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>> The point is that the person who is usually the victim
>> of bull-bars is not the crap driver who causes the
>> accident. There is no way to remove 100% of crap drivers
>> from the road, you'd have to have a 2hr test every time
>> you got into the vehicle to ensure that. So, measures
>> such as banning bull-bars protect the potential victims.
>
>I'm not convinced banning bull bars would protect anyone in all but very
>special cases. Certainly not 100% of the time.
No. But it would convert some deaths into casualties,
and some casualties into minor accidents.
If it was you or your child, I'm sure you wouldn't find
much solice in the fact that you/they were a one in a
million victim of someones vanity.
>> I belive that everyone should have the freedom to kill
>> *themselves* through crap driving (or whatever), but
>> others should be protected.
>
>As I mentioned (and someone else I believe) in another post, you are
>failing to see the danger of large animals jumping in front of vehicles
>traveling at high speeds. Do you know what kind of damage that does?
Yes, I do actually.
Firstly lets just assume that any such accident was not
the drivers fault for travelling too fast, (the vast majority
of such dangerous areas IN THE UK are signposted, so they
shouldn't be travelling at "high speeds").
But, if they did hit a large animal at _high_speeds_ the
vehicle would come of very badly, BUT the *driver* (and
passengers) would come of _much_ better than if they had
bull-bars.
Bull-bars are designed to be used at low speeds or to move
light objects. Not high speeds to move heavy objects.
In such a situation the occupants of the vehicle would come
off better without the bars because modern vehicles are
designed with crumple zones for just such impacts with
large heavy objects. The bars would transmit much more
shock into the vehicle and the occupants and could cause
severe whip-lash.
That is why a high speed impact with a large deer can
write-off an Escort, but the occupants survive.
=Adrian
Gremlin
> I regularly get off road out west in Montana and here in my home state
> of Wisconsin (primarily for hunting and fishing). Brush and fender
> guards are a necessity if you don't want the front of your vehicle
> to be totally trashed out. I've worked on several farms/ranches during my
> formative years. Believe me they are extremely useful for not only for
> recalcitrant cattle but for general shoving and pushing equipment, wagons,
> etc. around.
Could I just point something out to you - the original poster (Marcus Jones ,
26 Jun 1995 ) said:
"Birmingham Friends of the Earth are considering a campaign against
Bull Bars."
We're talking about safety in the UK, not huntin' and fishin' in the States.
Drivers on UK roads have very little need for "shoving and pushing equipment,
wagons, etc. around."
> Banning things is easy gentlemen. It takes little thought and gives the
> banner a nice selfrightous feeling. Taking personal responsibility
> is a much tougher road. It is sort of like the difference between being
> an adult and being a child.
>
>
Driving over people is also easy, Jim. It takes little thought, and too many
drivers are self-rightous. Being responsible leads to safer roads, and includes
the banning or restriction of (in the British context) useless but dangerous
adornments. It can mean the difference between a live child and a dead child.
> jim bucklew
> madison wisconsin
>
Emlyn Phillips
Aberystwyth, Dyfed
--
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~eep94/
Gremlin
>
> I'd be curious to know if these deaths have been documented as "caused by
> the Bull Bar" as opposed to caused by impact with a Bull Bar. If someone
> is hit by a truck with a BB travelling at 50mph and dies, do they count
> that as a death cased by a bull bar? I have a bull bar on my Toyota and
> can see where it might be a little more damaging to a pedestrian then the
> stock bumper. But how much more? Frequently statics are twisted to support
> a predefined position.
>
> -Jim McCorison
> jim...@halcyon.com
Wales on Sunday, a tabloidish paper, is campaigning against bull bars on
safety grounds. Speaking from memory (my old copies of WoS currently in
a recycling bin), one particular point of concern is that bull bars are at head
height for children; with a fast moving car, obviously, it makes no difference
but when a car is moving slowly a normal, crumpling bumper gives the child a
chance, while a rigid bull bar doesn't.
Hwyl,
Emlyn
--
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~eep94/
Jonathan Abbott
opinion all of them valid (even Huckleberry's) but has it been noticed
all of those who are pro-bull bars are American and those arguing for
their use only in certain places are British.
While it seems American's have good use for BB's there is very little
justification for them here. Wejust don't have large animals wandering
free around here, although if a moose is as big as I have seen described
then is about as tall as an average horse, we have a lot of equestrian
centre's around where I live and having seen what a horse does to a Land
Rover with BB's I can only assume that the BB's did nothing (certainly
not for the horse rider they went attached with the horse through the
windscreen).
Now as Huckleberry says knives, electricity and bathtubs kill yes they do
and electricity if was invented today would not be allowed but it is, and
we have learnt to be sensible with it. Is not America 'the land of the
free' also the land of large scale gun homicides, which unlike bull bars
are seriously regulated in the U.K (compare percentage of gun related
deaths in the two countries) now you probabily think that or gun laws are
draconion but I'm glad of that to, it is nice to think that when I
accidentally cut someone up he is not going to shot me at the next lights,
now if you want to protect your self fine you can have a gun or bull
bars or what ever in America, but (and lets get a little unreal here)
supposing pedestrians strarted carrying guns and every time they saw a
vehicle with BB's they shot the driver to protect themselves, people
would complain wouldn't they, so why can't pedestrians/cyclists complain
when people are armed with the automotive equivelent of a gun?
So can we not agree to disagree if prople want the right to kill whilst
driving a penis extension (oh yes it seem only a certain type of British
male is in this catagory not anyone else before you all get offend) they
go to the U.S but if you want a pedestrian wants a chance to live he/she
should come to the U.K.
Stuart
: Marcus Jones <M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk> writes:
: >I understand exactly what you are getting at. I just don't agree with
: >you. Do you expect children to take full adult responsibilty for their
: >actions, and for society to make no provision for the fact that they
: >can not?
: good brakes and wimpy motors. After all, that would probably reduce
: injuries. If I hit a child with that rather than my very large and heavy
: full size pickup, surely they would be more likely to survive?
I think the point is: if you want to go to a firing range, fine.
However, don't walk around with a loaded gun, with the safety off
in the middle of a shopping centre. Are you saying that this is
okay - and that if you shot a child under these circumstances, you
could say "accidents do happen" and walk away.
In the same way, if you want to use bullbars off road (or cutting
blades, chainsaws, or James Bond style tire slashers :) take them
off before you go on the pubic highway.
: You also seem to be implying we should be responsible for each others
: actions.
This would only make sense if all accidents were the pedestrians
fault. i.e. you imply that banning bullshit bars would make the driver
take responsibility for pedestrians who carelessly step into the road
and cause accidents in which they were injured. Do you deny that
sometimes the driver is to blame? If so, you have contradicted yourself.
: Each persons must be responsble for their own actions, including the
: vehicles we drive and how we react to other things that may be encountered
: while driving, but cannot be held responsbile for other peoples actions.
Exactly - if you could guarantee that you will never be at fault in an
accident involving a pedestrian, I wouldn't mind you having bull
bars. Care to stake your life on that? Someone else's?
: As long as things aren't added to the vehicle to
: intentienally cause harm in the event of an altercation, I see noreason to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: outlaw them. Especially if they might tend to increase the safety of those
: in the vehicle.
So Spikes and knifes on the bonnet of a car are okay, as long as they
are only for show? What difference does intent matter as regards a
dangerous projection?
: For the moment, lets assume it was proven that bull bars are X% more likely
: to cause human injury or death in an accident to the other vehicle (some
DoT research figures posted here say they are. I have not seen any
evidence countering this.
: is reduced by Y%. Even if Y% is slightly lower than X%, should the driver
: of the Y% vehicle be prevented from using a device known to reduce their
: risk of injury at the expense of possibly increasing the risk to another?
To who?
I thought that crumple zones where supposed to reduce risk of injury
to the driver. On what evidence do you imply that covering them will
increase the chance of injury to the vehicle occupants?
As far as I understand, bull bars protect a car, particularly the
lights, against slow speed collisions with tress, gateposts etc.
Jo Fay
occupants of a vehicle through running into large animals is greater than the
risk of running into a pedestrian.
This may apply to the USA where, after all, the trains have had cow catchers on
the front for decades (don't know if they still do) but the UK is a different
situation.
In the UK we don't have huge steers or kangaroos leaping out in front of
vehicles. The biggest animals around are cows or deer, but cows are kept out
of harms way (mainly their own harms way as they are valuable animals) in
fields behind walls and fences, and you have to be in the right part of the
country before you've any chance of an encounter with a deer. Also our cows
have been bred for centuries, before America and Australia were even settled,
and are pretty tame (they have to be to be milked every day) most of the time.
And if you run into a herd crossing the road that's your own fault, as you
should be able to stop before hitting _any_ obstacle.
The UK is also a much more densely populated country than the USA or Australia,
and therefore the risk of running into a person is much higher.
I've lived in several parts of the UK, and I have never ever heard of someone
being injured because some large animal ran into them (or whatever). You
get reports of people being run over all the time. _I've_ had kids run out
in front of my motorbike, and they can definitely hear that coming! But most
people drive through areas with deer and don't see any at all, even when
they're looking for them, let alone have them leap out in front.
Kerry, and others from the USA, we're not trying to ban _your_ bull bars, you
are in a country where there is some need for them. They aren't needed in most
parts of the UK, and if there's a risk of them increasing injury to
pedestrians,
cyclists or motorcyclists in event of an accident then they shouldn't be used
except where they are needed (off road, in game parks, places like that).
As for my brother's accident, he slid up over the bonnet of the car and landed
in the road behind it. He'd have been thrown away if a bull bar had been
fitted, that is, after all, what they're designed for.
Jo
Paul Smee
>vehicles. The biggest animals around are cows or deer, but cows are kept out
>of harms way (mainly their own harms way as they are valuable animals) in
>fields behind walls and fences, and you have to be in the right part of the
>country before you've any chance of an encounter with a deer.
*And*, much to American amazement, most of the deer in most of this
country are wanky little things not much bigger than large rabbits.
Cute, but don't feed many people. Size that will go under a car, not
over it.
Kerry L. Embry
> >formative years. Believe me they are extremely useful for not only for
> >recalcitrant cattle but for general shoving and pushing equipment,
> wagons,
> >etc. around.
>
> We're not arguing against off-road use of bull bars by legitimate users.
> We're saying, and the RAC are saying, that use of bull bars on roads
> should be banned. If you want bull bars for off-road use, fit them when
> you go off-road and take them off again when you're back on the road. All
> you need is a couple of split pins and a few holes drilled here and
> there. Not exactly rocket science.
Oh come now, do you know how heavy those things are? Even if you did
make it removable with split pins, it wouldn't be a strong and lose its
effectiveness. Just take them off when you're back on the road? Did you
even think about the practicality of that statement?
>
> The original thread started as a uk discussion which someone has
> crossposted to rec.autos.4x4. In the UK there is very little call for
> off-roaders although they do sell well as a 'lifestyle concept' never
> seeing mud.
>
And now it's here. My Jeep is muddy.
> I imagine the figures on deaths due to bull bars would translate quite
> well to the US though.
We have lots of very heavy bumpers available (no deformation) and lots of
people looking for the next "protect me from myself" quest, but thus far
I don't know of any great anti-bumper saga.
> >Banning things is easy gentlemen. It takes little thought and gives the
> ^^^^^^^^^
> and ladies
>
> >banner a nice selfrightous feeling. Taking personal responsibility
> >is a much tougher road. It is sort of like the difference between being
> >an adult and being a child.
>
> Taking personal responsibility would be someone removing bull bars from
> there vehicle when not needed or driving a much more suitable vehicle for
> the task in hand.
No, this is just making -your- world more the way you want it, while
restricting others freedom of judgement.
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> : So we should all drive small, lightweight easily deformed vehicles with very
> : good brakes and wimpy motors. After all, that would probably reduce
> : injuries. If I hit a child with that rather than my very large and heavy
> : full size pickup, surely they would be more likely to survive?
>
> I think the point is: if you want to go to a firing range, fine.
> However, don't walk around with a loaded gun, with the safety off
> in the middle of a shopping centre. Are you saying that this is
> okay - and that if you shot a child under these circumstances, you
> could say "accidents do happen" and walk away.
Whoa! That's what you think the point is? You compare the use of bull
bars to shooting a child in a shopping center? I hate to be offensive in
arguments, but that's a load of mental master(de)bation.
> Exactly - if you could guarantee that you will never be at fault in an
> accident involving a pedestrian, I wouldn't mind you having bull
> bars. Care to stake your life on that? Someone else's?
Can you -guarantee- banning bull bars will save so many lives that its
worth the liberty restriction? Would you stake your life on -that-?
There are no guarentees in life.
> DoT research figures posted here say they are. I have not seen any
> evidence countering this.
Figures stated 40 deaths annually were attributable to bull bars. I
think we have examine how this number was determined. If that is the
number of deaths in ANY case involving a bull bar, then the number is
invalid. One would have to PROVE that the individual would have lived if
there was not a bull bar - its not really enough to say there would have
been less damage. You could say that about any number of differently
shaped vehicles.
> Stuart
> --
> Even if this isn't a figment of your imagination, and even if GEC would agree
> with what I said, which is not what I mean anyway, which I didn't write (I
> left myself logged on), which they won't, I wouldn't want them to, but it is.
Well that's a relief.
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> Living in Berkshire we get a lot of deer wandering around on our roads late at
> night. I know of several occasions where deer have been hit at high speeds
> (usually by small family saloon cars) and although the deer didn't normally
> come out of this sort of encounter too well, the damage to the cars was really
> quite minimal considering the size of the animal. Deer tend to fold up when
> hit and this reduces any physical damage to the vehicle and its occupants. In
> the UK you're not going to hit anything much larger than a deer and bull bars
> are almost completely unnecessary. For the US the situation where bull bars
> apply should be different, but only where the animals involved are moose
> rather than deer sized.
I would rather not hit a deer, but if it happens I surely don't want to
do thousands (easily) of dollars in damage. A deer may be forced into
the winshield, but in any case I (anyone) should have the right to
protect my vehicle with a good bumper.
> I can't help but come back to the idea of having bull bars with quick release
> mountings. This would allow you your freedom to put bull bars on when you
> were going out into really rough country but also allow you to pull over to
> the side of the road when reentering more civilised climes and unclip the
> thing and put it in the back of your 4x4.
>
NOT practical, think about it.
Kerry
Jim O'Neill
> I've lived in several parts of the UK, and I have never ever heard of someone
> being injured because some large animal ran into them (or whatever).
Again, I have seen the damage caused by a bull on the rampage.
The car (a Land-Rover [without BB's]) was a total write off and the
person driving was seriously injured. To get him out of the vehicle the
top of the LR had to be cut off and most of the side cut away.
For those of you who live in your comfortable towns/cities and come out into
the country for a weekend. You just don't see the true picture.
Still saying, this accident _was_ a '1-in-a-million' and I it is the only
one I know of round here, although there have been countless accidents this
is the only one I know of where the cars occupants (& peds) were injured.
The only other thing I would like to say, is, that most animals do a fair
bit of damage to whatever they hit.
--
Jim O'Neill - Oops lost my sig! <g>
Kerry L. Embry
>
> I understand exactly what you are getting at. I just don't agree with
> you. Do you expect children to take full adult responsibilty for their
> actions, and for society to make no provision for the fact that they
> can not? If I were to hit a child I would get no reassurance from
> the fact that the child might not have been paying sufficient attention.
> I would have hit a child, and if my vehicle was equipped with a device
> which made that child less likely to survive I could not console
> myself with the thought that he/she shouldn't have been in the way. Nor
> I suspect would you.
In the case of a child, a truck (and most cars) will throw them aside or
to the ground and cause suck extensive damage that a bull bar would make
little difference anyway. The steel that came from the factory, already
on my truck would scarcely dent if hit by a 100lb child - bull bar or
no. Any sane person would feel terrible about hitting a person.
>
> There is an inequality of risk on the road also which you do not consider.
> Yes, all road users must take responsibility for their safety, but
> it is the duty of those who will cause the greatest damage to look
> out for those who are not protected. If I make a mistake on my bike
> I could die, if a motorist makes a mistake then again, it is me that
> is most likely to die. As we also have responsibilty for the safety
> of those with whom we share the road it is only reasonable that we
> all try to minimise the consequnces of an accident should it happen.
> I assume you have no problem with measures which protect the driver
> of a vehicle: air bags, bumpers, side impact bars, seat belts etc.
> Why then do you wish to absolve yourself from having any responsibilty
> for those outside the vehicle?
I do not absolve myself from any such responsibilty. I do not feel it is
my responsibility to fit my truck with plastic people gaurds either -
they would quickly be wasted on an immovable slab of granite while
traveling off the road (accidents happen there too). For my truck, an
ounce of prevention may consist of a 150lb bumper - yes, I understand
this carries an added responsibility. I freely accept it, you don't have
to see this as a threat unless I go driving around like an idiot.
> I really don't think that removing dangerous bars on public roads is
> more of an infringement of your "rights" than you could bear. Certainly
> equiping your vehicle in such a way as to increase the danger for others
> is an infringement of their freedom. Certainly within Europe there is
> absolutely no need for BBs on most vehicles, and it is getting more
> and more likely that they will be banned. If you would accept the, not
> very difficult idea, that BBs are dangerous, and that it is therefore
> right to do something about them, then we could have a more constructive
> discussion on how off-road vehicles, and those with a genuine animal
> problem, can be protected without compromising the safety of more
> vulnerable road users. I am NOT saying that people at risk from deer
> or moose can not protect themselves, but I do think their numbers are
> small enough for us to find a safer solution.
I really don't think adding a bull bar is -so- (if any) much danger that
you couldn't find some kind of comprimise other than complete banning.
For instance, why couldn't there be a higher fine for speeding with such
equipment?
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
> >
> ult?
> > > Jo
> >
> > That's very unfortunate, but has little to do with the arguement. You
> > see, I don't contend that accidents don't happen - I said that people
> > should learn to avoid accidents. Don't get defensive, I mean especially
> > drivers like the one who hit your brother. I don't believe you will save
> > more lives than you endager by bull bar elimination. Ya know, Jo?
> >
> > Kerry
> >
>
> 1 If accidents happen why can't we try to reduce their effect?
You can, but I disagree with this method.
> 2 It is likely that Jo's brother would have received more serious
> injuries if the car had bull bars. I doubt the fact that it was not
> his fault would be any consolation.
Obviously not.
> 3 It should be bloody obvious that BBs will cause more serious
> injuries than a conventional bumper. Even if you don't accept the
> (official UK Transport Research Lab) figures quoted by Dr Vanke just
> think about physics. Bars represent a small inelastic collision
> cross section. The energy of the impact will be delivered quickly
> to the body rather than being more slowly dissipated in a crash with
> a more conventional vehicle front. It is exactly the same as being hit
> by a baseball bat rather than a plank. Which would you rather?
Does the plank have a nail in it? Seriously, I understand the
difference so I'll answer; the bat. The reason I say this is I'd rather
be hit by a bat than to have bats outlawed just because someone thought
they might be dangerous if misused.
> 5 Don't expect me to beleive that the numbers of deaths through
> unprotected animal collisons would equal the number of deaths avoided
> by banning BBs, In Britain such things are almost unheard of, and in
> any case i am sure we could find a better way to protect the minority
> of motorists who are at risk.
>
In Brittan, possibly. In the US, I disagree.
Kerry
Peter Gaunt
phil....@bra0102.wins.icl.co.uk (Phil Pinel) wrote:
>In article
><Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>I don't contend that accidents don't happen - I said that people
>>should learn to avoid accidents.
>Fine. So avoid that accident with the 1000lb moose and take your bull bars
>off your vehicle.
Quite. I should have thought that if there are moose/rhinos/wildebeest
around it would be the driver's responsibility to drive more slowly and
carefully to avoid hitting them in the first place. Or do they simply
materialise out of nowhere?
--
Pete
====
Paul Thomas
buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu "James A. Bucklew" writes:
> solution is obviously to ban them!! I'm fucking glad I don't live
> in Britian,
I'm glad you don't live here either.
--
Paul
/*------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Paul Thomas ******** email : Pa...@tmsl.demon.co.uk */
/*------------------------------------------------------*/
Jim O'Neill
phil....@bra0102.wins.icl.co.uk "Phil Pinel" writes:
> I can't help but come back to the idea of having bull bars with quick release
> mountings. This would allow you your freedom to put bull bars on when you
> were going out into really rough country but also allow you to pull over to
> the side of the road when reentering more civilised climes and unclip the
> thing and put it in the back of your 4x4.
Erm, Do you know how heavy a standard BB is?, Do U want to try lifting one
off your vehicle? Exactly where am I going to put this BB supposing I get
a removable one? I may have an injured animal in the back of the LR...
How do I fit the animal (or feed or whatever) in the back as well as the BB?
A BB is designed for it's rigidity, therefore the fixings would have to be
rigid and strong, and large to support the weight. It is impractible to
have a quick release BB. You would have an insecure BB that would be about
as much use to my vehicle as cling-film.
It comes back round to the point, that the main problem is these yuppies
buying a BB for pose value. I would think that if only people who
needed a BB (eg Farmers/Forestry Wardens etc) used them, you'd hardly
see them in any large towns/cities....
--
Jim O'Neill - My Sig got deleted 8-(
Kemasa
Jonathan Abbott <aaua...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>Now I realise that this is very emotive issue and that everyone has an
>opinion all of them valid (even Huckleberry's) but has it been noticed
>all of those who are pro-bull bars are American and those arguing for
>their use only in certain places are British.
Arguging for their use? Try arguing against banning them. There is
a BIG difference. Perhaps is it just a matter of freedom.
>...
>Is not America 'the land of the
>free' also the land of large scale gun homicides, which unlike bull bars
>are seriously regulated in the U.K (compare percentage of gun related
>deaths in the two countries)
>...
Why do you make a distiction in how a person is killed? Murder rates
are higher elsewhere, but the criminals don't use guns. Every society
is different I hear that the rape rate are higher in Europe, is that
something the US should try to improve?
>...
A truck is more dangerous that a sloping front Ferrari so perhaps
we should only allow Ferraris on the road (with a small engine).
--
Kemasa.
Just because the Net makes it easy to be obnoxious without feeling the
consequences doesn't mean we should give in to the temptation to be
rude!! - April H. Olberding
Kemasa
>...
>Wales on Sunday, a tabloidish paper, is campaigning against bull bars on
A tabloid paper is the cause of all this? Not a safety group? Hmmm,
I wonder what the paper get out of such a ban :-)
>safety grounds. Speaking from memory (my old copies of WoS currently in
>a recycling bin), one particular point of concern is that bull bars are at head
>height for children; with a fast moving car, obviously, it makes no difference
>but when a car is moving slowly a normal, crumpling bumper gives the child a
>chance, while a rigid bull bar doesn't.
A crumpling bumper? Are you serious? Go check out how soft normal
bumpers are and unless you have a different type of bumper over
there I think you will find that this is not much difference.
As was mentioned there are now more 4x4 on the road and perhaps this
is the cause and not they BB they happen to have.
John Stumbles
> Marcus Jones (M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk) has wisely observed:
---<snip .. good point about getting accurate & genuine statistics .. >---
> Another approach is to resolve the problem of pedestrians being hit. I
> agree with a previous poster who said "Call me a stupid american but isn't
> the real problem here people getting hit by cars?" If all the effort which
> is being spent on trying to outlaw bull bars were spent on trying to
> reduce vechicle/pedestrian accidents I think you'd see better results.
>
> After all, if the aim is to save the lives of pedestrians/bicyclists/etc
> then the reduction of collisions is the optimal path. Not changing the
> configuration of what they get hit with.
in an ideal world, yes, but on Planet Earth pedestrians and cyclists _do_
get hit by cars, for all sorts of reasons too various to deal with
thoroughly, and _as well as_ trying to reduce the causes it helps to
reduce the severity when it does happen. Over the years the design of the
front ends of most cars has changed, away from big strong squarish bonnets
(often with fancy decorations on them) that do a lot of damage to
pedestrians on impact, towards relatively weak, curved, smooth designs
that do less damage (maim rather than kill outright :-). Bull bars
represent a reversal of this trend and are a Bad Thing (IMO).
At the weekend I saw one fitted as an add-on to a builder's pickup truck:
it was called Bodyguard, and presumably was intended to reduce the risk of
damage to lights and frond-end trim in the sort of parking-by-touch
situation particularly common on and around building sites.
Understandable, and I wonder, if the builder been aware of the damage they
can do to people, whether he'd still have had it fitted? Maybe - after all
most drivers think they'll never be involved in a collision with a
pedestrian in which the BB would make the person's injuries worse or
fatal. Probably the incentive of not losing no-claims or having to pay
car manufacturers' rip-off prices for replacement parts would sway him to
keep them.
Likewise the owners of pose-mobiles would not think they'd be responsible
for killing or injuring someone with their BBs, and wouldn't want to
trouble their tiny brains with getting them removed (OK I don't like
yuppies :-).
I suspect a campaign is necessary. What about Consumers' Association
(Which? magazine) - they're usually pretty hot on vehicle safety issues
(even for consumers outside the vehicles they're testing :-)
John Stumbles http://www.reading.ac.uk/~suqstmbl/jds.html
Computer Services Centre j.d.st...@reading.ac.uk
University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AF 01734 318435
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Phil Pinel
swa...@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Stephen Walker) wrote:
>The idea of automatically attributing blame to the most protected party is
>silly. If I throw myself in front of a train, does that make it the train
>driver's fault, because he won't get hurt?
>Steve.
No I'd never suggest that. However, the trains are a rather different kettle
of fish. They take a long time to slow down (they can brake much faster than
they do but this would throw the passengers around a lot) and the drivers are
given training (at least in the UK) to watch out for signs of people throwing
themselves onto the line. There also isn't a steering wheel inside the
driver's cab which makes swerving out of the way rather tricky.
Besides I thought we were talking about accidents. Suicide is an act
committed by the one throwing him/herself onto the track. Besides, it's also
an offence, so after the railways peel you off the track, they could get the
Transport Police to prosecute you ;-) (a successful prosecution for suicide
must be really difficult).
Phil Pinel
<Pine.HPP.3.91.95063...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
>
>> Living in Berkshire we get a lot of deer wandering around on our roads late
at
>> night. I know of several occasions where deer have been hit at high speeds
>> (usually by small family saloon cars) and although the deer didn't normally
>> come out of this sort of encounter too well, the damage to the cars was
>> really quite minimal considering the size of the animal. Deer tend to
>> fold up when hit and this reduces any physical damage to the vehicle and
>> its occupants. In the UK you're not going to hit anything much larger than
>> a deer and bull bars are almost completely unnecessary. For the US the
>> situation where bull bars apply should be different, but only where the
>> animals involved are moose rather than deer sized.
>
>I would rather not hit a deer, but if it happens I surely don't want to
>do thousands (easily) of dollars in damage. A deer may be forced into
>the winshield, but in any case I (anyone) should have the right to
>protect my vehicle with a good bumper.
I have never heard of a deer in the UK being projected up into the windscreen
before. They are far too small for that.
>> I can't help but come back to the idea of having bull bars with quick
release
>> mountings. This would allow you your freedom to put bull bars on when you
>> were going out into really rough country but also allow you to pull over to
>> the side of the road when reentering more civilised climes and unclip the
>> thing and put it in the back of your 4x4.
>>
>NOT practical, think about it.
I have thought about it. I too would have questioned the physics of it had I
not been exposed to similar devices on the railways. In the UK a company
called Pandrol manufactures a very complicated little clip which sits on a
railway sleeper and allows very fast construction of railway tracks. They
have been tested against most forms of stress (compression, twisting etc.) and
seem to be the darling of Railtrack at the moment (see what living with a
trainspotter gets you - ah well, everyone needs a hobby I suppose). The clip
itself isn't a problem. If putting a muddy great bar of steel inside your
vehicle still bothers you then don't drive through mud (or carry a jerry can
of water to clean it first).
Again, please note that I'm not really addressing my anti-BB comments to the
USA. The RAC (from which this discussion originated) is a purely UK operation
and don't yet have plans for world domination. Personal freedoms must be
always balanced against social responsibility - but this latter point changes
for each country. After all there are laws regarding fitting snow chains in
Nordic countries which wouldn't be terribly appropriate in Barbados.
Shaun C. Murray
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu says...
>be cautious will do far better than removing strong bumpers. What about
>the person driving a small pickup truck that strikes a moose or deer?
That moose or deer you hit could quite easily have been a child standing
in the road or perhaps even a horse rider. If you didn't have time to
stop you were going too fast.
Shaun
Chris Malcolm
>You are using false logic. You anti-bullbar people have yet to show a
>*scientific* study that shows bullbars cause more problems than the same
>collision without.
The study has already been done by the DoT, using instrumented crash
dummies. The publication of that report, widely mentioned in the
national press, the radio and TV news, *and* this newsgroup, is what
started this whole discussion in the first place. In sum the study
predicted that bull-bars would increase the damage of a 20mph
collision with a pedestrian to that of a 30mph collision without bars,
i.e., mild unjuries would become major injuries, major injuries would
become fatal injuries. Studies to collect road accident data have now
begun. The preliminary studies which now exist, such as the RAC one,
are too small to be conclusive on their own, but they do conform to
the predictions made by the DoT crash dummy study.
BTW, the DoT study did investigate the difference between being hit a
bull bars and being hit by a hard vertical surface (e.g. front of
lorry). Bars cause much more serious injuries because they break
bones at lower impact speeds, because the impact is concentrated on a
few points of impact, instead of being spread over the body.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" -- Paul Valery
Nick Barnes
European issue. Please don't pollute it with articles which are only
relevant to the US. If you have never been to Europe, then with all
due respect you do not have much of value to contribute to the thread.
To restate, for the 100th time:
1. In the UK, bull-bars are never needed on the road. They are hardly
ever needed off-road.
2. The vast majority of 4x4s in the UK _never_ leave the road.
3. Most UK 4x4s do have bull-bars, because they are seen as a trendy
fashion accessory ("... by the sad fashion victims who are buying
these vehicles in the first place" he added under his breath).
4. A recent study shows that these bars contribute significantly to
the risk of death or injury to perestrians and cyclists. This report
is supported by common sense and anecdotal evidence.
Nick Barnes, speaking for himself
IAN GODBER
bull bars on my bike for getting 'round all the cattle I come across in the
middle of Dundee these days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@
>That moose or deer you hit could quite easily have been a child standing
>in the road or perhaps even a horse rider. If you didn't have time to
>stop you were going too fast.
I'll say once again 'Speed kills not bumpers' ...
- huckleberry
Jo Fay
>
>For those of you who live in your comfortable towns/cities and come out into
>the country for a weekend. You just don't see the true picture.
>Still saying, this accident _was_ a '1-in-a-million' and I it is the only
>one I know of round here, although there have been countless accidents this
>is the only one I know of where the cars occupants (& peds) were injured.
>The only other thing I would like to say, is, that most animals do a fair
>bit of damage to whatever they hit.
>
I've been living in North Essex for months, and haven't seen so much as one cow
in a field (despite driving past a lot every day). Yet on Saturday I saw 2
4x4s with bull bars in one little car park. What's their justification? They
obviously would increase injuries in the way the studies have shown, because
the 2 vehicles had nice sloping fronts behind the bull bars.
What's more, the bread delivery at work comes in a tiny van with a bull bar,
but you'll never persuade me that _thats_ an offroad vehicle!
Slightly different point - If your vehicle gets damaged from an animal impact
you can claim on your insurance. If a child gets killed by an impact with a
bull bar when they oculld otherwise have survived, no amount of insurance will
replace that child's life. Protecting your property at the expense of
someone's
life is infringement of their rights. Surely there are other ways of
protecting the occupants of the vehicle without increasing the risk to life of
others? (like air bags, and crumple zones).
Please note these are UK arguments against bull bars in the UK, where they are
largely unnecessary.
Jo
Stephen Walker
>From: imgo...@biolsci.dundee.ac.uk (IAN GODBER)
>Subject: Re: Anti Bull Bar Campaign
>Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 16:02:39 GMT
>it's amazing the amount of times I've wished I had a cycling equivelent of
>bull bars on my bike for getting 'round all the cattle I come across in the
>middle of Dundee these days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't know it was mushroom season already. You shouldn't ride while under
the influence of hallucinogens.....
Steve.
|"He uses statistics-----| Steve Walker_________|
| as a drunken man-------|swa...@wpo.nerc.ac.uk|
|uses lamp-posts---------|Of course they're_____|
|for support-------------|*my* opinions-________|
|rather than illumination|sod off and___________|
|Andrew Lang-------------|get your own._________|
Kerry L. Embry
> I appreciate that Americans may like to think big, but just saving one life
> should be worthwhile.
At the expense of eroding every liberty and freedom one by one? No way.
It may sound cliche, but I will live free or die. Saving lives is a
worthy cause, but in this case it is shielding a weaker one. You can
pick away at every risk you find in life, and you will pick away freedoms
along with them. Where will you stop if a solid bumper is your "life
saving cause?"
Kerry
Kerry L. Embry
> >I'm not convinced banning bull bars would protect anyone in all but very
> >special cases. Certainly not 100% of the time.
>
> No. But it would convert some deaths into casualties,
> and some casualties into minor accidents.
> If it was you or your child, I'm sure you wouldn't find
> much solice in the fact that you/they were a one in a
> million victim of someones vanity.
Vanity? A bumper is vanity? My solid bumper is there for protection - it
certainly isn't that damn pretty.
> >> I belive that everyone should have the freedom to kill
> >> *themselves* through crap driving (or whatever), but
> >> others should be protected.
> >
> >As I mentioned (and someone else I believe) in another post, you are
> >failing to see the danger of large animals jumping in front of vehicles
> >traveling at high speeds. Do you know what kind of damage that does?
>
> Yes, I do actually.
> But, if they did hit a large animal at _high_speeds_ the
> vehicle would come of very badly, BUT the *driver* (and
> passengers) would come of _much_ better than if they had
> bull-bars.
> Bull-bars are designed to be used at low speeds or to move
> light objects. Not high speeds to move heavy objects.
> In such a situation the occupants of the vehicle would come
> off better without the bars because modern vehicles are
> designed with crumple zones for just such impacts with
> large heavy objects. The bars would transmit much more
> shock into the vehicle and the occupants and could cause
> severe whip-lash.
No, vehicle crumple zones are designed for collisions with other vehicles
or solid walls, not large animals. Large animals can roll right over your
hood and into your lap - squish, you become the crumple zone. At the
very least, more damage will be incurred to the vehicle without a heavy
bumper.
Kerry L. Embry
> Again, please note that I'm not really addressing my anti-BB comments to the
> USA. The RAC (from which this discussion originated) is a purely UK operation
> and don't yet have plans for world domination. Personal freedoms must be
> always balanced against social responsibility - but this latter point changes
> for each country. After all there are laws regarding fitting snow chains in
> Nordic countries which wouldn't be terribly appropriate in Barbados.
Flutter-flap-flap. A white flag falls somewhere between North America
and the UK. If I ever ship my Jeep over there, I'll put my stock bumpers
back on. We don't really have any basis for an argument do we?
Happy Trails, er roads.
Kerry
Paul Smee
>or solid walls, not large animals. Large animals can roll right over your
>hood and into your lap - squish, you become the crumple zone.
Fine, however, the probability of your finding an animal of that size
loose on the road in the UK is, approximately, 0. The British killed
off all their large animals centuries ago. The discussion is about
bull bars in the UK, and in the UK they are, 99% of the time, pure
vanity items.
Kerry L. Embry
> In article <3t0hb3$jg_...@bra01.icl.co.uk>,
> phil....@bra0102.wins.icl.co.uk (Phil Pinel) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.HPP.3.91.950629...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
> > "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
> >>I don't contend that accidents don't happen - I said that people
> >>should learn to avoid accidents.
>
> >Fine. So avoid that accident with the 1000lb moose and take your bull bars
> >off your vehicle.
>
> Quite. I should have thought that if there are moose/rhinos/wildebeest
> around it would be the driver's responsibility to drive more slowly and
> carefully to avoid hitting them in the first place. Or do they simply
> materialise out of nowhere?
>
Just about.
Jim O'Neill
> I've been living in North Essex for months, and haven't seen so much as one cow
> in a field (despite driving past a lot every day). Yet on Saturday I saw 2
> 4x4s with bull bars in one little car park. What's their justification? They
> obviously would increase injuries in the way the studies have shown, because
> the 2 vehicles had nice sloping fronts behind the bull bars.
Well, I see about 200 every day.
>
> What's more, the bread delivery at work comes in a tiny van with a bull bar,
> but you'll never persuade me that _thats_ an offroad vehicle!
I have (I think) made it clear I am against this. I believe BB's should _NOT_
be fitted to vehicles such as Ford Escorts, and these crummy little pickups.
>
> Slightly different point - If your vehicle gets damaged from an animal impact
> you can claim on your insurance. If a child gets killed by an impact with a
> bull bar when they oculld otherwise have survived, no amount of insurance will
> replace that child's life. Protecting your property at the expense of
> someone's
> life is infringement of their rights. Surely there are other ways of
> protecting the occupants of the vehicle without increasing the risk to life of
> others? (like air bags, and crumple zones).
Look. I work in the countryside. I do have BB's because I have a much greater
chance of coming across a maurading bull than coming across a pedestrian
round here. There are no footpaths on the road and most people use footpaths
to the local town because they are more direct then following the road.
Tractors are much more in abundance round here and please tell me what
you'd rather be hit by. A tractor with an implement on the front or a
LR with BullBars.
>
> Please note these are UK arguments against bull bars in the UK, where they are
> largely unnecessary.
I reside in the UK, although I sometimes wonder whether London is in the same
country.
Again, as with most things, a bunch of do-gooders lump everybody who has a BB
in the same basket.
IF YOU ARE HIT BY A LANDROVER, YOU WILL BE SEVERELY INJURED. WHETHER OR NOT
BULL BARS ARE FITTED. A Land Rover front end is VERY unforgiving to anything.
--
Jim O'Neill
Jim O'Neill
> Fine, however, the probability of your finding an animal of that size
> loose on the road in the UK is, approximately, 0. The British killed
> off all their large animals centuries ago. The discussion is about
> bull bars in the UK, and in the UK they are, 99% of the time, pure
> vanity items.
A holstein bull is pretty damn big.
--
Jim O'Neill
Phil Pinel
and I'll say it again from the DoT statistics. 'Speed kills, but Bull Bars
enable you to kill at lower speeds'
Phil Pinel
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950703...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
Since this is being cross-posted to a cycling group, may I say "The Motor
Car"?
Phil Pinel
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950703...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
"Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>and the UK. If I ever ship my Jeep over there, I'll put my stock bumpers
>back on. We don't really have any basis for an argument do we?
>Happy Trails, er roads.
>Kerry
>
Enjoy your driving (hope it's moose-free) ;)
Phil