Brush/Grille Guards: A Dangerous Fad?
jcm1
saying they are dangerous because in an accident they may inhibit the
operation of sensors involved in the deployment of air bags.
Additionally, he implied that they can turn minor accidents into major
ones by damaging parts not directly involved in the crash (i.e, a bump
on the lower side of the front-end can result in the hood being
damaged). Can anyone attest to the accuracy of these claims? Or are
there better designed brush/grille guards that avoid these problems?
Bruce Burden
:
: An SUV salesman recently discouraged my interest in brush/grille guards,
: saying they are dangerous because in an accident they may inhibit the
: operation of sensors involved in the deployment of air bags.
As with most things, not all grille guards were created
equally.
:
: Additionally, he implied that they can turn minor accidents into major
: ones by damaging parts not directly involved in the crash (i.e, a bump
To look at most of the grille only guards, I would think
that he is right on that call. Since most of the slap-on-gee-
lookie-what-a-tough-fur-by-fur-I-got types, the main mounting
point is underneath the (stock) bumper, with some type of flat
strap over the bumper to provide "support". This looks like an
excellent way for the grill guard to mangle the hood, to me.
:
: there better designed brush/grille guards that avoid these problems?
:
There are winch mount bumper/grille guard systems that look
to be much more rigid, and less likely to mangle things. Some
of them are certified for use in air-bag equipped vehicles. So,
the question is, what are you looking for - a useful accessory
or "a look"? (Sorry, not to imply there is anything wrong with
"a look", if that is what you want).
If it is "a look" you are after, a solid winch mount bumper
is probably overkill. If it is a useful accessory you are
after, the winch mount bumper might be just the ticket. Realize,
however, you will be replacing the bumper... :-)
I think the problem with some winch mount bumpers is they
reinforce the frame in areas where airbag sensors are located,
which may hinder their operation. The brush guard thingys may
not add any additional beef to the frame in these areas, so
they don't affect the sensors operation.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
LUCKYLASER
Additionally, he implied that they can turn minor accidents into major
: ones by damaging parts not directly involved in the crash (i.e, a bump
To this question, my mom backed our 92 Explore into the truck, Caused 1,500
damage to the Explorer , Only scratched the grill guard, So the possible thret
that the grill guards pose by messing up sensors in well worth the Protectin
they give, Think of it as cheap insurance.
Brian Stafford
torste...@hotmail.com
typical grille guard found on SUVs, and a winch mount that is securely bolted
to the frame.
You can twist and flex most grille guards with one hand, but you should be
able to lift the entire truck using the winch mount.
That being said, I wouldn't expect much protection from a grille guard during
a collision. Even a minor fender-bender is going to pretzel it, but I can
tell you from personal experience that the same doesn't happen to winch
mounts. Someone cut me off one morning (luckily there were witnesses), and
while the trunk of the Honda was pushed in at the left corner, my bumper and
Warn Trans4mer had only scratches. His damage was in the four-digits, mine I
could take care of using touch-up paint...
Cheers!
In article <19990106233734...@ng-fd2.aol.com>,
lucky...@aol.com (LUCKYLASER) wrote:
> My dad has a Warn multi-mount ( Winch/Brush guard), on his F-250
>
> Additionally, he implied that they can turn minor accidents into major
> : ones by damaging parts not directly involved in the crash (i.e, a bump
>
> To this question, my mom backed our 92 Explore into the truck, Caused 1,500
> damage to the Explorer , Only scratched the grill guard, So the possible
thret
> that the grill guards pose by messing up sensors in well worth the Protectin
> they give, Think of it as cheap insurance.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bob Davis
and brush guards were impacted. Both times the guards prevented damage to
the body of my vehicle that would have occured if they were not there. It
is easier to repair/replace or repaint a guard than do body work to the main
body of your vehicle.
I am sure in some instances, though, they can do more harm than good but I
wouldn't let this dissuade you from getting one if you want one. The best
advice, I've learned, is try not to get into accidents in the first place.
My vehicle does not have air bags so I can't comment on how the guards may
or may not effect the sensors.
jcm1 wrote:
> An SUV salesman recently discouraged my interest in brush/grille guards,
> saying they are dangerous because in an accident they may inhibit the
> operation of sensors involved in the deployment of air bags.
> Additionally, he implied that they can turn minor accidents into major
> ones by damaging parts not directly involved in the crash (i.e, a bump
> on the lower side of the front-end can result in the hood being
> damaged). Can anyone attest to the accuracy of these claims? Or are
Greg van der Reis
I think that you must decide why you are going to mount one on your vehicle.
In South Africa as in many other countries accessories are mounted to make
the vehicle look COOL and so if you are going to be working offroad a lot it
is nice to mount a bush guard as it protects the vehicle against dings and
scratches as well as connecting small animals that happen to run in front of
you.
People survived accidents before air bags so I would not be too concerned.
Greg
jcm1 wrote in message <36942613...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>...
sbest
And lots of people died before air bags too!
A good idea to check out how mods or accessories might affect safety
systems although I can't see any problem from a brush guard affecting
the air bag, myself.
Steve Best, Nova Scotia,
4x4 van website:
http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
davesomers@worldnet
I've received from the manufacturers re: air bags point out that the bag
is activiated by inertia, not by the collapse of the front end.
The truck would still be decelerating rapidly in a collision, thereby
activiating the bag. If the activation was dependent on the sensor
being displaced, it might never go off on a partial frontal collision.
JCS
sb...@glinx.com (sbest) wrote:
>>Greg
>>jcm1 wrote in message <36942613...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>An SUV salesman recently discouraged my interest in brush/grille guards,
>>>saying they are dangerous because in an accident they may inhibit the
>>>operation of sensors involved in the deployment of air bags.
>>>Additionally, he implied that they can turn minor accidents into major
>>>ones by damaging parts not directly involved in the crash (i.e, a bump
>>>on the lower side of the front-end can result in the hood being
>>>damaged). Can anyone attest to the accuracy of these claims? Or are
>>>there better designed brush/grille guards that avoid these problems?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:39:41 +0200, "Greg van der Reis"
><off...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>
>>Regarding the bush guards.
>>
>>I think that you must decide why you are going to mount one on your
vehicle.
>>
>>In South Africa as in many other countries accessories are mounted to make
>>the vehicle look COOL and so if you are going to be working offroad a lot
it
>>is nice to mount a bush guard as it protects the vehicle against dings and
>>scratches as well as connecting small animals that happen to run in front
of
>>you.
>>
>>People survived accidents before air bags so I would not be too concerned.
>>
>
>
> And lots of people died before air bags too!
And alot of people will die becouse of air bags. Air bags just made a few
people their millino $$$$$ over night. They are all cozy and comfortable in
life now and we are still paying for it. If you could not tell, I disagree
with air bags. They money and energy put into air bags could be put to
providing drivers training on these people that can't drive nor know what
tailgatting is. Instead of trying to find ways of protecting these fools,
how about finding ways to prevent these fools from becoming fools. This
isn't from modifying the vehicle, it's from the one who drives it. Have you
ever heard the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?" That is
true. It takes a person to load that weapon. It takes a person to start that
engine, place it in gear and guide it out into the road with a few thousand
other people in cars. Cars don't cause accidents, people cause accidents.
Following too close, drive too fast for conditions because they are in a
hurry instead of just leaving a little earlier to give themselfs time, lack
of maintenance, lack of common sence, etc. I can go on for a very long time.
People are hung up on all these safety features. The best safety feature is
the DRIVER. Work on that one.
(Pete Cresswell)
>I'm not an air-bag engineer, but as a rescue technician...
Assuming that "rescue technician" means you see the results of accidents, what's
your take on the efficacy of airbags?
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
Willem-Jan Markerink
"davesomers@worldnet" <daves...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'm not an air-bag engineer, but as a rescue technician, the materials
>I've received from the manufacturers re: air bags point out that the bag
>is activiated by inertia, not by the collapse of the front end.
>The truck would still be decelerating rapidly in a collision, thereby
>activiating the bag. If the activation was dependent on the sensor
>being displaced, it might never go off on a partial frontal collision.
>
>
>jcm1 wrote:
>>
>> saying they are dangerous because in an accident they may inhibit the
>> operation of sensors involved in the deployment of air bags.
Some 4x4's have a crushbox (and/or extra G-sensor, not sure) just behind
the front bumper. This is the case with 80-series Land Cruiser (95
onwards), and the reason why aftermarket bumper manufacturers (TJM/ARB)
have supplied new crushboxes.
Note that there is a vast difference between an add-on grillguard (utterly
useless and weak pieces of steel, doing more damage to the entire front
with a side impact than without) and a full replacement winch bumper.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
davesomers@worldnet
effects. I have seen head on collisions with major autobody damage that
have involved "fly the helicopter" on the car without the airbags and
"you should go get checked out just to be sure" on the similarly damaged
airbag vehicle. I also regularly hear the patients say "If it wasn't
for the air bag, I would be fine" when they are complaining of brush
burns to the arms, dislocated fingers, or a broken nose or glasses. But
my opinion is that we would instead have been treating internal chest
and head injuries. Seems like a good trade to me.
[although, some good defensive driving would also be wonderful...]
Willem-Jan Markerink
"davesomers@worldnet" <daves...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:
>>
>> Assuming that "rescue technician" means you see the results of
accidents, what's
>> your take on the efficacy of airbags?
>
>Yes, I've seen my share, and believe that they really do help reduce the
>effects. I have seen head on collisions with major autobody damage that
>have involved "fly the helicopter" on the car without the airbags and
>"you should go get checked out just to be sure" on the similarly damaged
>airbag vehicle. I also regularly hear the patients say "If it wasn't
>for the air bag, I would be fine" when they are complaining of brush
>burns to the arms, dislocated fingers, or a broken nose or glasses. But
>my opinion is that we would instead have been treating internal chest
>and head injuries. Seems like a good trade to me.
>[although, some good defensive driving would also be wonderful...]
>
Could you also relate this to 5-point seatbelts?
I have been told a German company makes an auto-retracting version
(probably only the two upper belts).
I often wonder whether a better upper-torso belt portion would avoid the
need for an airbag alltogether. This might come down to a controversy of
G-forces vs 'travelled distance', but seeing what extreme G-forces can be
survived in Formula-1 races (and other stiff-box/rigidly-attached
car/driver constellations), I keep on wondering....:-))
No, don't like helmets....;-))
sbest
>>
>> Assuming that "rescue technician" means you see the results of accidents, what's
>> your take on the efficacy of airbags?
On 13 Jan 1999 00:58:34 GMT, "davesomers@worldnet"
<daves...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yes, I've seen my share, and believe that they really do help reduce the
>effects. I have seen head on collisions with major autobody damage that
>have involved "fly the helicopter" on the car without the airbags and
>"you should go get checked out just to be sure" on the similarly damaged
>airbag vehicle. I also regularly hear the patients say "If it wasn't
>for the air bag, I would be fine" when they are complaining of brush
>burns to the arms, dislocated fingers, or a broken nose or glasses. But
>my opinion is that we would instead have been treating internal chest
>and head injuries. Seems like a good trade to me.
>[although, some good defensive driving would also be wonderful...]
>
It is a real shame that some of those "dislocated fingers, or a
broken nose or glasses" cases are going to be yakking to anyone who
will listen that "If it wasn't for the air bag, I would be fine" for
the next twenty years, swaying some more gullible unbelievers with
rumours and hearsay. They just don't get it.
Thanks Dave, for your experience and opinion on this.
Sal Amandar
(Pete Cresswell) wrote in message <3699220f...@news.earthlink.net>...
>davesomers@worldnet Said
>
>>I'm not an air-bag engineer, but as a rescue technician...
>
>Assuming that "rescue technician" means you see the results of accidents,
what's
>your take on the efficacy of airbags?
>Pete Cresswell
>
Alot of the brushguard/grillguard combos that you see on trucks/suv's today
are pretty flimsy. The heavy duty ones might inhibit the airbag from
deploying but any of the brush/grill guards that I've seen are pretty much a
comestic add-on. Especially the ones from the dealers. My .02c
Sal
davesomers@worldnet
who put a set in a Jeep and he failed NJ inspection for it! They
weren't on the 'approved' list, so they are therefore 'not-approved'.
I do know that on the track (we cover a local 5/8mile paved oval, street
stocks, modifieds & etc) and they certainly keep you in your place, but
the whole philosophy on the cars is much more "solid inpenetrable cage"
around the driver, and there is NO room for the driver to move around
without hitting something. Not at all like most street vehicles are
built. Modern street cars are usually designed to crush on impact,
which theoretically absorbs energy to reduce the amount transmitted to
the driver.
...Thinking about this a little more, most track collisions you see
extend for long distances. As the car disintegrates and bounces down
the track, it is bleeding off energy. The serious injuries tend to come
from the straight into the wall type crash (which luckily is less likely
by the track's design) or the T-bone of a stopped car. Sideways impacts
with vehicles travelling the same direction don't have as extreme a
difference in speed.
Street impacts more frequently involve the T-bone or head-on collisions
or large speed differences that DO cause the more serious injuries.
-longhair
Jake
what type of bumper/grille guard you install.
Sal Amandar wrote in message ...
jcm1
while back about pranksters bashing the front of police cars to trigger them.
Whether this is true I can't say but it at least sounds plausible.
Anyhow, I've since seen for myself the damage that mostly-cosmetic brush bars
can do to the front end of vehicles and my off-road needs do not justify a full
winch-replacement bumper for my brand-new Trooper. So I guess this is one fad I
can pass on.
sbest
wrote:
>I don't know about airbags being inertia activated since I remember stories a
>while back about pranksters bashing the front of police cars to trigger them.
>Whether this is true I can't say but it at least sounds plausible.
>Anyhow, I've since seen for myself the damage that mostly-cosmetic brush bars
>can do to the front end of vehicles and my off-road needs do not justify a full
>winch-replacement bumper for my brand-new Trooper. So I guess this is one fad I
>can pass on.
I can tell you for a fact that Ford Crown Victoria police cars have
3 "ball held by spring" inertial sensors to activate the air bag.
I own one and have the manuals for it. One sensor in the fender and
one of the ones in the bumper have to be bumped hard enough to
dislocate this ball to set off the airbag, no contact with the sensor
is necessary.
Miles Jack
Sal Amandar wrote in message ...
<snip>
>Alot of the brushguard/grillguard combos that you see on trucks/suv's today
>are pretty flimsy. The heavy duty ones might inhibit the airbag from
>deploying but any of the brush/grill guards that I've seen are pretty much
a
>comestic add-on. Especially the ones from the dealers. My .02c
>
>Sal
>
I've been reading this thread for a while and I'm surprised that no-one has
brought up the issue of safety for pedestrians (or if they did I missed it).
As I understand it, the reason why brush bars or bull bars are frowned on
and are now being legislated against in some countries is the risk they pose
to pedestrians in the event of a collision. Modern cars (not 4x4's) tend to
be designed so that if they hit a pedestrian, the victim will be scooped up
and land on the bonnet (hood) or windscreen or be thrown to one side -
painful for sure, but less likely to be fatal then either going under the
car or being thrown forward and run-over. This is the reason why Jaguar are
losing their leaping cat symbol and the Mercedes star has to bend
backwards - to prevent impalement. If you put bars on the front, you lose
this carefully designed ability and the pedestrian is more likely to be
killed or suffer more severe injuries in an accident.
This is one of the arguments used against 4x4's, the higher profile and
larger (usually squared) frontal area means that in a collision with a
pedestrian - particularly a child, the chances of the accident being fatal
are much higher than if it involved a normal saloon (all other things being
equal). Putting bars on the front will increase the risk further.
As most of these bars tend to be cosmetic - part of the whole 4x4 "image"
most manufacturers now provide plastic equivalents -- useless as a brush
guard, kangaroo puncher, or whatever, but far more pedestrian friendly.
Anybody considering these things should ask themselves whether they really
need them - they do have valid uses - but if it's just for the image, go
with plastic, or leave them off. The car you buy should come from the
manufacturer with all of the impact protection and design integrity that 95%
of users will ever need.
Miles
AngeloA17
shouldn't have run in front of my truck...sure I'll feel bad if I hit someone,
but the schmuck shoud have looked where they were going....and if it's a child
where are their parents?? I am sick of parents that leave their children
unattended and wonder why they were hit by cars!!...I don't speed through
streets where there are children...if anything I hold up traffic, but to say
that we should put plastic instead of the real thing on our truck is just dumb.
un...@my-dejanews.com
(Probably because I have/had 3" thick smitybilt bumpers on both my current TJ
and my old Bronco II.)
Does anyone know if any organizations or news services have done crash tests
on trucks/suvs to test the effectiveness of the bumper bars? If so I would
be interested in hearing/seeing the results. (Or where I could find out.)
Personally I know that the thick metal ones are somewhat effective. I had a
girl drive my bronco II through a shell station store and into a brick wall.
Caused lots of damage to the window/store/wall [in that order], but only a
1/4" thick dent in my front smitybilt bumper.
So anyone hear of any reports concerning these bars and how well they work?
Tim
Jim@worldnet
> As most of these bars tend to be cosmetic - part of the whole 4x4 "image"
> most manufacturers now provide plastic equivalents --
Why stop there? How about a fake plastic winch to go along with it?
With modern injection molded plastic, it could look quite real.
Of coarse, for it to be a REAL big seller, you would have to include
plenty of 4x4 decals.
Jim
torste...@hotmail.com
Have you looked at Ramsey ads lately? I'd say they are well on their way of
following up on your idea -- they are selling an image, rather than a product.
T.
In article <01be44aa$3a9f4c80$c5bc...@jimpetro.worldnet.att.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Neil Lyons
I would concede that you have a valid point, BUT you would have to statistically
analyze the cause of pedestrian injuries.
i.e. (1) how many involving SUV's as a proportion of vehicle traffic;
(2) is the number of pedestrian injuries disproportionate to the ratio of SUV's
on the road (Sheee-it! I can't stop my 3 tonne Suburban in time!);
(3) how many 'roo barred as opposed to un-barred SUV's cause injuries;
and so on. I could probably think of 20 other analyses necessary prior to
formulating any worthwhile conclusion.
Given your concerns for pedestrian safety, I have to advise that neither of my
cars (Holden Commodore and Jeep Cherokee) have 'roo bars fitted, but if (a) I
lived in the country or (b) did a lot of country mileage, I certainly would.
Putting it in the alternative, I have never hit a pedestrian, but by Christ I've
put 3 or 4 of Skippy's relatives to greener pastures!
Trouble is, if you hit at highway speeds one of Skippy's big relatives, which
stand at 6 foot, and weigh 100+ Kg, you can expect considerable and possibly
fatal damage.
'Roo bars are not necessarily a decoration where I come from!
All the best!
Neil Lyons.
Neil Lyons
Neil Lyons
Neil Lyons
Miles
Jim@worldnet wrote in message
<01be44aa$3a9f4c80$c5bc...@jimpetro.worldnet.att.net>...
>> Miles Jack wrote:
>> As most of these bars tend to be cosmetic - part of the whole 4x4 "image"
>> most manufacturers now provide plastic equivalents --
>
>Why stop there? How about a fake plastic winch to go along with it?
>With modern injection molded plastic, it could look quite real.
>Of coarse, for it to be a REAL big seller, you would have to include
>plenty of 4x4 decals.
>
image ;-)
Jake J
larry soo
[snip]
>I've been reading this thread for a while and I'm surprised that no-one has
>brought up the issue of safety for pedestrians (or if they did I missed it).
I know that's been an issue in the UK. IMO, it's ridiculous. I mean,
if that really is a serious consideration, they should be legislating
that automobiles come equipped with front air bags or have a 2-ft
thick piece of foam rubber mounted in front.
[snip]
>to pedestrians in the event of a collision. Modern cars (not 4x4's) tend to
>be designed so that if they hit a pedestrian, the victim will be scooped up
>and land on the bonnet (hood) or windscreen or be thrown to one side -
:-) You can't be serious. I haven't read of that being a consideration in design AT ALL.
None of the auto designs I've seen look like they would thrown someone
to the side.
>painful for sure, but less likely to be fatal then either going under the
>car or being thrown forward and run-over. This is the reason why Jaguar are
>losing their leaping cat symbol and the Mercedes star has to bend
>backwards - to prevent impalement. If you put bars on the front, you lose
The Jaguar cat "statue" is probably being removed because it's tacky.
As for the Mercedes star, I'll bet the main reason it's bendable is
the same as for why the mirrors can pop off...so they don't BREAK when
they encounter an obstacle.
[snip]
>This is one of the arguments used against 4x4's, the higher profile and
>larger (usually squared) frontal area means that in a collision with a
>pedestrian - particularly a child, the chances of the accident being fatal
>are much higher than if it involved a normal saloon (all other things being
>equal). Putting bars on the front will increase the risk further.
It's a ridiculous argument, IMO. What percentage of people are struck
by 4x4s to begin with? Has anyone actually compiled some statistics
on this matter? Is the infringement on personal expression
justifiable based on the numbers? Or is this another "if it saves
just one life, then it's worthwhile" cause?
I don't mean to insult you, Miles, but I've heard the argument to
which you're referring and it really infuriates me. I don't mean to
judge you at all, just responding to the argument.
...lars
Miles Jack
Neil Lyons wrote in message <36A6D01D...@gil.com.au>...
>
>All the best!
>
>Neil Lyons.
>
Definitely I agree with you Neil - having lived in Australia for a while, I
know the dangers that skippy & co can give, especially as Kangaroos tend to
stop directly in front of you when confronted by headlights. I agree that
roo-bars, bull-bars or whatever you want to call them have a valid
implementation. I think that the main concern is that you now see them on
family saloons, vans and other town-driving vehicles because people like the
image. In the UK and also in Cyprus where I now live, there just aren't any
animals large enough to justify their use. Unless someone really has a
serious off-road need or moronic marsupial neighbours, what reason is there
to fit these things? I would say that in most situations the reason is
cosmetic - all part of the image.
In that respect, consider the impact that the bar has on a kangaroo,
translate that to a small child and you can see the point. I wasn't
particularly pointing a finger at SUV's - the front of these vehicles is so
high and the mass of the vehicle so great that in most vehicle-pedestrian
accidents the presence of a bull bar isn't going to affect the outcome very
much. Incidentally, the British Government did come out with some figures
based on the the use of bars on normal road cars and these did show that
pedestrians died in accidents that they would have survived if bars hadn't
been fitted. Taking a life is a big price to pay for a fashion statement.
Miles
Scale666
>Taking a life is a big price to pay for a fashion statement.
>
I commute around 50 miles a day, I don't know what the meteric conversions are.
Anyway, I have been involved in 4 accidents, none of which were my fualt, just
morons issued a liscense who thought they could drive under my truck. I mean, I
have a 4 inch thick round tube bumper in the rear, filled with cement, I
personnaly made out of 12 guage steel. I also have the same up front with a
push guard, for pushing stuck trucks and whatever. I had one moron hit me going
35 miles and hour while I was standing still at a redlight, from behind. His
whole Ford was up to the windshield under my truck, they had to winch his car
out in order for me to drive away, because my rear wheels were 2-3 inches in
the air. Anyway, the lady in front of me was driving a brand new 1996 Lexus,
all that happened to her was my push bar made a slight indentation into her
trunk. If I had owned say a Geo, I probably would not be talking to you, or for
that matter the lady I tapped, she would of been pushed into rush hour traffic.
My truck has exhaust you can hear from about 1/2 a mile away at idle and 9
inches of lift and 38 inch swampers, really hard to miss. Yet, for some reason
people still continue to rearend me.
The point:
Perhaps you should re-tittle your post to: "How Brush/Grille Guards Save
Lives".
I dare you to have my commute and see if you won't build a similar truck. I
know for a fact having beefey bumpers has saved me alot of pain, if not death.
The best part is when the 2 people who rearended me at speed and totaled their
car just stared at me, scratched some of the paint off my bumper. BTW I was
sure to charge their insurance company for paint and my labor. The look on
their face was even better as I hopped in my truck and drove off while they
waited for a tow truck.
Phil
"Games Rednecks Play..."
Will
we each do what we can to protest ourselves first. If one person can not
afford or does not want a suv etc... then that does not mean that i should
buy a geo metro so they dont get too hurt if they rearend me.
Bottom line my first concern is for my family and myself if i can buy an
accesory or vehicle that will make them or me safer then i will and the law
be damned.
...You'll outlive the bastards.
-Edward Abbey
Mangey
If cars had real bumpers again then there would be a few less bullbars
needed.
Pat,
Keeper of the Mangeysaurus Rex,
Brisbane, Australia,
http://www.powerup.com.au/~mangey/ , ICQ# 25605741
76 Mange Rover, 97 Econovan, 83 Sigma, 86 Malvern Star 12 speed, Tiga Pro
MK1.
Spammers will recieve their spam back with my current collection.
Willem-Jan Markerink
"Miles Jack" <mj...@spidernet.com.cy> wrote:
>In that respect, consider the impact that the bar has on a kangaroo,
>translate that to a small child and you can see the point. I wasn't
>particularly pointing a finger at SUV's - the front of these vehicles is
so
>high and the mass of the vehicle so great that in most vehicle-pedestrian
>accidents the presence of a bull bar isn't going to affect the outcome
very
>much. Incidentally, the British Government did come out with some figures
>based on the the use of bars on normal road cars and these did show that
>pedestrians died in accidents that they would have survived if bars hadn't
As I recall, those British figures were based on artificial tests, not on
real world casualties. While most small cars drive a lot faster through
town than trucks and utility 4x4's. Same silly stuff with stopping
distances of 4x4 vs cars....a non-braindead 4x4 owner KNOWS that his
vehicle doesn't stop on a dime....just like a truck-driver knows that.
And the higher seating position of a 4x4 prevents more accidents (including
spotting pedestrians & bikers much earlier, *including* night vision) than
they cause otherwise in the first place.
Comparing apples with oranges isn't that hard....
Miles Jack
Scale666 wrote in message <19990123043025...@ng17.aol.com>...
>Perhaps...
>
>>Taking a life is a big price to pay for a fashion statement.
>>
>
Phil I used to commute 140 miles a day and I never considered that bars on
my car would make it easier :-) Do they improve mpg or get you there faster?
The post was directed at people who put bars on their car for no other
reason than to fit an image. I was very careful to say that there are
justifiable uses of these thing.
However as the point I was making was about pedestrian safety, I think you
missed it.
But as you raised the question as to whether I would build a truck like
yours - using your logic, I would build one bigger, heavier, louder and more
protected, so that I would be the one without damage if you hit me - If you
had been rear-ended by another truck with the same kind of fittings as your
own, do you think that you would have been quite so lucky, or for that
matter the lady in front of you. If you take your point to it's logical
conclusion, we should all try and build bigger, heavier and better protected
trucks than the next guy - lets forget all other road users - whoever gets
to work unscathed wins!
How about retitling your post "How Brush/Grille Guards save my bodywork"
Miles
Miles Jack
larry soo wrote in message ...
No insult taken - that's the point of newsgroups to share and discuss (and
disagree ;-) ).
I drive a truck (as you call them in the US), so I'm not advocating getting
rid of 4x4's. The point was purely aimed at people who adorn the front and
rear of their vehicles (be they cars, trucks, vans or whatever) with steel
bars that are not actually needed. There are valid uses for these bars, but
town-driving and dropping the kids at school aren't one of them. Most of the
people on this NG use their 4x4's for the purpose for which they were
intended and I'm sure most of them would have a valid reason for fitting
bars, but the large majority of cars out there that have these things fitted
don't.
In answer to your points, I think that you will find that the Jaguar emblem
was removed in the interest of pedestrian safety - that's certainly Jaguar's
reason for doing it. I think you will also find that cars are designed with
pedestrian safety in mind and that a lot of research goes into this area.
As for legislating in this area, well that is being done too, mainly in the
form of speed restricitions and "traffic calming" measures (i.e. it slows
the traffic, but certainly doesn't calm the driver). The main cause of
pedestrian fatalities is speed (and drink), so that's where the legislation
is directed. I'm really not in favour of the nanny state and being told what
I can drive and how to drive it, but IMHO if something has been proved to be
dangerous and you have absolutely no need for it, what's the point in having
it. I would never have a gun in the house because I have no justifiable need
and for the same reason I would never have bull bars fitted. If I did and I
then hit and killed someone I would never be able to forgive myself. Others
will disagree because they do see a justifiable need in their lifestyle.
However, if that need is just for fashion I would suggest they think again -
there are deformable plastic bars that give the same look.
As regards accidents involving pedestrians and 4x4's I think you'll find
that they are no more likely than a normal car to be involved, but if they
are the consequences are usually more serious due to the greater mass and
larger frontal impact area. Anyway, the issue is more with bars than with
the type of vehicle to which they are attached - I've seen all sorts of cars
fitted with bars, most of which have no function other than as decoration.
The point being that a modern car usually has deformable plastic bumpers and
a low profile. If a pedestrian is hit they are normally scooped up and land
on the bonnet which will deform and absorb some of the impact energy, the
victim will probably end up on the road. If you place a vertical steel
obstacle in ront of the cars nose, at or above pelvis height, then the
consequences of the same accident will become a lot more serious.
Miles
Mangey
I
>>know for a fact having beefey bumpers has saved me alot of pain, if not
>death.
>>The best part is when the 2 people who rearended me at speed and totaled
>their
>>car just stared at me, scratched some of the paint off my bumper. BTW I
was
>>sure to charge their insurance company for paint and my labor. The look on
>>their face was even better as I hopped in my truck and drove off while
they
>>waited for a tow truck.
They also protect the car in car parks, another time I was going to work
just before sunrise and the guy infront of me suddenly swerved into the next
lane leaving me looking at a shopping trolley at 60km/h. My bar just bunted
it onto the footpath (glad there was no one on it) and I just continued to
work without anything more than a scratch. Would've done wonders for the
Sigma (small 4cyl jap s/wagon).
<SNIP>
>But as you raised the question as to whether I would build a truck like
>yours - using your logic, I would build one bigger, heavier, louder and
more
>protected, so that I would be the one without damage if you hit me - If you
>had been rear-ended by another truck with the same kind of fittings as your
>own, do you think that you would have been quite so lucky, or for that
>matter the lady in front of you. If you take your point to it's logical
>conclusion, we should all try and build bigger, heavier and better
protected
>trucks than the next guy - lets forget all other road users - whoever gets
>to work unscathed wins!
The touble with going the other way is what if you've got the lightest
car and you get hit by a concrete truck.
TERRANCE G PETRO
AngeloA17 wrote in message <19990119185135...@ng93.aol.com>...
Jerry Bransford
And we all know that if you get hit by a truck with a plastic bumper or
grill guard, that the person won't be hurt LOL!
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL KC6TAY C.A.P.
The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
