Anti Bull Bar Campaign

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeremy Vanke

unread,
Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95
to
> 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

Marcus Jones

unread,
Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95
to
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:
> > : 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
> RAC

Jim McCorison

unread,
Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95
to
> 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

Marcus Jones

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
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

Teo Keary

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
In article <3sp4dl$n...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>, Marcus Jones <M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk> writes:
|> 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.
|> > > ---------------
|> >
|> > 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.
|>
|> The statistics Dr Vanke quotes worry me: 40 deaths per year caused by
|> 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

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
Marcus Jones (M.R.Jo...@bham.ac.uk) has wisely observed:
: 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

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
On 28 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones 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.

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
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?
>
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

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
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


Matthew Wild

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
In article <3sq5v7$p...@news1.halcyon.com> jim...@coho.halcyon.com (Jim McCorison) writes:

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
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?

Jo


Tim Morley

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3stsqk$7...@lion.inmos.co.uk>,
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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3srhnq$b...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>,

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
Today's Guardian says:

"Bull bars" are being removed from vehicles patrolling royal parks amid
concerns they could injure pedestrians.


Jo Fay

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
"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.

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
"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?"

> 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
"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?


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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
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! Or we could
simply ban motor-vehicles altogether.

--
Paul

/*------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Paul Thomas ******** email : Pa...@tmsl.demon.co.uk */
/*------------------------------------------------------*/

Paul Thomas

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
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?

Jeremy Vanke

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.950628145154.3994C-1000

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to

>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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
(Denizens of other newsgroups, kindly pardon this proselytizing....)

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Paul Thomas wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
On 29 Jun 1995, Adrian Adams wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:

> "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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
On 29 Jun 1995, Jo Fay wrote:

> "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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:

> "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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
Dear Kerry,

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
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.

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Jonathan Abbott wrote:
> 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?
> > >
> > 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, 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
Kerry L. Embry (klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to

>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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
"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:
> 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
>

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
"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?
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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
It seems to me that the problem is not with Bull Bars, it's with people.
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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3sugp6$e...@hyperion.mfltd.co.uk> s...@mfltd.co.uk (Shaun C. Murray) writes:

<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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
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.


Kemasa

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3suiij$o...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>,

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu (James A. Bucklew) wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
Chris Malcolm (c...@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:

: >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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3sujov$s...@news.doit.wisc.edu> buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu (James A. Bucklew) writes:
>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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
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? 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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
My meagre contribution:

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
Gentlemen,

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <804412...@tmsl.demon.co.uk> Paul Thomas <Pa...@tmsl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>From: Paul Thomas <Pa...@tmsl.demon.co.uk>

>Subject: Re: Anti Bull Bar Campaign
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 07:58:01 GMT

>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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3sue1h$o...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, buc...@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu
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

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3srhnq$b...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>,
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.
>
>
>Marcus


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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <3srqto$m...@news1.halcyon.com>,
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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <3sugp6$e...@hyperion.mfltd.co.uk> s...@mfltd.co.uk (Shaun C. Murray) writes:

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
>On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:
>> "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?

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <3srn89$a...@hpwin055.uksr.hp.com>,
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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
>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.

Phil Pinel

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <3sue1h$o...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
>On 29 Jun 1995, Marcus Jones wrote:
>
>> "Kerry L. Embry" <klem...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> wrote:
>> > 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?

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <3t0hb3$jg_...@bra01.icl.co.uk> phil....@bra0102.wins.icl.co.uk (Phil Pinel) writes:

>>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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <steve.davis....@amd.com>,

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
In article <3t0jh5$jg_...@bra01.icl.co.uk>,

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