Bullbars
vote(s)
Post Reply| No |
|
95.5% | |
| Yes |
|
4.5% |
Below was extracted from WA Sunday Times.
We have checked the survey site listed and put in our 2 cents worth. If this proposal goes ahead the costs for insurance and crashs with animals on the roads will go through the roof. I am thinking of kicking off a Facebook group as well for support. We need as many people to comment as possible. The Government must be made to see that the 90% of Australia land mass, where animal strikes happen, is outside the cities and towns. And if winches get banned as well, what will the cost be for recoveries by a towtruck out in the bush. I have added a quick survey as well
"The Federal Government is coping European pedestrian-safety laws with implications to front bar regulations. This could see the end of bullbars, nudge bars, spot lights and winches.
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development is releasing for comment a document detailing new front-bar regulations. It is called Regulation Impact Statement for Pedestrian Safety Standards and is open for comment until April 15.
These proposals may threaten the safety of Grey nomads and adventurers all over Australia considering that the article quoted some 30,000 vehicle-animal strikes a year. Adoption of the overseas rules will make it impossible to fit bull and nudge bars, it may also ban winches and driving lights.
The Australian 4WD Industry Council has launched an online public survey to collect information; at www.4wdcouncil.com.au. The survey closes on 15 March and for each person who completes a survey the council will donate $1 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service."
-- Edited by russhenn on Tuesday 25th of January 2011 05:04:05 PM
-- Edited by russhenn on Tuesday 25th of January 2011 05:09:45 PM
-- Edited by russhenn on Tuesday 25th of January 2011 05:17:54 PM
I certainly will put in my two bob's worth .. In favour of retaining bullbars.
ps. The site is currently 'parked'. So I have bookmarked it & marked my calendar for later access.
-- Edited by Cupie on Tuesday 25th of January 2011 05:24:55 PM
Since those days the introduction of RBTs, seat belts, better roads, better designed vehicles have all contributed to the reduction in road tolls without unduly restricting or inconveniencing motorists and I don't consider these measures to be Nanny State stuff either.
It becomes Nanny State stuff when the do-gooders want to impose their ideologies in a manner that's unlikely to have much effect on outcomes but significantly imposes restrictions.
I would venture to say that most serious pedestrian accidents that involve bull bars would have had just as serious outcomes without the bullbar. One to two tons of vehicle hitting a pedestrian is going to do a lot of damage to the pedestrian, with or without bullbar. I'll hold to this view until someone produces verifiable "real world" (not hypothetical) statistical evidence to the contrary.
(edit to correct typo)
-- Edited by jimricho on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 08:09:41 AM
Here Here!
It is completely untrue that 'Adoption of the overseas rules will make it impossible to fit bull and nudge bars, it may also ban winches and driving lights' as claimed in the initial post. In fact, the paper favours encouraging urban drivers to fit nudge bars instead of bull bars, and leans towards the adoption of information campaigns to assist people to decide whether they really need a metal bull bar, should fit a more pedestrian friendly polymer bull bar or should be encouraged not to fit one at all. It also considers whether there should be different rules for different sorts of vehicles, with more lenient rules for 4-wds than for passenger cars.
I strongly suggest that anyone who has a genuine interest in this subject should have a look at the discussion paper, with special reference to Section 9.9 and Appendix 11. Then by all means submit your comments. But I doubt whether merely trying to block something that hasn't even been suggested will add anything to the discussion.
Ok so here is part of the RIS too.
9.5. Recommendation
Option 6: Mandatory standards under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (Cth) (MVSA) is the recommended option
+
Option 6: Mandatory standards under the MVSA would be the most difficult option for the vehicle manufacturing industry. This is because it involves regulation based development and testing with forced compliance of all applicable models. Manufacturers or those importing from the European Union or Japan would have the least difficulty. Vehicles imported from these markets represent around 60 per cent of Australias passenger vehicles.
There may be a further direct cost to vehicle manufacturers - but more likely an indirect cost to aftermarket suppliers - where a Vehicle Front Protection System (VFPS) has been fitted to a vehicle. The implications of this were first raised in Section 6.6 and are discussed later in the RIS.
Now I dont know about the rest of you, but the cost of testing bars on cars is a really good way of decreasing the customers desire to have that equipment fitted. I would also determine that the cost of the test WILL be passed onto the consumer.
Interesting points used in this paper, Yes I did read it...
1 Option was to have an Ad campaign so they used the Government Ad campaign to change to Liquids, Aerosols & Gels (LAGS) to be carried on aircraft over 4 months.... cost $1,092,619 (tax payer)
VS
Mitsubishi Outlander increase in sales by 9% for having active stability control, cost not given.
They are saying that manufacturing using safety ads is better than a government campaign. Duh
The crash statics used were made on an assumption, that is the only state to have record pedestrian and cyclist injuries was Victoria so a figure was averaged out for the rest of Australia .
The number of annual fatalties and injuries for pedestrians has not changed much over the last 10 years, even though there are far more cars on the road.
While we have cyclist on the mind, (only because their numbers are used to argument this papers recommendations) the number of serious injuries to cyclists has risen drastically over the last ten from 2500 to 3800 annually. Yet nothing this RIS recommends will impact on the improvement to cyclist safety numbers.