Gonna be a "Few" young blokes in Utes HAPPY (Not) with that decision!   Been a bit of a competition over the years to see who could get away with the biggest baddest bull bar on their ute. There's some Monster bars out there. They haven't been able to use steel 5 post bars for quite a while because they threw the balance of the car out on a lot of the Falcadore utes. Hasn't stopped them fitting up multiple aerials and lights though.

I'm not sure of what applies in NSW but the type they were trying to eliminate are the ones that tend to deflect people under the vehicle if you hit them. The Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 42/04 General Safety Requirements) 2005 has the following to say:

11. EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL PROTRUSIONS
11.1. No vehicle must be equipped with:
11.1.1. any object or fitting, not technically essential to such vehicle, which
protrudes from any part of the vehicle so that it is likely to increase the
risk of bodily injury to any person;
11.1.2. any object or fitting technically essential to such vehicle unless its
design, construction and conditions and the manner in which it is affixed
to the vehicle are such as to reduce to a minimum the risk of bodily
injury to any person;
11.1.3. any object or fitting which, because it is pointed or has a sharp edge, is
likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person; or
11.1.4. any bumper bar the end of which is not turned towards the body of the
vehicle to a sufficient extent to avoid any risk of hooking or grazing.

The attached document is the current standard of play in WA

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

 That said, my view is that bull bars are a waste of money and fuel and place unnecessary loads on vehicles.

Cheers,
Peter

---

Pretty narrowminded statement that M8...IMO.

Just imagine cruising along at about 60-70 klicks at night in the country goin home from sales or some such ....and a big old man ,roo just lauches himself outa the tabledrain about 10 metres away...and arrives in the middle of the road the same time as you....and BANG!!!...didn't have anymore time than lifting your foot ....didn't even touch brakes. Than how aqre you gunna get home with a smashed bonnet...grill...radiator. At least with a bulbar (a decent one) you stand a better than even chance of getting home...after making sure the aforementioned roo isn't suffering anymore.

N don't sit there muttering wanker or hoon about me either.....60-70 is pretty norm driving on country roads at night if the feral population is about.....and I have had this happen on more than one occasion.....even with the best driving lights(HID) available...and an alert spotter passenger as well.

The end result usually is usually a shaken passenger...check the undies ....and straighten and retighten bulbar mounts the next day....so now tell me they are unneceassary waste of money etc etc.

Cheers  Keith

ST391GQ wrote:

---

---

Pretty narrowminded statement that M8...IMO.

---

Your opinion is not my opinion.

If they were as valuable as you say in reducing damage, insurance companies would offer reduced premiums for those who fit them.

They don't, so that demonstrates their opinion.

Cheers,

Peter