Bull bars ban (UK)?

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Jun 5, 2005

• #1

Thoughts? This reads as if it's no longer a proposal but actually will
become law from next January. What does retroactive mean here? Does it
only apply to new cars, or does it mean that cars already fitted with them
can keep them? (I've never wanted bull bars, but if it will irritate Tony
and his Euro colleagues I will make the effort.)

From The Times on May 27th:

QUOTE
Bull-bar curb to cut road deaths
By Rory Watson

A EUROPE-WIDE ban on rigid bull bars on new cars will come into force in
January after MEPs adopted measures yesterday to improve road safety.

European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers adopted a voluntary
agreement three years ago not to install the equipment on their vehicles,
but there is nothing to prevent drivers buying and installing it themselves.

The Transport Research Laboratory estimates that the legislation will
prevent almost 140 deaths and more than 1,500 injuries among British
pedestrians and cyclists every year. Under the measures, the frontal
protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass four
tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults. This will
make rigid bull bars illegal, although the law will not be retroactive, but
will allow the use of non-rigid equipment that manufacturers are developing
to improve pedestrian safety.
END QUOTE

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

 

P

Peter

Guest

• Jun 5, 2005

• #2

Shame that parents don't teach their sprogs kerb drill anymore, or manners,
or discipline, but then they never learn it themselves!
Peter

 

D

Dougal

Guest

• Jun 5, 2005

• #3

Peter wrote:

> Shame that parents don't teach their sprogs kerb drill anymore, or manners,
> or discipline, but then they never learn it themselves!
> Peter

In the nanny state so beloved of this Government you're not allowed to
take responsibility for any of your actions.

 

P

Peter

Guest

• Jun 5, 2005

• #4

Time for a change then? Is there an English Liberation Army. If not why not?
Peter

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Jun 5, 2005

• #5

I think with something like a series or a defender it is rather academic as
to whether they are more dangeros to pedestrians with or without.

I don't approve of there use to dress up non utilitarian 4x4's though.


--
þT

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"



"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thoughts? This reads as if it's no longer a proposal but actually will
> become law from next January. What does retroactive mean here? Does it
> only apply to new cars, or does it mean that cars already fitted with them
> can keep them? (I've never wanted bull bars, but if it will irritate Tony
> and his Euro colleagues I will make the effort.)
>
> From The Times on May 27th:
>
> QUOTE
> Bull-bar curb to cut road deaths
> By Rory Watson
>
> A EUROPE-WIDE ban on rigid bull bars on new cars will come into force in
> January after MEPs adopted measures yesterday to improve road safety.
>
> European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers adopted a voluntary
> agreement three years ago not to install the equipment on their vehicles,
> but there is nothing to prevent drivers buying and installing it
themselves.
>
> The Transport Research Laboratory estimates that the legislation will
> prevent almost 140 deaths and more than 1,500 injuries among British
> pedestrians and cyclists every year. Under the measures, the frontal
> protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass four
> tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults. This
will
> make rigid bull bars illegal, although the law will not be retroactive,
but
> will allow the use of non-rigid equipment that manufacturers are
developing
> to improve pedestrian safety.
> END QUOTE
>
> --
> Rich
> ==============================
> Disco 300 Tdi auto
> S2a 88" SW
> Tiggrr (V8 trialler)
>
>

 

R

Richard Adcock

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #6

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:41:37 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I think with something like a series or a defender it is rather academic as
>to whether they are more dangeros to pedestrians with or without.
>
>I don't approve of there use to dress up non utilitarian 4x4's though.

just a thought, but why not spend the time and money educating
children that the road is a dangerous place and teach them how to
cross it accordingly?

richard
ex tufty club member

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #7

Cyclists especially, I remember the cycling proficiency scheme and I guess
that gave me an erly grounding in roadcraft.

These days you practically need radar to see those cyclists one moment on
the pavement the next on the road, and the idiots who nip up on the inside
of you at traffic lights oblivios to any blind spots.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Richard Adcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:41:37 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think with something like a series or a defender it is rather academic
as
> >to whether they are more dangeros to pedestrians with or without.
> >
> >I don't approve of there use to dress up non utilitarian 4x4's though.
>
> just a thought, but why not spend the time and money educating
> children that the road is a dangerous place and teach them how to
> cross it accordingly?
>
> richard
> ex tufty club member
>

 

B

beamendsltd

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #8

In message <[email protected]>
"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thoughts? This reads as if it's no longer a proposal but actually will
> become law from next January. What does retroactive mean here? Does it
> only apply to new cars, or does it mean that cars already fitted with them
> can keep them? (I've never wanted bull bars, but if it will irritate Tony
> and his Euro colleagues I will make the effort.)
>
> From The Times on May 27th:
>
> QUOTE
> Bull-bar curb to cut road deaths
> By Rory Watson
>
> A EUROPE-WIDE ban on rigid bull bars on new cars will come into force in
> January after MEPs adopted measures yesterday to improve road safety.
>
> European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers adopted a voluntary
> agreement three years ago not to install the equipment on their vehicles,
> but there is nothing to prevent drivers buying and installing it themselves.
>
> The Transport Research Laboratory estimates that the legislation will
> prevent almost 140 deaths and more than 1,500 injuries among British
> pedestrians and cyclists every year. Under the measures, the frontal
> protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass four
> tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults. This will
> make rigid bull bars illegal, although the law will not be retroactive, but
> will allow the use of non-rigid equipment that manufacturers are developing
> to improve pedestrian safety.
> END QUOTE
>

This info may be out of date now, but when the law was proposed, it
actually said that metal nudge bars could not be fitted to new vehicles.
It did not say that they could not be fitted after-sale - a subtle
difference in semantics that makes a hell of a lot of difference
in reality. In other words, its just another of Smiling Tony's
Non-Laws that keeps the reality-free quiche eaters in Hampsted &
Finchley happy.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

 

P

Pieter Vroom

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #9

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I think with something like a series or a defender it is rather academic as
> to whether they are more dangerous to pedestrians with or without.


Not too sure about that. If you hit a pedestrian or cyclist with a Defender
without bull bar the impacts is spread over a nice and flat surface, with a
bar all the impact is on a much smaller surface area.

There was a case a couple of years back of a pedestrian being killed by a
car with bull bar, and the coroner said the person would have survived
without the bar.

But then I am not convinced the discussion is on a rational, fact based
basis, it seems part of the general anti 4x4 bash. I read farmers might
loose subsidies they receive when they allow 4x4 activities on their land,
so they want us off greenlanes, and now they want to stop organised
activities off green lanes.

I think it is more worthwhile trying to protest against these things than
against bull bars stuff, where there are good arguments against us, and most
of us don't need them, anyway. But then I have just moved from the UK to
Portugal, no such issues here! Lots of people drive off-road and it is much
more accepted, lots of TV coverage of trials etc.

Pieter

 

R

Roger & Lorraine Martin

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #10

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thoughts? This reads as if it's no longer a proposal but actually will
> become law from next January. What does retroactive mean here? Does it
> only apply to new cars, or does it mean that cars already fitted with them
> can keep them? (I've never wanted bull bars, but if it will irritate Tony
> and his Euro colleagues I will make the effort.)
>
> From The Times on May 27th:
>
> QUOTE
> Bull-bar curb to cut road deaths
> By Rory Watson
>
> A EUROPE-WIDE ban on rigid bull bars on new cars will come into force in
> January after MEPs adopted measures yesterday to improve road safety.
>
> European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers adopted a voluntary
> agreement three years ago not to install the equipment on their vehicles,
> but there is nothing to prevent drivers buying and installing it
themselves.
>
> The Transport Research Laboratory estimates that the legislation will
> prevent almost 140 deaths and more than 1,500 injuries among British
> pedestrians and cyclists every year. Under the measures, the frontal
> protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass four
> tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults. This
will
> make rigid bull bars illegal, although the law will not be retroactive,
but
> will allow the use of non-rigid equipment that manufacturers are
developing
> to improve pedestrian safety.
> END QUOTE
>
> --
> Rich

Interesting as we in Australia have a similar debate every so often fueled
usually by the injury/death of a pedestrian in an urban area hit by a
softroader fitted with some monstrocity stuck on the front.

Personally I'm not a great fan of bull bars unless you actually have
a few bulls or roos or wombats to cause you some problems in
your travels. Now when I was in the UK last year I tried to find
roads swarming with bulls, roos and wombats - but to no avail.
Plenty of dumb sheep that seem to have got the idea into their
heads that Aussie tourists always carry a jar of mint sauce and
a dutch oven to cook them in - so gave us a wide berth. We had
to buy lamb much to our disgust and probably contributed to
the UKs GNP by about 10%

Even bull bars dont do a great deal to protect you in the event
of hitting a large enough animal, plus cleaning up the mess of
body parts jammed into the bull bar is very puke making.
They do protect the vehicle from low speed impacts though -
which I'm sure is the main reason they are fitted by the parking
challenged amongst us.

SIIA with Roobar and steel girder bumper
SIII with Bullbar, rod holders, steel girder bumper
Toyota Hilux with pedestrian killing bar
Toyota Troop Carrier with a seriously nasty reinforced bullbar
that helped push start a 10 tonne truck.

Geez I gotta get rid of those bullbars.

 

T

Tim Hobbs

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #11

>
>Personally I'm not a great fan of bull bars unless you actually have
>a few bulls or roos or wombats to cause you some problems in
>your travels. Now when I was in the UK last year I tried to find
>roads swarming with bulls, roos and wombats - but to no avail.
>Plenty of dumb sheep that seem to have got the idea into their
>heads that Aussie tourists always carry a jar of mint sauce and
>a dutch oven to cook them in - so gave us a wide berth. We had
>to buy lamb much to our disgust and probably contributed to
>the UKs GNP by about 10%
>

Sad to say, the lamb had probably travelled further than you had....


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

 

T

TonyB

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #12

>Under the measures, the frontal
> protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass four
> tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults.

There's a few kids round here they can have for the tests.....
TonyB

 

T

TonyB

Guest

• Jun 6, 2005

• #13

>> Even bull bars dont do a great deal to protect you in the event
> of hitting a large enough animal, plus cleaning up the mess of
> body parts jammed into the bull bar is very puke making.
>
Yeah, when I was in Saudi it didn't matter if you had bars or not. In a
saloon car hitting a camel meant the body would fall onto the roof and
usually kill the driver.

TonyB

 

R

Roger & Lorraine Martin

Guest

• Jun 7, 2005

• #14

"TonyB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> Even bull bars dont do a great deal to protect you in the event
> > of hitting a large enough animal, plus cleaning up the mess of
> > body parts jammed into the bull bar is very puke making.
> >
> Yeah, when I was in Saudi it didn't matter if you had bars or not. In a
> saloon car hitting a camel meant the body would fall onto the roof and
> usually kill the driver.
>
> TonyB
>
A trucks driver's worst fear in Australia is to hit a roo which has jumped
up in the air and goes through the windscreen - usually not fatal to the roo
- usually fatal to the driver after the bloody roo starts kicking him out
of the door.

The second worst fear is to be caught with a sheep in the cab!!

 

T

TonyB

Guest

• Jun 7, 2005

• #15

> >
> A trucks driver's worst fear in Australia is to hit a roo which has jumped
> up in the air and goes through the windscreen - usually not fatal to the
roo
> - usually fatal to the driver after the bloody roo starts kicking him out
> of the door.
>
> The second worst fear is to be caught with a sheep in the cab!!

Or getting caught with a Kevin Bloody Wilson tape?
TonyB

PS I've only just managed to find out who the bloody Leyland Brothers are!
>
>

 

A

Angus McCoatup©

Guest

• Jun 7, 2005

• #16

"TonyB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Under the measures, the frontal
> > protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass
four
> > tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults.
>
> There's a few kids round here they can have for the tests.....
> TonyB
>
>
loads round here too

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Jun 7, 2005

• #17

"Pieter Vroom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I think with something like a series or a defender it is rather academic
>>as
>> to whether they are more dangerous to pedestrians with or without.
>
>
> Not too sure about that. If you hit a pedestrian or cyclist with a
> Defender without bull bar the impacts is spread over a nice and flat
> surface, with a bar all the impact is on a much smaller surface area.

My 110 has a muckle great winch (required for it's role in motorsport), the
bull bar actually presents a flatter frontal plane to spread the load over,
rather than the winch simply smashing the legs!!
>
> There was a case a couple of years back of a pedestrian being killed by a
> car with bull bar, and the coroner said the person would have survived
> without the bar.

Still doesn't get away from the fact that the pedestrian shouldn't have been
on the road in front of the vehicle in the first bloody place!
>
> But then I am not convinced the discussion is on a rational, fact based
> basis, it seems part of the general anti 4x4 bash. I read farmers might
> loose subsidies they receive when they allow 4x4 activities on their land,
> so they want us off greenlanes, and now they want to stop organised
> activities off green lanes.

Yeah, and while we're at it, lets ban buses, lorries and coaches as well,
they don't half make a mess of pedestrians and cyclists.
>
> I think it is more worthwhile trying to protest against these things than
> against bull bars stuff, where there are good arguments against us, and
> most of us don't need them, anyway. But then I have just moved from the UK
> to Portugal, no such issues here! Lots of people drive off-road and it is
> much more accepted, lots of TV coverage of trials etc.

Now that's lucky!
Badger.

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Jun 7, 2005

• #18

"Angus McCoatup©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "TonyB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >Under the measures, the frontal
>> > protection systems of vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes will have to pass
> four
>> > tests to determine their impact when they hit children or adults.
>>
>> There's a few kids round here they can have for the tests.....
>> TonyB
>>
>>
> loads round here too

Hmmm.... Jobs for chavs??
LOL!
Badger.

 

M

Moving Vision

Guest

• Jun 8, 2005

• #19

>
>Yeah, and while we're at it, lets ban buses, lorries and coaches as well,
>they don't half make a mess of pedestrians and cyclists.
>>

That's got to be the obvious point. In fact lets ban everything and make
everyone stay at home for their own safety!
--
John Lubran

Seen on an American bumper sticker;
"If you don't like the way I drive keep off the sidewalk"