I have one major objection to 4x4 vehicles. They do not have to pass the crash tests that cars do because they are classed as off-road vehicles. This is obviously not true, and is simply a way for the car makers to get round legislation that they would find extremely difficult to abide by.
No blame can be attached to those who own and/or drive them. It is those in charge who are at fault once again.
|
GOG,
Agree with you.
I recall that cars were banned from having badges such as the rigid RR Silver Lady, Jaguar or Merc 3 pointed star on the grounds that in a collision with a pedestrian they would cause unnecessary injury.
I suggest that such injuries would pale into insignificance compared being hit by a SUV particularly fitted with bull bars.
C
|
Why don't we stop the accidents happening ? Surely addressing that is better than trying to deal with it once it has happened ?
And that means;
1) specific training for SUV drivers
2) general pedestrian education
|
Even better aim for separation of vehicles and pedestrians wherever possible.
Having said that, vehicle/pedestrian accidents account for a small proportion of fatalities, despite the impression given by safety adverts that most accidents are speeding cars running down children on pedestrian crossings.
Quite frankly, that is a play on sentimentality and belies the fact that most accidents are vehicle/vehicle or vehicle/immovable object and the casualties drivers and passengers.
|
|
|
|
Another point - many fatal pedestrian injuries are caused by when the pedestrian hits the floor, not necessarily when they hit the car. So do we redesign the tarmac to be softer?????
|
|
BrianW's quite right, mowing down children (and drink-driving in another thread) is a very emotive subject. There are far more effective ways to improve road safety than to concentrate on either of these two aspects - they won't make as good adverts, but they will save a lot more lives.
|
|
Of course it's best if pedestrians and vehicles never meet, but they will occasionally, so to my mind it does make sense to make vehicles as 'soft' as possible at the front. FWIW, I like 4x4s, dislike bullbars and would be mortified if I killed a pedestrian even it was their fault. I really can't believe those that say it 'wouldn't bother me, it was the pedestrian's fault'. Accidentally killing someone, even if the driver is blameless, is a traumatic event.
|
|
I don't think that anyone is saying that mowing over a pedestrian wouldn't bother them if it was their fault. My point is that it's about time people in this country (even children before anyone pipes up) takes responsibility for their own actions. With the amount of vehicles on our roads, the number of pedestrian casualties is tiny IMO. OK, if it was a big problem then perhaps we should redesign vehicles to account for it, but for such a small problem to dictate the way vehicles look is ludicrous - again, IMO.
|
I had a car damaged (again!) by a 4x4 this morning. Drivers should get special training before being allowed to buy these things - some 4x4 drivers seem to find it very difficult to judge the size of their vehicle.
As to the statement that 'the number of pedestrian casualties is tiny IMO'
- I believe that the UK has the highest rate of pedestrian deaths in the UK.
"OK, if it was a big problem then perhaps we should redesign vehicles to account for it, but for such a small problem to dictate the way vehicles look is ludicrous - again, IMO."
Strange statement indeed - do we all have the right to drive around with spike sticking out of the front of the car if we wish?
|
|
|
Does anyone have any accurate figures on pedestrian deaths caused by a motor vehicle?
If by simply redesigning the front of cars to be a bit softer we reduce the number of deaths and severity of injury, where's the problem? Apparently Subaru are one of the few manufacturers who would have little trouble meeting proposed legislation due to the flat engine being so low down in the engine bay. Presumably Porsche too. Another good reason for buying that Impreza Prodrive or Porsche 911!
|
What about busses, lorries and vans? much squarer and just as fast around town.
How many European countries have Jay Walking laws ?? ISTR getting done in Germany many years ago for just this (well a good shouting at), should be a deterrent to the lemmings that seem intent on doing themselves in. I've given up giving up at parents dragging kids across the road within 20 yards of a pedestrian/pelican crossing.
|
'What about busses, lorries and vans? much squarer and just as fast around town'
Good point, Martin. But not being able to fix all of a problem is surely not an argument for not trying to fix part of it (lots of 'nots' in there, sorry!).
I fully agree with the rest of your post, but the germans seem to do as they're told a bit more than us so I doubt more laws would have much effect. Besides, so few current laws are widely enforced, it would be just one more to ignore.
I don't know what the answer is to making people more responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to mitigate the results when they do try silly things.
|
I don't think blaming the pedestrians, or focusing exclusively on reducing accidents, really cuts it. The pedestrian is frequently a child, and often it is the driver's fault.
Anybody who sports bull bars without a good reason (not including they want to) is irresponsible if the widely publicised data are correct.
And I don't think it is necessarily the case that a 4x4 must be unsafe in this respect is it? I have a soft roader - when I bought it I looked at the pedestrian, as well as the occupant, safety rating and was reassured to see that it was the only tested vehicle of that type with 3 stars. How many buyers care? They should, even if its not the overriding factor in the decision. And when they do buy a 4x4, they shouldn't put 2" diameter steel bars on the front of it.
I expect this is a chestnut as well.
|
|
If we are discussing how much a vehicle can damage a pedestrian, the vehicle's appearance is irrelevant. Buyers clearly consider looks when they choose a car, but that is only a consideration when the car is stationary. As soon as it moves fast it has to be treated as a hazard. Combining the two aspects is an important design skill.
The difficult area is in persuading manufacturers to offer cars which will sell with a macho image, but do that without becoming a greater danger to onlookers. That is why I dislike SUVs - I suspect most owners (except Mark on his farm) get them to occupy just a bit more than their share of the environment than everyone else.
|
|
Why not get a BIG off roader and then there is a better chance of a small pedestrian fitting underneath it and not getting hurt? Until the nasty man in the SMART car behind gets him??
|
|
We are supposed to be a mature crew in the backroom, but some of the replies give rise to doubt. I read that the ancient Britons used to have scythes attached to their chariot wheels. Would some of you guys go in for those? Not much different from bull bars really.
|
"being hit by what is essentially a flat fronted vehicle which will throw you forwards and under it will be more dangerous than a sloping front which will lift you over it."
as I understand it the main danger when hit by a car/4x4 is that the impact tends to be below shoulder height and this leads to the head being "whiplashed " on to the bonnet causing head injuries. Hence the current view that bonnets should have more "give" or be located higher above the rather solid engine.(Like putting a mattress on the bonnet?) Bull bars do not help in that they have less "give" than the front area of other cars and inflict additional nasty injuries to the body below shoulder height. (Goodness only knows the effect of a truck or bus)
Correct me if I am wrong - I don't claim to be an expert and have only picked this up from various written sources (not specialist publications)
I agree that education is important (whatever happened to the green cross code and similar education?) but I also think that for the vast majority of drivers, bullbars/roo bars are purely for decorative effect but may be a potentially lethal decoration which have no useful quality in Britain. If I am correct in this belief (and I have a feeling that many might disagree!!!) why not have rubber or plastic ones which would be less dangerous?
Please note - I have expressed no opinion on whether you should be free to drive a 4x4 in Fulham (or Leamington Spa!!)
|
Unfortunately, the objective evidence available does not support the contention that SUVs without bull bars are more dangerous to pedestrians than cars.
Some EuroNCAP pedestrian safety ratings:
Audi A4 *
BMW 3 series *
Jaguar X type *
Nissan Primera *
Honda Civic ***
VW Touran ***
Honda CRV ***
Nissan X-Trail **
No executive car tested has more than **.
Phil W is correct about bonnets. A lot of this is to do with the proximity of the engine to the underside of the bonnet. Pedestrians crack their heads on bonnets. If the bonnet can give by a few inches, less damage is done than if the pedestrian's head effectively hits the engine.
This is why sports car styling is "at risk" from legislation because raising the bonnet line to provide clearance ruins the appearance. There are people working on "deployable bonnets" to overcome this - in much the same way as an airbag is triggered, the bonnet would raise itself immediately on frontal impact to protect the pedestrian's head.
Of course its a good idea to prevent accidents in the first place - but its also a good idea to make vehicles that do less damage when an accident happens. To ignore the murderous effects of bullbars, and to disregard pedestrian safety features, is smug to say the least - any of us could be hit by a car and not be at fault.
I am surprised at some of the mistaken assertions above from motoring enthusiasts who I would expect to be better informed - no offence intended.
www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/introducti...p
|
Can't believe i'm carrying on with this...
My pickup has got bullbars. Personally i think that they look good. I accept that they probably won't help a pedestrian if i hit one, but i'm not prepared to remove them because:
1) It is EXTREMELY unlikely that i will hit a pedestrian in my driving career. Not sure of the statistics, but taking into account the number of pedestrian deaths and the number of cars on the road, the probability must be absolutely tiny.
2) If i do hit a pedestrian, then they will not necessarily be killed. The first poster suggests for a 4x4, 1 in 8 are killed. So that's only one eighth of the already tiny probability that i'll actually hit them.
3) Of those that are killed, not all of the fatal injuries will be attributable to the bullbar - in some cases, you may have driven into them with a victoria sponge strapped to your bonnet, and they'd still have died from the impact of their head against the ground.
Some of you will now be up in arms suggesting that if even one death could be prevented, then it would be worthwhile. No. I work in vehicle safety, and if a device/measure isn't going to be beneficial to a fair proportion of the population, then it won't go ahead. Unless of course, manufacturers can use it as a marketing tool, twisting statistics to prove how safe their cars are.
|
Sorry Owen, just because they look good is surely not good enough reason to have bull bars, any more than the having a big spike on the front for impaling traffic wardens..
I am glad I opened this can of worms because it seems to me that we are getting a strong clash here between image and safety and environmental concerns.
Again I say , why on earth have these machines unless you are going to cart a couple of sheep to market?
|
|
Helicopter, For the same reason some people want helicopters but don't absolutely need them. By your argument I shouldn't have a helicopter unless I need to move stuff to remote locations / ferry emergencies to hospital / report on traffic.
|
Mr W.Why do private individuals need a helicopter?
Noisy , anti social and expensive bits of machinery, bit like 4 x 4's except they don't have bull bars.
Mind you a rotor blade can do you a bit of a nasty if you get in the way ( or if you wear a toupee).
|
1) It is EXTREMELY unlikely that i will hit a pedestrian in my driving career. Not sure of the statistics, but taking into account the number of pedestrian deaths and the number of cars on the road, the probability must be absolutely tiny. 2) If i do hit a pedestrian, then they will not necessarily be killed. The first poster suggests for a 4x4, 1 in 8 are killed. So that's only one eighth of the already tiny probability that i'll actually hit them. 3) Of those that are killed, not all of the fatal injuries will be attributable to the bullbar - in some cases, you may have driven into them with a victoria sponge strapped to your bonnet, and they'd still have died from the impact of their head against the ground.
The logic employed above leaves me absolutely speechless. Presumably by your logic strapping a row of metal spikes to the front of your 4x4 would also have a neutral effect on pedestrial casualties?
Its not just pedestrians that bull-bars damage either - they cause additional damage on impact with other vehicles.
|
Why does it leave you speechless - please read my post, and explain to me which bits are incorrect?
As for the spikes, you're almost correct - they would have a TINY effect on pedestrian casualties.
I agree with your comment that bullbars cause more damage to other cars too, but i suspect again that the proportion of cases where the bullbar ALONE caused damage that could have been avoided is minute.
Sorry if i appear to be rubbing people up the wrong way, it's just that there are some fairly obvious things that could be done to improve road safety to bigger proportions of the population, than to concentrate on issues which though emotive, present a very small problem in comparision.
And yes, because i like them IS a good enough reason for me. I'm not the sort of person who swerves to hit wildlife on the road, or who wouldn't be distraught if i did hit a pedestrian, it's just that i don't think I should modify my behaviour because there is a 0.00001% chance my bullbars may kill someone.
|
|
Owen: Re bull-bars: its no wonder we are swamped by regulation when appearance is allowed to flout safety. On point 3 of your contentious list, since the contact with the ground is precipitated by the vehicle, how do you manage to separate the cause from the effect?
|
A fair point, it's possible that bullbars may exacerbate severity of the impact with the ground. As far as i'm aware though, no research has been done to confirm this, so it may be that bullbars mitigate such impacts?
As has been metioned above, many normal cars fair no better than 4x4s in the EuroNCAP tests, indicating perhaps that there are other factors which are more important than vehicle size and shape.
|
Ok, having seen this argument so many times I felt I ought to do some digging rather than going with the gut reaction that bull-bars are bad.
So where to look?
Well Australia has probably more 4x4s fitted with these things than anywhere else in the world (it\'s rare to see them in the US IIRC), and for good reason. Here are some extracts from the RAC\'s site for the state of Victoria:
A bull-bar is a rigid structure, usually metal (plastic bars also exist), which is fixed to the front of a vehicle, and is designed to protect a vehicle against damage to items such as the radiator and headlights when struck by kangaroos, other wildlife and livestock.
Australia has a unique road system, in part characterised by large expanses of sparsely populated territory. The many remote roads that join rural communities are populated by wildlife, especially kangaroos. Kangaroos, as well as livestock, pose a problem for people driving through these areas, because they are large enough to disable a vehicle and even personal injury in a collision.
However, bull-bars are also sometimes fitted to vehicles that are used predominantly in urban areas for more reasons that are more aesthetic than functional. This trend, especially prevalent in the four wheel drive market, is alarming, because of the unnecessary risk to pedestrians and other unprotected road users in collisions with these vehicles.
Some people have speculated that bull-bars can compromise the occupant protection performance of a vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers today spend considerable effort in \'tuning\' the frontal structure of their vehicles in order to minimise the forces and accelerations on its occupants. Attaching a rigidly mounted bull-bar may affect the ability of a vehicle to perform as it was designed to, in a frontal collision.
Some bull-bar makers have been accused of designing their bars to snap off in a collision, so as not to influence the crash performance of the vehicle. However this measure would likely render the bull-bar ineffective in an animal strike.
Attaching a bull-bar to the front of a vehicle is unlikely to protect its occupants from injury in a collision and may actually have an adverse effect.
One fifth of all fatalities on Australian roads are pedestrians, with 289 pedestrian deaths on Australian roads in 2001. A further ten percent are motorcyclists and two percent are bicyclists. In total, thirty two percent of all fatalities on Australian roads fall into the category of vulnerable road users. Numerous studies have shown that bull-bars can significantly increase the risk of head, thorax and stomach injuries to pedestrians and other unprotected road users when they are struck by the front of such a bull-bar-equipped vehicle.
Bull-bars have some benefits in collisions with large animals, such as protection to the radiator, headlights, or engine. However, these benefits are exclusively realised in rural or outback areas. In remote situations, a bull-bar can be the difference between being stranded a long distance from the nearest town or dwelling, and being able to continue driving with little or no damage to the vehicle after a kangaroo strike.
The biggest disadvantage of bull-bars is the risk that they present to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. They also increase the aggressivity of a vehicle in car to car impacts. This is especially the case in side impact collisions, where occupants of the struck vehicle are at greater risk of injury if the impacting vehicle has a large rigid structure bolted to the front of it.
Another potential disadvantage is the potential increase in injury risk to the occupants of the bull-bar-equipped vehicle, as outlined above in Crashworthiness.
This taken from the UK Department For Transport website:
A STUDY OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING BULL BAR EQUIPPED VEHICLES (S070M/VF)
Traditional \'bull bars\' (also known as crash-bars, nudge-bars, roo-bars, protector-bars and even styling-bars) are strong metal structures fitted to the fronts of vehicles to prevent damage to the grill, bonnet and lamps of the vehicles in minor impacts.
Testing by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) and by BASt in Germany, using impact test procedures developed to assess the safety of cars in impacts with pedestrians, has demonstrated that in general vehicles equipped with bull bars are more likely to cause injuries to pedestrians than vehicles not so equipped.
Recently a number of plastic bull bars or styling-bars have been developed, and test results suggest that these are much safer for pedestrians, indeed vehicles fitted with them may be safer than without a bull bar fitted. Such products have only recently come onto the market, so all the bull bars in this accident study are likely to be traditional metal bull bar designs, and all references to and comments about \'bull bars\' in this report should be taken as referring only to traditional metal bull bars.
The present bull bar study is intended to obtain data on real world \'bull bar\' accidents as opposed to impact tests simulating such accidents. The objective is to estimate the number of additional casualties and injuries resulting from vehicles being fitted with bull bars. It makes use of a voluntary police survey of accidents involving bull bar equipped vehicles, which was arranged by the Department of Transport.
This report first provides a review of the literature on the effects of bull bars. The numbers of accidents recorded as being bull bar accidents in the police survey, and the numbers of those for which copies of the accident reports have been requested and received from the police, are shown by type and severity. The police reporting rate is analysed. Pedestrian and two-wheeled vehicle accident cases, including some obtained from other sources, are analysed. Estimates are made of the proportions of pedestrian and two-wheeler rider casualties of each severity who would not have been injured at that severity had the bull bar not been present, and of the average number of additional injuries per casualty. Estimates are made of the probable numbers of pedestrian and two-wheeler rider casualties in Great Britain arising from accidents involving bull bar equipped vehicles, and hence of the probable numbers of additional casualties and injuries caused by the presence of the bull bar.
It is estimated that there may have been about 35 pedestrian and two-wheeler rider fatalities, and about 316 seriously injured casualties in accidents involving bull bar equipped vehicles in Great Britain in 1994. It is estimated that of these there were about 2 or 3 additional fatalities and about 40 additional serious casualties as a result of vehicles being equipped with bull bars. The small sample sizes of the study mean that all these estimates are subject to a large degree of uncertainty. The estimates of additional fatalities and serious casualties are more likely to be under-estimates than over-estimates.
The estimated benefit to those pedestrians who are currently hit by vehicles fitted with bull bars, that could be obtained if bull bars were not fitted, is a saving of 6 percent for fatalities and 21 percent for seriously injured casualties. These proportions are comparable with those anticipated from draft proposals for a directive on pedestrian protection by cars (11 percent and 26 percent respectively of those hit by cars).
In sixteen fatal pedestrian and two-wheeled vehicle accident cases studied in detail by TRL the estimated probability of survival had the bull bar not been fitted ranged from 40 percent to zero. It is the combination of all these probabilities which results in the estimates of 2 or 3 additional fatalities.
Strangely I found nothing that suggested they helped in any accident except those involving large wildlife/livestock.
|
owen - I don't think you should work in 'vehicle safety' - you don't seem to care a damn about it.
Offence intended - sorry.
|
If you are going to intentionally offend me, then please have the decency to explain why.
I do care about vehicle safety, it just irritates me that people like you get so worked up about easy targets such as bullbars when there are far more important things to worry about.
Thanks to No Dosh for being to only one to provide some interesting research on the subject, instead of just quoting the Sun, or making statements about which they know very little. Incidentally, this research backs up my point that the scale of this perceived menace to society is small.
|
I have never stated that bullbars do not pose a risk to pedestrians. My point is that the risk overall is EXTREMELY small. I also accept that my only reason for me to keep them is personal preference. What i am trying to ascertain is if you think that I should remove them because there is a very, very slight possibility that they may cause someone an injury.
If this is the case, then are there any other things you'd like banned while we're at it? Perhaps ban beer because it causes obesity, chirrosis, and people beating the carp out of each other at closing time. Nobody NEEDS beer, do they? OK, that's that banned then. It'll save loads more lives than banning bullbars.
Please read my posts properly, then come back to me - if there is anything you disagree with, then explain why, don't just question my commitment to my job.
|
Nobody NEEDS beer, do they?
Er, yes actually, I do. Especially after seeing another 4x4 post descend into the usual bun fight.
{Pffssst!} Ah! That's better.
|
>>{Pffssst!} Ah! That's better.<<
I say, bad form that man! The sun isn't below the yard arm yet. Not that that has ever stopped me....
{Pffssst} You're right, that's much better.
;-)
Rob
|
|
OK, a rhetorical question really - everyone needs beer, it's just a fact of life... bad example. I could think of another one, but i really CBA. ;-)
|
>>Offence intended - sorry.
In that case find somewhere else to be.
Abruptness intended.
|
|
Mark - why do you delete my inoffensive post and leave the offensive one? If you genuinely consider this level of arbitrary policing is appropriate, I shall gladly disappear as you suggest.
|
|
[snip] Owen, no offence but lets not throw petrol on the fire. Mark.
|
Because otherwise my comment makes no sense.
I consider my moderating very appropriate. I don\'t find a deliberately offensive note even slightly appropriate.
Please feel free to e-mail either mailto:letters@honestjohn.co.uk for HJ or mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk if you wish to discuss this further.
|
CRV and X-trail are hardly typical 4x4s, more of a soft-roader.
I ran through the tests for every "real" 4x4 on the site. From RangeRover to X5 to M-Class to Frontera... all one star for pedestrian impact.
But as you quite rightly point out, there are plenty of mainstream cars out there that have the same score, including the Vectra and the Avensis.
4x4 per se is not the problem. Bolting some scaffolding on the front, there's your problem.
|
>>4x4 per se is not the problem. Bolting some scaffolding on the front, there's your problem.
Surely people being hit by a vehicle is really the problem. Scaffolding may excacerbate the effects, but they are not causing people to be hit.
BTW, I do not have scaffolding on my Landcruiser here but both my 4-Runner and my Dodge Ram wear it in the Andes mountains - although its fair to say you don't get many pedestrians there.
|
|
Agree completely - if we reduce the amount of pedestrian accidents, then this is beneficial to everyone, not just those hit by bullbars.
|
sorry folks, but i agree with mark on this subject,i'ts all down to personal choice,like a lot of other decisions we all make.
if we encourage/allow government to legislate on what we can and can't do, we should all go and live under the taliban in afghanistan,or some such place.
billy.
|
>>we should all go and live under the taliban in afghanistan,or some such place.<<
Perhaps a mite strong, Billy, but I agree with what you say whole-heartedly.
Too often these days the majority are made to suffer because of the inaction and irresponsibility of the minority. In most cases, I'd wager that the people hit by bullbars would have been considerably better off had they looked before crossing the road...
Having said that, I personally do not like bullbars. To my eyes, they look horribly naff. But it comes down to a matter of personal choice. If someone chooses to fit bullbars, then so be it. Equally, if someone chooses to walk out in front of a vehicle fitted with bullbars...
The key to this is surely both pedestrian and driver training - advertising campaigns for the pedestrians (remember the Green Cross Code Man?) and defensive driving courses for the motorists. Sadly, this will never happen as it is too much of a good idea!
Cheers
Rob
|
|
Rob, Agree - when a pedestrian I have only been in real danger whilst either a) piddled or b) not following Green X Code. That includes several back rubs from big red buses !
|
Its easy to see why governments have to pass safety legislation when one looks at some of the opinions on here. Largely is seems to come down to either 'I'm alright Jack' or 'I do it because I want to'. Rather inane really.
Most pedestrian victims of RTA's are children, the elderly or infirm. Kids do make mistakes - but they shouldn't have to pay with their lives. Anything that *can* be done to reduce unnecessary fatalities *should* be done. Driving around urban areas with rigid steel bars across the front of your car is absurd and unnecessary (apart from looking ridiculous). If the idea is to puff-up the driver's 'macho image' then the same effect can be obtained with metallised-plastic replicas.
Owen - do you take the same attitude toward your own safety? For example, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you will be killed in a car accident. If you drive 50 miles in the UK then the probability is about 0.00001%. Maybe its not worth you fastening your seatbelt, or having all those airbags? How about sticking a metal spike to the centre of the steering wheel? (its unlikely ever to harm you.....).
One of the ironies here is that many 4x4 owners buy the vehicles because they perceive that they are safer for occupants than ordinary saloons. But then I guess that's *their* safety and not other peoples'.
|
>>Largely is seems to come down to either 'I'm alright Jack' or 'I do it because I want to'. Rather inane really.
Not quite. Or at least, not quite what I think. I do believe that provided I am competent to drive an SUV, and provided I do it safely, then that fact that I want to *is* sufficient justification.
I think we're missing the point that an SUV is not inherently dangerous but many of the drivers are. The first time I drove my Dodge in heavy traffic I was scared witless because it is that big, its not capable of a trivial accident and it would destroy a car. That awareness kept me, and others, safe enough and ensured that I made sure I could drive it properly.
However, many SUV drivers do not seem to appreciate the difference between an SUV and a car, and in fact are not even aware that there is a difference.
I would not ban large white vans (probably bigger than my SUV) I would nto ban people towing caravans - but I do think that they should nto be on the road unless they are driven by someone with competence to do so.
A different test is not ideal, but it does go some way. Even if it just makes it that little more difficult for someone to leap from a mini to a Landcruiser and hit the streets.
But at the bottom, I do believe that banning them is wrong, and I do believe that wanting to have one is sufficient justification to actually have one.
Its just that one needs to recognise that you need to drive them responsibly, which isn't all that difficult to do if a) you want to and b) someone shows you how.
Long ago [admittedly] I used to drive an artic for Debenhams in and out of town centre stores. Surely therefore I am competent to drive an SUV. Therefore why shouldn't I have one ?
I think we also have awareness issues with pedestrians in that as much as many drivers do not respect them, neither is the reverse true.
A bit more policing of traffic by actual policemen and a great deal of enforcement of other offences would help.
|
Aprilia - the difference with seatbelts is that their use results in increased safety for everyone who uses them, which in this country is over 90% of those who drive. Airbags, whilst not as effective, also increases the safety of a large proportion on the driving population. To compare the benefits of seatbelts and airbags to the benefit of removing bullbars from 4WD vehicles is ridiculous, since the scale of the problems you are comparing are vastly, vastly different.
The points i'm trying to make here (perhaps unsuccessfully given the number of replies) is that:
1) The scale of the problem we are talking about is absolutely tiny considering other road safety problems which could be addressed providing much more benefit to society.
2) Given that the problem is so small, then why should people by told what they can and can't stick on the front of their cars?
Also, as for the 'i'm alright jack' and 'i do it because i want to' comments, then why the hell not? If we are not allowed to do things we want to do because they pose a risk similar in magnitude to being hit by lightning, then we might as well ban everything, since there seems to be very little we can do that doesn't present a risk of some sort.
|
|
Always use the Green Cross Code.
|
|
owen, apparently you don't dispute that your vehicle is potentially very marginally more hazardous to pedestrians with a bull-bar than without. If you told those pedestrians that after you fitted the bars they might well get struck by lightning, what would they say, and what would be your reply?
|
100%, Aprilia - thanks for saying it all for me, much less offensively. And Billy - today just about everything is about personal choice. Problem is that when millions of personal choices are made, they often limit or remove choices for the remaining millions. So it becomes first-come, I suppose.
Basically why the M6 and M25 are so congested.
|
|
The thing is, neither you or Aprilia seem to be addressing the point, which is that we are not talking about "millions", we are talking in single figures. Yet you still want to be able to dictate to people what they can and can't do.
|
|
The risk may be small but it is a completely unnessessary risk. Bull bars is this are almost completetely useless and certainly no use to town driving. Its not just the risk to pedestrians they cause its the risk to other cars aswell and if banning saves just a small number of people and a lot less serious injuries then yes ban them! Is vanity really worth risk lives or serious injury over? A car is just a hunk of metal which can be replaced but someones life cannot.
|
|
I've never wanted to dictate to anyone .. oh, what's the use?
|
Andrew-T : The M6 and M25 are congested because they are virtually free to use - road pricing would cut that out perhaps with insurance rates depending on how much danger you are to other road users. We currently pay some of the price for driving larger, faster, expensive vehicle via our insurance premiums - if SUVs really are so dangerous then premiums / road usage charges would reflect it.
Regarding your other point re choices - I make a choice to live my life the way I want to as long as I do so without harming the lives or property of others - I choose to help others live as they want and find being considerate and friendly to others is the best way for me to live. If my choices harm others then I will pay one way or the other otherwise leave me to live as I damn well please.
|
Surely the M6 and M25 are congested because there is a need for road space which the Government, as a monopoly supplier, choses to ignore.
Do we really want the right to travel to be dictated by disposable income?
|
What right to travel ? If you have little money then use the bus / walk / cycle as I did years ago. If you have a lot of money then fly in your Learjet. Frequency and mode of travel is governed by disposable income.
You have answered the question - remove the monopoly supplier and allow competition in. Roads will then be dictated by demand and ability to buy land rather than the whim of the government of the day.
|
What right to travel ? If you have little money then use the bus / walk / cycle as I did years ago. If you have a lot of money then fly in your Learjet. Frequency and mode of travel is governed by disposable income. You have answered the question - remove the monopoly supplier and allow competition in. Roads will then be dictated by demand and ability to buy land rather than the whim of the government of the day.
>>
Hey, you're not Fireball XL5's brother are you? ;-)
|
I hope not ! Read what I'm saying though and you will see I'm just saying the obvious - not saying I'm better than anyone a la Mr F. XL5. In fact, in my earlier posting in this thread I'm just saying treat me fairly and I will do likewise.
BTW I pull over for emergency vehicles and have learned that getting agitated and flashing lights at a slower vehicle is not the way to behave - unlike our XL5 chummy.
In fact I should state for the record that I'm seriously considering a Volvo XC90 instead of an Audi for my next car in March. Without bullbars.
|
Not entirely, Mr W - it is governed to a degree by available road space. And some of the frustrated individuals curse the government for not alleviating the problem they (not the govt) are contributing to. And personally I don't think the answer is to just build more roads ad infinitum - though there are some vested interests which would quite like that idea.
|
We currently pay some of the price for driving larger, faster, expensive vehicle via our insurance premiums - if SUVs really are so dangerous then premiums / road usage charges would reflect it.
Having had both my cars (MB C-class and Nissan QX) damaged by 4x4's within the last two months I am inclined to hope that insurance premiums will rise for these vehicles. However in both cases the owners seemed keen to pay up in cash!
Fortunately the one that hit the back of my C-class (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) didn't have any bull bars otherwise it might have pushed in the whole back end of the car - rather than being a mainly bumper-to-towbar impact which just cracked my bumper and left my lights and rear panel intact.
|
Here we go........same old rubbish again! How many times does the 4x4 driver need to be stereotyped on this board? Of course everyone else are just perfect drivers, who never do anything wrong. You'll see just as many incidents, poor driving skills, lack of judgement etc etc from non 4x4 drivers as you will from them. Its mainly these traits that injure and hurt pedestrians!
|
i could not agree more perturbed same old rubbish coming out again saved all my life for my m class i also drive a white van for my living reckon that's me up against the wall to be shot then.people find somebody else to have a go at.
|
|
I'm sure I read somewhere that the majority of pedestrian fatalities would have been unfit to drive through drink.
|
Well we seem to be going over the same old cycle of accusation and counter accusation.
I'm going to leave this thread running for this evening but I expect to see a more constructive approach if I'm not to lock the thread tomorrow.
Ooooh, don't I sound like my dad!
No Dosh
mailto:Alan_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
I don't believe it, I'm gonna get moderated !!!
|
[snip] One more comment like that and you\'re gone.
PhilW{P} mailto:momentary_backroom_moderator@honestj0hn.co.uk
|
I'm sure I speak for many in saying I'd love to put that "snip - one more commment like that and you're gone" comment next to one of your contributions Mark!!!!
Please can I have a go??!! Oh, go on, it is nearly Christmas!
|
|
My first Christmas present!! And the best I suspect!!!
|
This could be my 15 seconds of fame - what more is there to live for????!!
Please don't mention bullbars anyone - you'll spoil it!
|
[snip] One more comment like that and you\'re gone.
PhilW{P} mailto:momentary_backroom_moderator@honestj0hn.co.uk
|
Glad to be of assistance, Phil. :)
This is rather hilarious - I wonder who is going to delete me now? Or do I have a stay of execution?
HF
|
HF,
Hang on a mo! I didn't do that. I fear that someone is taking advantage of my good name as a moderator. Can someone moderate the rogue moderator?
|
If you can hear a distant rhythmic banging it's the sound of my head on the monitor.
Pink Fluffy Dice comedians.....
|
Sorry to come into this debate so late, but I was rendered temporarily speechless by Owen's reasoning.
Owen, you could indeed put kitchen knives on the front of your car and the chances of your killing anyone would be pretty small. If EVERYONE did it, then pretty much 100% of people hit by a car would die, rather than the 4% that has been quoted here.
Putting bull bars on your car might not raise the death rate to 100%, but it certainly raises it. Hence, the same argument applies.
You seem to forget that every person who ever killed a pedestrian probably thought it would never happen to them, either. I hope you're never proven wrong in your belief.
I don't want the things banned; why can't people fit the soft plastic ones that have been shown to be pretty harmless. Look the same, same macho image, but much, much, safer.
V
|
Just a quick question to anyone who does take their beasty out for serious offroading. The winches that are so useful in extricating a wedged Landy or SJ; do they detach easily or are they permanently fixed and if the latter, can they be recessed into the grill area?
At some point next year Mrs ND and I may be on the shop for a decent off-road pick-up, such as the ubiquitous HiLux or a 110 Landy, for a horticultural/landscaping business and a winch would be rather useful for stump-pulling (and occasional self rescue).
|
|
They can be recessed on a HiLux, depending on which one you have. Dunno about anything else.
|
I dont think 4x4\'s are a problem or bullbars the problem is utter lack of courtesy of some people, be it the soppy tart dropping off her little brats with that fake burberry handbag on the passenger seat pretending to be victoria beckham or the big fat cat business man pretending to be god.
Basically along with the driving test, skid pan test and all the other malarky there should be a courtesy test. this would illiminate all sorts of problems, people would look out for others instead of looking through them. Have a 4x4 with bullbars front, side and rear if you must. have whatever you like and everyone would be safe as long as you were courteous and considerate this place would be a lot better off.
|
I still see a problem, no matter how good or courteous a driver is.
If you come down my road and (God forbid) my 2yo son manages to get out and run between two parked cars, you will hit him.
Yes, I have a duty of care, yes, I should keep my eyes on him 24 hours a day, yes, I shouldn't get distracted, yes, I should remember to lock the gate (which he could now easily climb over), yes, he knows that he shouldn't go in the road, but...these things DO happen - I've got a 3yo daughter who is very skilled at distraction. Mark(RLBS), as you brought up the subject of preventing the accident in the first place, what would be your solution to this?
So, if this happens and he gets hit, why shouldn't he be given the best chance he can by a bit of reasonable design compromise. Not too much to ask, surely?
V
|
A courteous, considerate and decent driver will be looking out for your son running between parked cars, or as happened to me only yesterday a child who kicked his ball into the road and ran after it before looking.
It is your responsibility as a parent yes BUT it is also the responsibility of the driver, if you attached a large squashy matress to the front of the car it is not going to stop your child getting hit if the driver is oblivious, a child would be seriously hurt if not killed by a car no matter what is was made of. Im not saying the car companies couldn't do better to design them more with pedestrians in mind however this may give people the idea that they can go around merrily ram raiding pedestrians out of the way. Similarly the way people think they can drive to fast, to close and if they crash the airbag will save them!!!
|
>>Mark(RLBS), as you brought up the subject of preventing the accident in the first place, what would be your solution to this?
My point was more that we should rely on education with safe[r] vehicles as backup rather than believing that education is not our focus and we should only worry about vehicle design.
Clearly you have educated your child, although a lot don't. But equally obviously children will run into the road. But it isn't as simple as what vehicle will hit them. One could argue that you would prefer an alert driver in a 4x4 than some dozy wally in a mini.
Attacking 4x4s on this basis doesn't make sense. Statistically I'd guess that your child is more likely to get hit by a standard saloon than by an SUV. That isn't to say that SUVs could not or should not be made safer, but it isn't addressing this particular problem.
Equally, the view is all too often "ban 4x4s, rather than make them more pedestrian friendly". By that logic we would eventually have to ban all vehicles - today SUVs, tomorrow large estates etc. etc.
Even bull bars, which I admit make no sense in an urban area, are not really the issue - and my two year old is of such a size that she'd not only have to run in the road but also jump in the air to get hit by them. Again, that is not to say that bull bars are acceptable or should not be addressed. But, if Bullbars disappeared tomorrow, what difference would there be to the pedestrian accident stats ? I'd guess, and its only a guess, absolutely none at all. Mind you, I suspect that the cost of small SUV/Car bumps would go down.
What different could be made to the accident stats if all the drivers of those SUVs underwent further driving and vehicle education ? I would guess a noticeable effect.
What would happen if all the plonkers in SUVs had to get other cars because SUVs had been banned ? I suspect nothing, since they would still be bad drivers and would probably fare about as well in a volvo estate as they do in an SUV - and all the non-plonker SUV drivers would have been pointlessly affected.
What would happen to the pedestrian accident stats if SUVs were not banned, bullbars were not banned, but *all* drivers had to undergo more stringent and repeated training *AND* all pedestrians were educated about pedestrian crossings etc. etc. Again, I'd guess a very significant effect.
And lastly, it *WAS* different for me as a child. 40 years ago cars were much noisier and slower than they are now - they just couldn't sneak up on you like they can nowadays.
Mark.
|
Fair point Mark, I'd not considered driver education, which is odd given that I've argued vehemently for it before. My company (not unrelated to HAL in 2001) found that a half day of training by an ex-Police driving instructor dropped a driver's insurance claims by 50%, so it's offered free to everyone. Imagine, £100 or so per person to halve the accident rate!
I do still feel that if steel bull bars, etc, disappeared tomorrow (and I suggest replacement with soft plastic, not a ban) then death rates of pedestrians would be reduced at absolutely no cost - the old ones would go as the cars were scrapped, the replacements are about the same cost.
I'm not particularly arguing for the banning of SUVs, just a bit of consideration by their designers that they aren't the only vehicles on the road.
If the point made above (that they don't have to take the same safety tests as other cars) is true, then that is an anomaly that should be addressed.
V
|
ND,
As usual I know nothing about this but am sure I have seen advertised winches which attach to a front (or rear) towball. May only be for Land Rover and I think they may have been advertised in a caravanning magazine as a way of getting vans/cars off muddy sites. Whether they are powerful enough for stump pulling is a different matter!!
|
Depends on the stump.....
A grinder would be used for larger stumps but there are those that can be yanked with 1.5t of tugging....
|
And at what pulling power does the stump stop going to the Landy and the Landy start going to the stump!!??
Machine Mart seem to do a wide range
tinyurl.com/zb5v
as does winchwarehouse
tinyurl.com/zb63
Or do a Yahoo UK search?? Winches are suddenly interesting!! Maybe because I've got a few stumps (trees that is) that could do with pulling!
|
Maybebecause I've got a few stumps (trees that is) that could do with pulling!
I am so glad you qualified that last statement.
|
I think 4x4s are like any other type of vehicle.. and it's only the name (inverted snobbery or just snobbery?) that gets some people going.
I personally would not have one due to size: but if we allow Transits then 4x4s are ok.
As far as danger to pedestrians is concerned yes they are dnagerous but so are all car types ..
I have had personal experience of pedestrians running out in front of your car: at 70 mph and at night on a 3 lane highway.. with solid traffic on either side.. so no room for manoeuvre.. and then he stopped..
No matter what I was driving: 4x4 , lorry, Mini or anything that guy was dead from the moment he stopped..(and he did die.. hitting bonnet, windscreen and road behind car..).. Yes I was prosecuted and found not guilty but not a pleasant experience.
You cannot legislate aginst idiotic behaviour : rule 1
You can look out for idiotic behaviour (kids running out in front of cars - our son did it in Southport and survived due to quick thinking driver) - rule 2.
There is no point in making some things safer and not others : rule 3.
madf
|
madf - I agree with your points 1 and 2, but not 3. In questions of life and death, one cannot ignore risk factors just because they aren't the biggest ones. The big ones may have no obvious or easy solution, while small risks can be simply sorted - the obvious example here is the bull-bars, which serve no purpose (in UK) and are easily removed.
And your point about Transit vans is valid, except that many 4x4s are just Big - the space is not needed on the school run, where a more normal car could do the job and cause less obstruction.
|
|
Can't agree with your rule 3, madf. Anything that improves safety overall is worth doing, even if you can't fix everything.
|
Designers of all vehicles take some account of the damage the vehicle is likely to inflict on a pedestrian, and they try to minimise it. This is true even for those vehicles that only score '1-star'. Fitting bull bars undoes all of that work. Some of them are really evil devices - particularly those that feature two vertical 'I' sections, edge-on. If you wanted to break bones you couldn't design anything better.
If every UK vehicle (cars included) were to be fitted with bull bars then the pedestrian fatality rate would likely increase by a factor between 2-4x from its present level. Any aftermarket modification 'likely to increase injury to a pedestrian' should be banned.
|
When seat belts were introduced pedestrian deaths soared.
Ban seat belts and you can leave the bull bars alone!
Until then just keep on arguing around in circles.......
|
[When seat belts were introduced pedestrian deaths soared]. Go on, Graham, show us the figures if you can. And then show us cause and effect?
|
|
Andrew I thought you would have known these facts, motorcycle accidents also went up. Facts the government took pains to push under the carpet.
|
Can't agree with your rule 3, madf. Anything that improves safety overall is worth doing, even if you can't fix everything.
Sorry, but that's the argument for a blanket 2mph speed limit.
We shouldn't ignore obviously fixable dangers just because there are worse but irresolvable problems, but equally we need to keep a sense of proportion when considering new restrictions.
Anyway on the subject of the thread, the issue is on the one hand a cosmetic change that makes you look like a pretentious pr*t, and on the other the prospect of killing anyone you touch above 5mph.... Hmmmm...
|
|
Take your point, patently; but the reasoning behind this thread is that even though a risk may seem vanishingly small, it is not worth taking unless there is some trade-off. Several of us don't believe just making a vehicle look a bit nicer (a value judgment anyway) is a significant trade-off.
|
But like you say, it's a subjective thing - many on here don't like the look of bullbars, but some do.
If, for instance, you owned a classic car which would miserably fail the latest NCAP pedestrian protection criteria, would you scrap it on these grounds?
Everybody likes different things, and it's much easier to dissaprove of something on safety grounds if, in your eyes, it is pointless and looks stupid.
|
If, for instance, you owned a classic car which would miserably fail the latest NCAP pedestrian protection criteria, would you scrap it on these grounds?
That's a very good point, Owen. Of course the impact on the human body with many classic cars will be lower than a 4x4 with bullbars, but still you could argue that as classic cars pose an increased risk of injury over their modern counterparts, they should be banned.
Growler,
>>After a glass or two of the amber nectar I came up with the idea that perhaps all horseless carriages should be preceded by a person carrying a red flag.........<<
Just when this thread was in need of a little levity....! Might have known it'd be you! Had me in fits, that did.
Cheers
Rob
|
Andrew-T,
Out of genuine interest, what do you drive ?
In case you don't know I have a variety but spend most of my time in either a Landcruiser or an Omega estate.
|
|
Mark - 306 HDi hatch for me, Clio 1.6 for SWMBO.
|
patently,
Yes, of course I was arguing for a blanket 2mph speed limit - in exactly the same way as madf's rule 3 was arguing for abolition of seat belts, lights, safety glass, windscreen wipers, anti-lock brakes, traction control...... Show me where anyone has argued for a 2mph limit.
It doesn't help discussion when people exaggerate a perfectly reasonable point to an extreme just because they can't be bothered to respond to it reasonably.
The key is to balance safety with practicality. That's why we don't all drive at 2mph in cars covered with 2 feet thick foam.
|
After a glass or two of the amber nectar I came up with the idea that perhaps all horseless carriages should be preceded by a person carrying a red flag.........
|
I fail to see where this argument is actually going. Yes, a large 4x4 is worse than most cars regarding pedestrian safety but if you look at the figures they are as good if not better than some cars regarding pedestrian safety.
4x4 cars do not make up a huge number of road going vehicles, yes the numbers are getting higher but then so are the pedestrian crash ratings for these vehicles.
As regarding peoples attitudes to 4x4's, I can't see what the problem is. If someone needs a van sized vehicle, for work or leisure, the they should be allowed to drive one without some zoom getting uptight and silly about it. I agree that most of these vehicles are never used for their intended purpose but that choice is down to the user, not some fool who drives around in a 2CV with painted flowers all over it.
|
Posted by 'Dwight Van Driver' in another thread:
"Reg 52 MV (Con and Use) regs 1986.
No mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on/after 1.10.1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
Also covered in EEC74/483 EEC79/488 EEC Reg 26.01
There is also under the same Regs another catch all - parts and accessories in such condition as likely to cause danger. I seem to recall it was this later one that led to the demise of the cat at the front of a Jag but may be in one of the EEC Regs."
This obviously dates from well before WWII. Could bullbars be classified as 'other ornamental object' I wonder?
|
The difference I would submit is that a Bullbar would give you a dry slap as opposed to the Jag Cat which would most likely spear you?
Used to be a common sight on A.1. Southerners returning from Jockland after a hunting trip with deer antlers wired to the front of their cars.
Reg 52 did very nicely.
I would therefore advise PU no bull horns on the Spanish 90. Ole.
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
|
