Bullbars are also not fitted as original equipment because most buyers

don't need them, and the manufacturer can make savings by eliminating

them.

They are also not fitted because manufacturers have acknowledged that they are dangerous, and have agreed to a voluntary ban on them ... and because they would have devastating results for a vehicle's EuroNCAP pedestrian impact tests.

As far as the physics involved, yes I do understand them.

The front of a Land Rover has a lot of hard

aluminium and steel, before the bullbars are even fitted.

Those hard surfaces are bad news when a pedestrian is hit, but the situation is not improved by replacing a relatively flat surface with a frame which will ensure a series of bone-breaking point impacts.

But a major thrust of regulations governing the design of the front of vehicles is to require them to be softer and more deformable. Rigid bull bars are designed to be hard and unyielding -- they are a step in the opposite direction.

Regarding the likelihood of pedestrians being trapped underneath the vehicle, the

DoT study you've linked to provides no indication of the shape

and type of vehicles the subject bullbars were fitted to. I

have seen plenty of car derived pickups and vans with them

recently. If the car has a low bonnet then the fitting

of bull bars is going to change those characteristics and pedestrians

who would otherwise fall onto the bonnet may get trapped under

the vehicle instead. On a high bonneted vehicle that risk is

there before the bars are fitted.

You're quite right that there is an inherent design problem in the 4X4/SUV type of vehicle, in that the combination of a bluff front and high ground clearance increases that risk. It could be that on some vehicles which already incorporate that design flaw, bull bars won't make that situation much worse.

Yes I consider that bullbars may in some circumstances increase the

risk to pedestrians, but they can also reduce the risk to

pedestrians and other road users, as in the case posted here

where a girl who came off her bike managed to grab/get

caught in the bars preventing her from being dragged underneath the

car.

I think that's really clutching at straws, Hugo. For starters, it's a situation involving an already-flawed design feature - the solution to that is to stop producing so many vehicles with that dangerous frontal shape.

But that situation could only apply to very low-speed impacts. At more than a trivial speed, the pedestrian who is hit will not be in a position to grab onto anything, and their chances will be further reduced by having their bones broken through impact with the bars.

I do consider that the fitting of bullbars should be done

for functional reasons, not simply to accessorise a vehicle.

I agree -- so what exactly is the functional purpose of fitting to a vehicle on British roads a device designed for use in the Australian outback, and designed to ensure that the brnt of an impact is borne by the object hit rather than the vehicle? The function of these things is to injure the animal (in this case a human animal) rather than the car.

However I

really don't believe there is hard evidence out there to condemn

them out of hand. Unless NW you can find a report

that is much more conclusive than the DoT one you've found

me so far.......

That DoT report is only available online as a summary. The full version is available if you want to read it, which you ought to do before dismissing it. There is also plenty of other evidence, though little of the original research seems to be available online -- e.g. the crucial European Safety Council report or the 1996 EEVC tests.

But in any case, you are getting the burden of proof back-to-front. If drivers want to fit to their vehicles a device designed to to alter its impact characteristics away from the norms set down by carefully-researched safety regulations, they should be able to produce some fairly conclusive research which shows that these devices won't make things worse.

Since rigid bully bars are specifically designed to protect the vehicle at the expense of a object they hit, it's hard to see why they should be permitted unless there is some very conclusive evidence that they don't work as intended.

Are there any plans to make a new M5 Touring?

>>
In addition to the spy shots this months CAR says yes, September this year. Not sure if that is launch here or in Germany.

In the meanwhile there is always the 550i Touring. £48K with a mere 367bhp

Diamond would not give my daughter a quote a few years ago as she was too honest - she said she was on her gap year, did a little part time work for the council and did some babysitting. That counts as three jobs and they won't insure you with three jobs!

Have you tried esure and tesco ? Have the main car with esure very cheaply and the micra for self + 18 year for under £800.

Changing the front fog lamps is not the easiest of jobs.There is one screw securing whiiich is accessible through the small cut out under the lamp,you don't have to take the screw right out.You have to put a thin bladed screwdriver or similar between the top of the lamp and the bumper to bend the plastic lugs down,with a little bit of persausion the lamp will come out .Good luck

Most the Tesco fuel stations I use have the pay at pump facility too. Never understood why more places don't offer this, perhaps they want us to visit their shops in the hope we buy something else!