Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jul 23, 2011

Survey: Bull bars make driving safer, Nanny wanted them banned.

European standards do not take this into account.

Some time ago the Federal Government proposed adopting the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation GTR-09 on pedestrian safety. This proposal was subsequently withdrawn. The ‘Neurotics of the World Unite' crowd have been attempting to have bull bars banned for years and this presented the feds with an excuse to please another pressure group.

Presumably the government felt that it was reasonable to adopt European standards on this matter. After all, the people of England, France, Germany, Holland, and Spain would naturally have a deep understanding of animal strikes and the risks involved in hitting roos, scrubber cattle, camels, wild pigs, and brumbies out in the wilder more remote regions of their countries.

Lets face it, if you want to know about dealing with crocodiles, you naturally ask some environmentally sensitive Tasmanian or Victorian, rather than those knuckle dragging redneck pricks from the north.

In response the Australian 4WD Industry Council has conducted a national survey of bull bar users, which has revealed that 97% of respondents believe that their safety would be compromised if they were unable to fit a bull bar to their vehicles. There were 42,600 individual responses, but the analysis of the study was based on only the 33,620 respondents who completed all questions.

The majority, (73%) of respondents reported animal strikes over the last five years, which means that their views are based on experience and knowledge of the subject. We are advised to consider this in the context of the total Australian road death toll of about 1500 people a year. The figures highlight the fact that animal strike is a very common occurrence for Australian families, particularly those living in regional, rural and remote areas. Some of the figures are as follows:

Consequences of their most severe animal strike in the past five years:
With bull bar = 33% no damage, 54% minor damage, 12% major damage, 0.5% vehicle immobilized.
With no bull bar = 4 % no damage, 29% minor damage, 46% major damage, 20% vehicle immobilized.

Occupant injury resulting from the most severe animal strike in the past five years:
With bull bar = 99.3% no injuries, 0.7% injuries sustained.
No bull bar = 80% no injuries, 20% injuries sustained.

Respondents' views on whether bull bars:
Prevented significant damage to the vehicle in a frontal impact = 99.6% yes.
Prevented significant injury to vehicle occupants in frontal impact = 92% yes.

There is a common misconception by some that most bull bar equipped vehicles never leave cities, (Toorak Trekkers) but 94% of respondents spent at least a week each year travelling in remote parts of Australia. Bull bars were seen as a stable platform for other important safety equipment, including:
84% fitted auxiliary lighting, 80% fitted communications equipment, 58% fitted winches.

To see the report go here, and click the link.


  1. Good. I blogged on this back in January when the idiots started on about this "Well Europe's banned them so we should too" crap. City dwelling migrant pom I may be, but I've had several near misses on rural roads and in the outback. Banning roobars is fucking lunacy - it really is that simple. Millions of kangaroos all apparently determined to bounce around in front of cars and who knows how many emus, which if anything are even more stupid. Not as stupid as anyone seriously considering this idea though.

    When I looked into it I found figures that said fewer than 200 pedestrians a year die in vehicle collisions and only 7-10% of those vehicles have bullbars, which means that this urbanite half-formed thought that banning them would be a good idea would save twenty lives a year, max - and even that assumes that the none of those twenty now would have died anyway even if the vehicle hadn't had bars. I guessed maybe a quarter or so, so a bullbar ban would more likely save about 12-15 p.a. But then I found something else which estimated that about 10% of Aussie vehicles had them and another source suggesting that there are about 200,000 roo collisions a year. If so then 20,000 or so vehicles that catch a suicide Skippy have bars fitted, and almost certainly save more than a dozen lives between them.

    Took me about half an hour to find that lot out so it ought to be a total no-brainer. Why the hell do these things take six months?

  2. WTF? That was a totally insane idea even by nanny state thinking. Common sense and a 5-year-old kid who lives outside city limits could tell you brush guards save a helluva lot of lives out here in "Fly-Over Country". Ask my ex-wife, aka "Deerslayer". I am aghast at the sheer stupidity of the very idea of banning grill guards. Just when I think they can't get any stupider...

    Rather like our government's land, timber, parks, and fish & game agencies. Some bureaucrat in Washington, whose feet have never left concrete in his/her entire life, makes up some one-size-fits-all regulation that is supposed to be applied equally and universally from the mangrove swamps of the Everglades to the tundra of Alaska's North Slope. Need I tell you how well that works?

    As for emulating Europe, does that include forming fascist/socialist/Communist regimes that send millions to the camps and gulags and start World Wars?

    Whoops. Never mind. I don't want to give them any more ideas.

  3. As for emulating Europe, does that include forming fascist/socialist/Communist regimes that send millions to the camps and gulags and start World Wars?


    I keep warning you about giving them ideas Bawb.