Another possible ban on bull bars

That's such a load of crap. With all the "important" things that need attention, why are your taxpayer dollars going towards this bunch of bull? Sorry, hearing stuff like that makes my blood boil.
Do they not understand the added strength and protection they provide to vehicles? Air bags cause more injuries than they do good anyways. Seat belts save lives.
 
Last edited:
Having had a look at the docs I can't see a problem for any Subi with bars such as SubaXtreme.
However, raised Cruisers with lengths of metal tubing forward of the bar, as 'fishing rod mounts', right at the level of a kids head, would probably be in trouble.
Perhaps it is all a 'smart bar' plot.
dirtyRU, a properly engineered bar doesn't stop vehicle damage, just transmits the forces to appropriate points. However, damage still occurs to the vehicle.
 
damage still occurs, but rather than a stock
(weak) bumper getting crushed in when hitting a tree at slow speeds or a deer, the damage is much less significant. One time offroading with a good friend in highschool, we forgot to lock the front hubs & while making a turn at around 35 mph, the road went one way and we went straight into a 4'w oak tree. I know with a normal stock bumper, the front wouldv'e been pushed into the radiator, but with this grill guard, it did nothing. Granted you won't find a guard like this on a subaru..
untitled.jpg
 
Useless gallahs is right. :yell:

I can understand banning things such as fishing rod mounts that are mounted on the front of bullbars (hang on, aren't they illegal & banned already) but not the bullbars themselves.
And the possible banning of other bumper mounted accessories such as winches and driving lights, give me a break. :furious:

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
Those mounts are already illegal I thought. In WA, apparently you can't have the traditional 4 or 5 poster anymore- for all I know, it maybe nationwide
 
Yes, in NSW at least, I believe anything forward of the bull bar is illegal.

Perhaps we should start to complain about diplomatic / embassy flags attached at the front of the vehicle! ;-)
 
Perhaps we should start to complain about diplomatic / embassy flags attached at the front of the vehicle! ;-)
I'll put my hand up for that & have a pen in my hand......Now where do I sign !!

I'm just wondering what's next. Maybe it will be a ban on the girl guides selling cookies.

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
Hey - I'm from Canberra, those useless Galahs fly in from interstate! We can't keep them out!!!

Seriously though, go and fill out the surveys, and write to your local member. This ban has been tried a number of times - Australia has some unique conditions, and well designed bars are in my opinion a safety item.

Funny how the politicians haven't put forward any Australian statistics to show what proportion of accidents are with a bullbar equipped vehicle, and if they are, what proportion are really made worse by having a bar fitted.

I realise any accident is crook, and there may be potential for bars to do additional injury, but how often in the real world does it happen?
 
from what i've been told rod holders are only illegal if no rods in them,when not in use should be turned so nothing protrudes beyond bullbar.
 
Yeah, fair point. Nothing wrong with the fair people of sunny Canberra. When a mate from Canberra bought himself a BMW M3, he just walked up to me, handed me the keys and said go have some fun. Obviously I didn't argue!


Hey - I'm from Canberra, those useless Galahs fly in from interstate! We can't keep them out!!!
 
Tired old hoary article ...

... from a magazine that isn't even interested in Subi's.
Same old same old, ... sensationalism sells magazines.
Anyway, why exactly does a Comode or Foulcan need anything more than a Smart Bar? Not as if they are off-road vehicles.
The reality is that, with air bags, etc, safe functioning bars are difficult to fabricate. The days of the 'back yard' welded bar are already gone.
Here is the real issue, https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/11/3136113.htm?section=justin fatalities per 100.000 in Austrlia are already significantly higher than in Europe, and the Europeans are aiming at doing even better. Too many cars availble in Aussie are behind the rest of the world.
FWIW, I think there are a lot of things worth arguing about prospective new standards, but sensationalist nonsense primarily designed to sell magazines is not the best ay to do it.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but some of what is in that ABC article is just ignorant rubbish. For starters, they say the maximum speed limit in Australia is 110, when in fact it is 130. It does not mention that when the open NT speed limit was removed and the 130 limit came in, the road toll DOUBLED in a year. They rightly say that we should look at road safety as we do workplace safety, because maybe then drivers will get the training they are not required to have to get a licence. Yet training was never mentioned in the article. I agree that vans and commercial vehicles are not safe- yet they are allowed on the road. Why? As for having speedos that only go to 110- typical of someone who has no idea on road safety. Apart from the fact people can use GPS instead, such silliness has been tried overseas and it achieved nothing.

With Australia's climate far better than Europe, North America and the UK due to far less ice, snow, etc, we really should have better safety. But the continual chronic under funding of roads in the last 100 years, combined with very poor driver training and an over emphasis on only enforcing speeding laws it should come as no surprise countries like Germany, with 4 times our population only has 3 times our road toll. The only response our governments have is to"crack down on speeding" with more speed cameras and higher fines. Even though Blind Freddy can see this has not worked, it is equally obvious it does make it look like the governments are being seen to be doing something while at the same time increasing their revenue.
 
True, N.T. is part of Aus, so yes 130 is the upper limit I guess. (Not sure where else may have 130, but then not really interested, in that it is 110 most places most of us are likely to drive.)
If the 270 degrees of the speedo dial that is calibrated had a maximum speed of ~ 150kmh then it would be possible to have them graduated much more accurately, even accounting for them being set to read high.
With 2kmh graduations it would be a much more accurate visual cue to avoid speeding fines. Would also remove the allure of those high numbers to the 'Ricer' boys.
Granted, this is possibly inconvenient for those who do track work, however I'm sure there would be solutions to this, and in my view road registered vehicles should be equipped for their intended lawful use. There is no lawful use on-road - for private drivers, at least - that necessitates a speed of 240kmh.
However, the main reason I highlighted the article was because of the point it raised about the big 4X4 utes and their lack of safety. It is the big 4x4 brigade that is bleating about the need for 'full on' bullbars for safety. (And I don't disagree that, if you need to drive in rural areas at night, then they can be warranted.) It is therefore ironic that these same vehicles are significantly less safe for occupants than 'regular' cars and their proponents solution is that they 'need' bull bars, which will then make them even less safe for other road users with whom they come in contact on urban sealed roads.
 
I can see the problem for Victorian drivers where this would be more beneficial due to the almost total lack of leeway allowed in that state. Being booked more for 3km/h over any speed limit obviously is an issue. It would be so easy to get around the speedo markings by those who would want to, by simply importing the part from OS, using GPS or other speedos. With the big 4WD's, they are unsafe in issues where they meet another vehicle or object their size or bigger, and in cornering/braking. But in conflict with a normal passenger car, they normally come off best.
 
Use my CB/GPS myself to monitor speed.
Yep, big 4X4 comes off best against passenger car, any form of 2 wheels ... or pedestrian.
Having started out as a cyclist, aside from the obvious 'should comply with road rules', in my view the 'sail over steam' rule should apply on road - i.e. the 'biggest & heaviest' should be responsible for the effect of their own mass. To those who'd say "I didn't see you" my response was ... "Bet you would've if I was a truck".
Interestingly, prior to WW2, the onus on a driver at night was to 'see' whatever he was approaching - i.e. drive within the stopping distance of the vehicles lights. This was to protect pedestrians, cyclists, horse carts, etc.
With the war-time black out this rule was waived, and never came back afterwards. Still think that it is correct in principle.
 
man Victorians are bitter people just because you have it one way doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer the same fate. And yes i have driven in victoria.
All that i'm saying is just because a minority group wants to jump up and down to get some stupid law change doesn't mean that the public show stand for it.
And yes if placing the article on the front cover of the magazine to sell so what. Tell me what magazine doesn't put some stupid photo or article on the cover just to sell , even the papers do it. I dont care if it increases their sales by ten fold as long as they get the message out . One other thing if these laws be come law then your nudge bar will be illegal and so will anything that you place on the front of your car including driving lights.
Read the fine print and if you dont understand ask a lawyer to read it for you . and yes i did ask a friend how is one and he is against it.
That is my 20cents worth.
 
I think the comment on Victoria is in relation to the fact that they can be booked for only being 3k's over the limit, and how a different speedo might help, not bullbars. It would be impractical for there to be 2 different speedos- one for Vic and one for non Vic. A better answer would be for the Victorian government to be less draconian. I certainly don't see the Victorians as being bitter.
 
Have had a look at it, and reading / interpreting laws and regulations is my stock in trade, so don't need a legal eagle.
The fact is that 'Roothy' will be able to keep his bars on his 'big red ute', as will everyone who has any vehicle which pre-dates whenever the new rules are introduced - assuming they are at some point.
I also think there is lots that needs to be done to refine what is proposed, I just don't think that off-roading is well served by the sort of sensationalism that is occurring.
The other thing, for what it is worth - perhaps not much - is that I can't help thinking that ordinary Ausies did the 'big trips' up until about 20 years ago in the family car, with virtually no mods, except for an 'Aunger' front plastic bar [YUK!] / spare tyre on a welded front rack if they had a van.
Over the past 20 years 'everyone' has been convinced that we all need big beasts with 'all the fruit' and others are asking if they actually improve prospective safety on urban streets.
Is all the 'gear' necessary? No.
Is it nice to have? Yes, as comforts keep the missus & kids happy.
Does it make for a better / more memorable trip? Probably not. Would the 'smart bars' solve most roo strike problems? Probably.
Should there be exemptions for those who live where cattle / roos are an issue? Absolutely.
 
Back
Top