death spurs new call for bullbar ban

[Patrick Young]

feral wrote:
> Patrick Young wrote:
>
>> feral wrote:
>>
>>> Diesel Damo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> the irony is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find even greater irony in people who can't stand that their bullbar
>>>> now has a scratch on it =)
>>>>
>>> Yep, that's city folk Damo.
>>>
>> Mine has a huge rust spot that I'm just itching to repaint. You don't
>> want to know about the rear step tow bar.
>
> I wont fall into the trap, I know he goes bush Damo. :-)

No trap, it really does have a huge rust spot.

I'm with Damo on this.

[John McKenzie]

Noddy wrote:
>
> "sheik yerbouti" <delbo21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h537u050kfhgl6t0o6qa21p9tbr29nbv7r@4ax.com...
>
> > but at the same time adding to protection of its own occupants. the
> > argument works both ways, in the end a smaller car isn't any safer.
>
> Size has nothing to do with strength.

atec or ron don't even need to read this post, that one is writing
itself :)


> > the differene between vehicle size and bullbars is that the latter
> > just reduces safety levels, there is no benefit to anyone.
>
> There's plenty of benefit to the people with the bullbar :)
>

The argument could just as easily (and as closedmindedly) be made that
for a motorcyclist _any_ car is a danger, and so therefore everyone
should have to ride bikes, as small cars become the new '4wd menace' .

And hey Sheik, motorcycles are cheaper to run than cars, so we aren't
biased. Nope, we're just doing our civic duty and trying to save
everyone else money.....

Of course switching to a motorcycle would mean that the sheik would have
to change _his_ lifestyle, and suddenly there'd be a bunch of reasons
why it's wrong....

What I find most interesting of all is that (from what I can tell in
this newsgroup) there's no shortage of active motorcyclists who don't
mind 4wds (apart from the usual volvo jokes and the like most
motorcyclists tend to make)

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[athol]

feral <plonked@home.ru> wrote:
> athol wrote:
>> sheik yerbouti <delbo21@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>what about installing them? isn't that an engineering solution to a
>>>social problem (bad driving)? why should you have to pay for that?

>> Bull bars are designed to protect the vehicle from damage due
>> to impact with animals. Which part of that relates to bad
>> driving?

> They may be *designed* for that purpose Athol, but can you
> truthfully say that that is why *all* people fit them?

That's entirely beside the point. I was responding to a
suggestion that the bull bar was designed for a purpose
which is completely and utterly different to the actual
purpose for which they were designed.

Usage is entirely different to design purpose.

Besides, I don't have a bullbar on either of my vehicles
and have never had one on any previous vehicle. I've
thought about it for the work vehicle that does trips to
Canberra, Narrabri, Tamworth, Kandos, Cowra, etc., but
have instead broken speed limits to ensure that I'm on
the roads that present less animal risk by dusk or I'll
sit behind a _pair_ of semis...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Graham W]

>>D Walford wrote:
>>>Education worked when I was a kid, why couldn't it work now?
>>>I can still remember the road safety education I got in primary school
>>>in the late 50's so it must have been effective.

> Graham W wrote:
>>I can still remember the Russian language education I got in secondary
>>school somewhat more recently, so that must have been effective too.
>>
>>Yet somehow I can't understand more than about 3 words of Russian.

D Walford wrote:
> So yours wasn't effective, I remember the content of my road safety
> education, not the fact that I got it.

Hector the safety cat?

I'm sure he said to look to the right, then look to the left, then look
to the right again, but my american friends insist it was left then
right then left...

Even remembering the content doesn't guarantee effectiveness,
particularly with stuff like safety, where people frequently know
perfectly well that what they're about to do is not safe, but still do it.

We'd all like to be able to think "that doesn't apply to me", yet how
many times have you thought "I'm doing this all wrong, I'll stop as soon
as I've finished this one" a split second before stabbing yourself with
a tool?

[athol]

reg-john <jab@bab.com> wrote:

> exactly! if people want to wear seatbelts sweet, if they dont go ahead. why
> cant we choose for ourselves?

Good idea. Anybody who fails to wear it can pay for their
own medical treatment and all emergency services costs of
attending a crash _in full_. Darwin would be proud. :-)

Oh, and right now you _can_ choose not to wear your seatbelt.
In the process you are also choosing to wear the fine and
points if you prang or get caught. Unfortunately, you don't
presently also choose to wear associated costs.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[feral]

athol wrote:
>
> That's entirely beside the point.

But correct?

I was responding to a
> suggestion that the bull bar was designed for a purpose
> which is completely and utterly different to the actual
> purpose for which they were designed.

Noted.

>
> Usage is entirely different to design purpose.

Yup, also noted.
>
> Besides, I don't have a bullbar on either of my vehicles
> and have never had one on any previous vehicle. I've
> thought about it for the work vehicle that does trips to
> Canberra, Narrabri, Tamworth, Kandos, Cowra, etc.,

Neither do I.

but
> have instead broken speed limits

Without posing potential danger to other road users, of
course. ;-)

to ensure that I'm on
> the roads that present less animal risk by dusk or I'll
> sit behind a _pair_ of semis...
>
With bull-bars.

--

Take Care
Feral

[feral]

Patrick Young wrote:
>
> No trap, it really does have a huge rust spot.
>
> I'm with Damo on this.

I'm with you's on bull bars in the bush. Have you noticed
anything to the contrary? :-)

--

Take Care
Feral

[John McKenzie]

Noddy wrote:
>
> "sheik yerbouti" <delbo21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:n3q6u0lnuklr6d4omhveghcrg6qma0jpc9@4ax.com...
>
> > people will always make mistakes. it's useful to say this, but not to
> > offer it as a complete solution.
>
> So we pass the burden of these mistakes onto others who aren't doing
> anything wrong?
>
> What a crock of shit.
>
> I suppose you're also in favour of Christmas being banned at pre school
> because it's unfair to the people who don't celebrate it.
>

You know the biggest irony of that? In the places it was considered it
was to be 'sensitive' to the islamic population of the area, but there
are muslim clerics on record as saying they have no problem whatsoever
with the community celebrating christmas.

In other words it's the 'we have to jump on a bandwagon to appear like
we are politically correct, so nobody would think to look on our
computers at work for our kiddy porn collection' numbnuts that are
behind it...


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[Scott Hillard]

"sheik yerbouti" <delbo21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:luk6u05sn1p5tdebor1lrdcj3211mu97ph@4ax.com...

> scruby may be a poster child for abortion but on one point it's hard
> to argue - why do urban 4WDs need bullbars? it's a proven fact they
> can kill.

Why do people need kitchen knives?

It's a proven fact they can kill.

Toasters too - and TVs. Sometimes they fall on kids and squash them. Ban
the lot! Think of the children!!!!

> i'm not a road safety nanny

Bzzzzt. Lie.

> but logic says you just don't need the stupid things.

'logic' must be one of those voices in your head.

[D Walford]

sheik yerbouti wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:00:53 +1100, D Walford <walford@iprimus.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >> they don't contribute to crashworthiness of the vehicle.
> >
> >They certainly do on forward control vans.
> >Go and have a look at one and see how unprotected anyone sitting in the
> >front is.
> >
> again, go and read about airbag compatibility and bullbars. you'll
> find they just can't mount them rigidly enough to be an integral part
> of the structure.
>
> they look tough from eye level but the mountings let them down.

I don't need to read anything and what has airbags which most forward
control don't have got to do with anything.
A bullbar on one of those vans must be better protection than the single
piece of sheetmetal that is between the occupants and a crash.
Like I said go and have a look at one, without looking you can have no
idea what I'm talking about.



Daryl

[feral]

Diesel Damo wrote:
> I got confused because I can't see how saying "the lowest denominator
> is getting a little too low these days" implies that it's the
> *majority* that are "getting a little too low". Everyone could stay the
> same, but then just a couple of hundred ultra-idiots could get their
> license and thus drop the lowest denominator to their standards.
>
> So therefore I thought you might have been talking about something else
> I said. If that causes you to leap to conclusions like "you don't have
> fast recall to what you write do you", then ask yourself, who is really
> being the elitist here?

A concise observation that I run a cache and you google or
yahoo does not elite make. Common-sense, yes, I have to go
back and read posts sometimes, like others I'm sure.
>
> When I said "catered for", I meant the laws being constructed with this
> "low denominator" in mind.
>
Let's not get pedantic Damo, your statement that, "the lowest
denominator is getting a little too low these days" and the
implication that you are not included, smacks of eliteness and
now arrogance.

--

Take Care
Feral

[D Walford]

sheik yerbouti wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:59:11 +1100, D Walford <walford@iprimus.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >sheik yerbouti wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> again, the engineering 'objective' when hitting a ped is to get them
> >> to roll over the bonnet.
> >
> >Thats the problem, running into pedestrians has been designed by
> >engineers.
> >I prefer not to run into anything.
> >
> i prefer not to have any accidents but apart from loudly proclaiming
> it on NGs and driving sensibly i have limited control.

You can do a lot to avoid accidents, even those caused by the
incompetence of others.
If you have "limited control" please hand in your license.



Daryl

[D Walford]

feral wrote:
>
> D Walford wrote:
> >
> > Only on older 4WD's, you can't buy the "big beefy" ones anymore
>
> Psst, Daz, want to buy an old aggressive "bar". :-P
>

I didn't know you made bullbars in your spare time:-)



Daryl

[feral]

D Walford wrote:
> feral wrote:
>
>>D Walford wrote:
>>
>>>Only on older 4WD's, you can't buy the "big beefy" ones anymore
>>
>>Psst, Daz, want to buy an old aggressive "bar". :-P
>>
>
>
> I didn't know you made bullbars in your spare time:-)

I didn't know you had "full control" at all times either.
Or that you will have in the future. :-)
As I said, x your fingers. ;-)

--

Take Care
Feral

[D Walford]

Patrick Young wrote:
>
> D Walford wrote:
>
> > The bullbar on my recently aquired Hilux is a Toyota part so I'd be
> > amazed if it didn't pass ADR's.
>
> Out of interest which model 'lux did u buy? the model # will be enough
> for me to work it out.

I think this is the model no. VZN167R



Daryl

[Neil Fisher]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:08:00 GMT, "Noddy"
<dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au>, after considering some belly-button
fluf, wrote:

>
>"sheik yerbouti" <delbo21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:56l6u0du1rmp3k6ic17nr0ciq63t2ajo66@4ax.com...
>
>> if you're being unemotive the solution would be to remove all bullbars
>> as they're useless.
>
>Maybe to you.
>
>Mine's already been used a number of times, particularly in supermarket
>carparks :)

I *told* you not to let your missus drive it! ;-)

Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au

[athol]

feral <plonked@home.ru> wrote:
> athol wrote:

>> That's entirely beside the point.

> But correct?

It might be correct that people choose to buy them for that
reason, but it is not a reason that I have experienced for
buying one. If I did buy one, it would be to protect my
vehicle from animal strikes.

>> but have instead broken speed limits

> Without posing potential danger to other road users, of
> course. ;-)

Of course. If I posed a potential danger to others, that
would inherently imply that I posed a danger to myself. I
wouldn't want to do that!

>> to ensure that I'm on
>> the roads that present less animal risk by dusk or I'll
>> sit behind a _pair_ of semis...

> With bull-bars.

Bingo. :-)

Actually, it wouldn't matter whether they did or not. The
first one spooks the roo and the roo goes splat on the
front of the 2nd truck. I just have to beware of the red
mist and chunky bits on the road. :-p

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Shane]

"sheik yerbouti" <delbo21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5mi6u0pkgq35bkg7fub64ppcr78htjlal2@4ax.com...
> Dead boy's family launches bullbar campaign
> January 11, 2005 - 1:30PM
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Dead-boys-family-launches-bullbar-campaign/2005/01/11/1105206095619.html
>
> The family of a Melbourne boy killed by a four-wheel-drive has begun a
> campaign to ban deadly bullbars from vehicles in urban areas.


All the others involved cars with bumperbars. I reckon if we ban cars with
bumperbars then everything will be ok.
>
> Shahid Hajher, seven, died in his sister's arms in the NSW south coast
> town of Kiama on January 5 after he was hit by a four-wheel-drive
> fitted with a bullbar.
>
> His cousin, Farid Rawan, has become a political lobbyist and is
> calling for a ban on bullbars on vehicles in NSW's urban areas.

Kiama is a rural area to begin with so where does that leave his crusade
now?

>
> Mr Rawan, a Sydney computer engineer, hoped Shahid's death would not
> be in vain.

He's right. The lesson learned should be to supervise children crossing
roads or don't let seven year olds out of your sight.

>
> He yesterday launched an email petition urging people to support a ban
> on bullbars on urban vehicles.

What a wanker.

>
> It was "ridiculous" for urban motorists to fit their cars with
> bullbars, Mr Rawan said.

The kid wasn't hit in an urban area. Kiama is quite country.

>
> "I'm sure in the country there's a big argument for them to prevent
> kangaroos coming through the windscreen," he said.

Plenty of wildlife around Kiama too.

>
> "I don't know how often that happens but in the city there's just no
> reason to have a bullbar."

Boring.............

>
> Mr Rawan said his cousin was a gentle and brilliantly talented child.
>
> "Shahid was one of the most innocent and sweetest kids I have ever
> met," he said.
>
> "If he was in the house for a day it would light the whole house up."
>
> The Pedestrian Council of Australia has backed Mr Rawan's campaign.

Ere we go............

>
> Council chairman Harold Scruby said bullbars were a factor in up to 12
> per cent of pedestrian deaths, but police and the Roads and Traffic
> Authority (RTA) were not enforcing standards regarding unsafe
> bullbars.

and up to 88% involved cars with bumperbars?

>
> But motorists would gain demerit points for unsafe bullbars from March
> 1, he said.
>
> Lake Illawarra police supervisor Sergeant Bryan Rugg said today police
> were unlikely to press charges against the driver of the
> four-wheel-drive that hit Shahid.
>
> Comment was being sought from the office of NSW Police Minister John
> Watkins and the RTA.
>
> - AAP
>

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"sheik yerbouti"

> while most probably are, drivers are also to blame, turning across
> walk signals, into sidestreets, driving through zebra crossings.
>
> i'd love to see the driving records of all the people here who act as
> tho they've never made any mistakes and they don't pose a risk to
> anyone, so why should they be punished?

> i'd bet there'd be plenty of red faces in that case.

Mistakes??? What, speeding by definition is only applied in on-spot penalty
above the speed limit. So exceed speed limit is a mistake, does this by
your inference prohibit people from fighting the system? Stand well clear
if you imply this.

The *only* Traffic record that 'really' matters to me, is IF a person has
been involved in a crash or crashes, and that IF person was not penalised
for Neg Driving after the incident/s.

The person who will kill you in NSW will bear a Gold License.

J.

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"Kieron" <

> Anyone know how many people have been killed when hitting roos without
> a roo bar? Its probably hard to quantify though as they may have been
> killed with a roo bar.

Noticed a fatality with a horse (dead horse and driver) on the M4 through
the windscreen of a forward control van . .

With roos, usually band up and over the car or to the sides OR through the
windscreen, kicking madly - this is not healthy for drivers.

Some trucks on some routes have hit a hundred a night, here to preserve the
vehicles economic integrity, one needs a bar!


> The mining company I worked for didn't have roo bars on any vehicles,
> there was only one instance of someone hitting a roo and even then it
> only caused vehicle damage, the passengers were perfectly OK.