Pedestrian safety vs bullbars
 

This got me thinking: Cars have been designed to increase pedestrian safety, yet bullbars are legal? Driving with one is like screaming: "I hate pedestrians!"
http://b.cdnbrm.com/images/prm/homep...bull-bar-3.jpg
http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/__data/as...bull-bar-1.jpg

Sorry if I'm ranting, but I see a lot of cars with shiny chrome pedestrian killers on their front bumper, not only on off-road vehicles, but even on econoboxes which never leave the city. I see absolutely no reason for them, except to inflict as much damage as possible in case of a collision. Or maybe it's part of the macho compensating-for-something image?

bring it to the attention of the insurance companies. They would like any excuse to increase liability costs.

the nih seems to agree w/you
Bull bars and vulnerable road users. - PubMed - NCBI

I personally like the look. My little brother and I were going to design one for my insight, until we remembered the frame is aluminum and we don't have the equipment necessary go weld to aluminum.

This topic comes up in the local media from time to time, but given the chances of hitting a Kangaroo (even in the city limits) vs hitting a pedestrian, there will always be demand for them. Most of the smaller bars won't do anything to protect you from an animal impact any way, there's often made from extremely thin steel. I took the bar off my first van and it was amazingly light probably less than 0.5mm tube, it's probably a softer collision than with the vehicle bumper.

There's also a move toward composite bars that work better at protecting the vehicle than alloy bars, while being pedestrian safety tested:

Pedestrian and Occupant Safety

That website also shows that vehicles fitted with steel/alloy front bars increase the risk of occupant injury.

These aren't generally welded to the frame, they use existing mounting points.

There will be a narrow range of cases between the pedestrian bouncing off and going splat like a bug. A bull bar will pull down the top of the range a little. At a lower speed they offer a hand-hold, so you don't slide under the wheels.

Most of the ones i see are just for looks. Thin metal, crappy welds, no upper mount points, no consideration for rigidity, etc.

They scream, "look at me, i bought cheap chinese crap and think im a hardass!"

Correct, but when you have to design one for a car that never had one, th let frame is the best spot to go to.

Knowing that they are a factor in inflicting needless damage to people, and are %99.9999999999 percent completely useless otherwise, personally I think they look like the mark of a complete cretin.

@freebeard, ok, lets try hitting you with one of these and see how that handhold theory works out...

this is a no-brainer guys.

I like impulsion-bumpers, they do look cool in a 4WD rig, and are actually useful in certain circumstances not just restricted to off-roading but also clearing a road from obstacles (no wonder they're widely used in American police cars). But it actually bothers me when I see a random econobox fitted with them just for the "urban cowboy" looks. BTW they might interfere in the deployment of airbags.

P-hack -- I'd failed to notice you were in the thread. I will refrain from sarcasm for the remainder...

I hope that's not A-B-A testing

...starting now.

I wondered why you were invoking images of indiana jones :)

You will have to forgive me for taking what you say at face value.

Look at this Asia Motors Topic, a license-made version of the Mazda Bongo, fitted with some ornament that resembles a bull-bar but is visibly much weaker
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-4pP6Zwhe...%2Bde%2Bpx.jpg

An early Ford EcoSport with a plastic bumper extension just for the looks of a bull-bar
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YTspvWBdIe...uls%C3%A3o.jpg

The bull-bar on this Land Rover Discovery seems to be more pedestrian-friendly (or less pedestrian-threatening, depending on point of view) than usual
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QSXZiksiy8.../Photo9233.jpg

There's an eight page thread on thesamba.com's Vanagon subforum:
TheSamba.com :: View topic - Bulley bars and Brush guards PICS post em up!

First pic from 2008
http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/509306.jpg

last pic from 2014
http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/1260246.jpg

Odd that they call them a 'bulley bar' when the Type II was called a 'bulli'. For purposes of this thread 'bully bar' would be appropriate. :) AKA 'roo bar'.

What I'd gone looking for was the Hurst brush guard from the 50s:

http://images.thesamba.com/vw/classi...ix/3942297.jpg
http://images.thesamba.com/vw/classi...ix/3942297.jpg

Central Florida has a greater percentage of rednecks in F250s with brush guards than anywhere I've ever been.
Of course none of them actually take their trucks off-road, they just spend thousands of dollars to look like they do. Mostly they just go blasting around my Insight on I-4 at 90 mph giving me the finger after they've rode 5 feet off my back bumper for a while

A couple of years ago I was sitting at a light and saw a pedestrian get hit by an F350 with a brush guard towing a triple axle trailer loaded down with a front end loader. It wasn't the driver's fault, she walked right in front of him, but the result was about what you'd expect. Didn't scratch the brush guard on the truck, but it threw the lady about 50 feet and she ended up in a heap on the road.

As far as Kombis go, and it also applies to other forward-control vans, some owners think a bull-bar is likely to increase their safety in case of collision. Though it eventually can make it worse and increasing the difficult to provide first aid.

Most of the eight pages is exactly that debate, rather than pictures. Comparisons to a mousetrap and such.

Nobodies going to point out that Hurst never made a bay-window version?

I think they're mainly to protect the glass and plastic lenses in the various lights.

The US has the law backwards, to the demise of pedestrians and human life. Here pedestrians have the right of way at all times, meaning vehicles must yield to them no matter what.

This creates a false sense of security for pedestrians who are used to just stepping in front of traffic and assuming the driver sees them, or can anticipate their movement.

If the law was that vehicles had the right of way, pedestrians would have to use their eyes and ears when stepping onto vehicular roadways. Additionally, massive amounts of fuel would be saved as it's more efficient to stop a 160 lb person traveling at 3 MPH than to stop a 3,000 lb vehicle traveling at 40 MPH.

To the point of the thread; I would likely install a bullbar if I lived in Montana, Utah, Arizona, or any of the other areas where hoards of deer and elk frequently camp on the highway. These states also have a higher top speed than in Oregon.

Perhaps I'd upgrade to this:
http://theleek.com/wp-content/upload...rd-610x325.jpg

Gotta have to agree with that. You know, not everyone can actually drive, so why just focus on "educating" (actually indoctrinating) the drivers and leaving the pedestrians just to behave recklessly like cattle?

It's kind of strange that car companies are forced to spend so much time and money to make cars meet safety standards, but then Joe Bro can jack up his truck and use a solid block of iron as the front bumper. I don't mind people modding their vehicles to actually go wheeling, I would just prefer for my head to not get taken off by one of them commuting to work if they hit my car (even my truck wouldn't provide much protection from some of them).

Pedestrian beware, but don't trucks have to stop at red lights in Florida?

I think, in the majority of cases, these bull/bully bars are added to cars & trucks only to "enhance" their owners' small manhoods, or to add ruggedness to an otherwise insecure and wimpy man.
Real men are confident and happy to drive small cars. :thumbup:

this tops has been discussed in the past many years ago. drunk pedestrians well a problem and a few proposals:
Why Didn't This 1930s Cow-Catcher For Pedestrians Ever Catch On? - CityLab
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...jpg?1399934459
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...safety%202.JPG

this is from 1894:
http://longstreet.typepad.com/.a/6a0...3cf0970c-500wi

little off subject:
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/03/18/safe-dog-rides.jpg

there are others but all I can find right now.

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/03/18/safe-dog-rides.jpg

A safe dog is a happy dog. :)

Whoa, until I saw it full-sized I didn't notice the C-clamps and the hook under the door handle.

No way I would use something like that.

On a suicide style door! Now why would that be called like that? ;)

Last year I hung two sacks with earth and plant seeds on a fence.
The sacks had grommets which hung on hooks. After half a year the grommet broke free from one of the sacks which dropped.

If the hooks or grommets fail on this one... Ugh.
This is wrong in so many ways.

At least it would prevent the dog from accelerating in case of an accident--unless something broke.

A grown woman told me that would happen when I asked why some people transported their pets in cages.

My sister has seatbelt buckles that attach to the collars.

That seems much worse to me.

That's how the rounded nose on the aerocivic works. It acts like a wedge to shunt the deer over the top of the car and has been tested on 2 deer so far.

I usually carry Vanessa (my mixed-breed dog, presumably half Fox Terrier and half Miniature Pinscher) in a cage to avoid her vomiting on the seats, carpet and door trims.


A body harness would make more sense. At least would reduce the likelyhood of neck injuries.

Body harnesses are always better!

For whom? The driver or the pets? :rolleyes: