Whats The Legality Of "a" Bars Etc On 4x4's

TheDon · December 21, 2005

I am looking to get some chrome "A" bars for my Navara and keep getting conflicting views on their legality, im not after the type that run over the headlights etc, but that protect the sump and the front bumper like bellow..

Cheers

Mr Morse · December 21, 2005

I am looking to get some chrome "A" bars for my Navara and keep getting conflicting views on their legality, im not after the type that run over the headlights etc, but that protect the sump and the front bumper like bellow..
Cheers

←

Right......so why do you feel the need to fit bars which serve no useful purpose and which have been proved to increase the risk of serious injury to a pedestrian in the event of a collision?

T7RY B · December 21, 2005

You can put them on legally.

I asked the same question when I fitted them to the RX.

The only reason I took them off is because when I bought the front valance/spoiler they would not fit.

Another LOC member had them from me.

Kent · December 21, 2005

I am looking to get some chrome "A" bars for my Navara and keep getting conflicting views on their legality, im not after the type that run over the headlights etc, but that protect the sump and the front bumper like bellow..
Cheers

←

It is illegal for the selling dealer/manufacturer to fit bull bars but once you drive out of the showroom you can have them fitted by a specialist or do it yourself. Bear in mind your insurance company needs to be informed and you may have to pay a premium. I am not sure if there is any reliable evidence that "A" bars cause more injuries in an accident. I am sure that the 4x4 brigade would claim the opposite. However if you did injure somebody badly and the bull bars were thought to have contributed then you will have to face the inevitable consequences.

smyggy · December 22, 2005

There is no doubt they are dangerous to vulnerable road users (bikes/pedestrians/motrobikes)

i. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Bull-bars. London: Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, March 1997

(Type IV evidence - observational studies)

ii. Hardy BJ. A study of accidents involving bull bar equipped vehicles. Study No. 243 Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport Research Laboratory, 1996.

It may also mess up your airbag fire times.

I wouldn't fit them.

Kent · December 22, 2005

There is no doubt they are dangerous to vulnerable road users (bikes/pedestrians/motrobikes)
i. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Bull-bars. London: Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, March 1997

(Type IV evidence - observational studies)

ii. Hardy BJ. A study of accidents involving bull bar equipped vehicles. Study No. 243 Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport Research Laboratory, 1996.

It may also mess up your airbag fire times.

I wouldn't fit them.

←

And you can quote as many surveys as you like to support your case but as I said, the 4x4 people could quote you many so called "surveys" that would "prove" the opposite. Surveys are commissioned by those who want a particular answer and they usually get the answer they want by limiting the terms of reference. There never seems to be any admission, for instance that some bullbars (particularly the newer soft type) will have lessened the degree of injury. It is universally recognised that some bullbars are safer than the front of the vehicle to which they are fitted and some are more dangerous. No doubt the dangerous ones should not be fitted so why have our wonderful government not legislated properly on these things. It's not rocket science. Either they represent an additional danger or they do not. Most 4x4 owners mainly resent those who pass opinions on what they drive, how they drive it and what cosmetic additions are added for no other reason than they want to mind somebody elses business. How would it be if they said that everbody who fitted a performance booster to their car was nuts? I will eat my car if everybody who adds a supercharger is truly capable of handling the extra power. It probably makes most of them drive a bit faster and there are plenty of "surveys" proving that speed kills.

Live and let live and if you really want safer roads then bullbar legislation is pretty much at the bottom of most peoples list.

javadude · December 22, 2005

the 4x4 people could quote you many so called "surveys" that would "prove" the opposite

Can anyone here quote a scientific one?

Mr Morse · December 22, 2005

the 4x4 people could quote you many so called "surveys" that would "prove" the opposite

Can anyone here quote a scientific one?

←

How about this then?

"Analysis of accident records showed that 2-3 fatalities, and about forty serious injuries, at a cost of some £6M a year caused by bull bars"

The full report is HERE

Kent · December 22, 2005

the 4x4 people could quote you many so called "surveys" that would "prove" the opposite

Can anyone here quote a scientific one?

←

How about this then?

"Analysis of accident records showed that 2-3 fatalities, and about forty serious injuries, at a cost of some £6M a year caused by bull bars"

The full report is HERE

←

Yes, I have read that report which was commissioned in 1995 (now ten years out of date) by the Government at a cost to the taxpayer of £74,000. It is a typical mix of guesses, estimates and assumptions and all pertaining to the use of dangerous metal bullbars. They do acknowledge that the more modern, soft bullbars are actually safer than some vehicles without bullbars but they also say that their estimates are on the conservative side but are subject to a large degree of uncertainty. So, not exactly scientific then but what is? How can you possibly scientifically estimate what effect a bullbar has in an accident that was going to result in someone being hit by the front of a large vehicle? Interesting that the reports summary estimated the cost of additional injuries/fatalities allegedly caused by bullbars to be £6M per annum. How the hell do they come to that conclusion and does that not prove that their remit was financial and not safety related.

Bazza · December 22, 2005

I am looking to get some chrome "A" bars for my Navara and keep getting conflicting views on their legality, im not after the type that run over the headlights etc, but that protect the sump and the front bumper like bellow..
Cheers

←

protect the front bumper from what ?

that front bumper has been designed to be hit, designed to absorb a certain amount of impact,

designed to prehaps save your life one day

that bull bar wouldnt save jack ! an impact over 20mph could mean it snapping off and coming through the windscreen or at the very least bending straight into your bumper

whats it attached to ? the chassis ! do you really want to risk damage to that, just so your bumper is protected

i presume when you say the "sump" that you have made a spelling mistake

;)

ColinBarber · December 22, 2005

It may also mess up your airbag fire times.
I wouldn't fit them.

←

This is an important issue. If the vehicle hasn't been designed for the bars then will can cause this issue. A delayed airbag deployment could cause more injury than if it wasn't fitted at all.

Gord · December 22, 2005

Top and bottom is, he just wants it for SHOW :D

TheDon · December 22, 2005

well yes the majority of it will be for show, as this car is being created into a show car, and will feature a lot of stainless steel products.

I am picking a lower A bar rather than the type that extends to the top of the hood..

And to be honest, even if i hit someone without it then i will do them a servere amount of damage due to the hight of the front end, it is not a roll onto the bonnet shape!!!

Where we live it is in the middle of the countryside and there are a lot of tree stumps etc that litter the road edges etc that i have seen cause considerable damage to the sumps of cars etc.. hence the want for sump protection which is also availiable with the right item.

I will definately consider all the ramifications of this and see if i can get one of the collapsable "saftey" bars if the look is right.

Rob · December 24, 2005

bull bars, A bars whatever you want to call them, shouldnt be in this country at all, oh look skippy and his mate kudu are standing in the middle of the high street - not going to happen is it??????

as already said the front of the vehicle is designed to collapse and absorb some of the impact, if you place a large piece of SS tubing that is bolted to the chassis in front of that area, then you have just removed that safety feature.

Kent: i assume from your replies that you are in favour of the bars ( just the same as I am against them)?

If you want sump protection get a sump guard

TheDon · December 24, 2005

maybe i will just buy one and fit it for shows, they cant take too long to put in place.

Kent · December 24, 2005

bull bars, A bars whatever you want to call them, shouldnt be in this country at all, oh look skippy and his mate kudu are standing in the middle of the high street - not going to happen is it??????
as already said the front of the vehicle is designed to collapse and absorb some of the impact, if you place a large piece of SS tubing that is bolted to the chassis in front of that area, then you have just removed that safety feature.

Kent: i assume from your replies that you are in favour of the bars ( just the same as I am against them)?

If you want sump protection get a sump guard

←

No, not in favour at all. I have had several 4x4s none of which has had them. Nor would I consider fitting them although if I bought a vehicle with them already fitted I would probably leave things as they were. My objection is the interference of people who seem to be anti everything and try to justify their arguments by quoting one sided, meaningless so called surveys and statistics. Bad enough that we have a deeply untrustworthy and dishonest Government without the rest of us getting involved in other peoples business. Nobody is perfect and we all probably do some things that others disagree with. Look at any opinion poll on any subject and wonder at the diametrically opposed points of view expressed in them. If somebody wants to fit reasonably modest Bars to their vehicle whether as protection or just "bling" then It's none of my business and I will defend their right to do so. The original poster simply asked about legality and was quickly swamped by a barrage of anti bullbar invective. Not what he asked for or was expecting I suppose.

Still, I do not take it too seriously as there are far more important things in life and at the end of the day it's only a difference of opinion.

Happy Christmas and New Year to all.

Steve · December 24, 2005

hmmm if your gonna hit anyone that could cause the front of the vehicle to collapse then I very doubt anyone will survive that type of inpact.

Rob · December 24, 2005

hmmm if your gonna hit anyone that could cause the front of the vehicle to collapse then I very doubt anyone will survive that type of inpact.

←

dont take "collapse" literally steve, i am 100% sure you know exactly what i mean

star a · December 26, 2005

so obviously none of this 'collapsable' argument applies to older 4x4's with ladder chassis' as the bumper on, say for example, the hilux, is like a girder bolted direct to the chassis, and to start implying 4x4 owners with bullbars are evil crazed pedestrian killers is just plain hypocrisy. when the people who judge start choosing cars based on ncap pedestrian performance, then you may throw stones. How about directing your anger toward a more constructive education policy about how to avoid collisions in the first place i.e. slowing down in high risk areas (pub closing times, school opening and closing times, nr shops, parks etc etc.), how about better education for children in schools on the dangers of roads (the u.s. have a pretty good road safety policy, i.e. jaywalking laws, school bus rules etc) or how about complaining about the unnessesary high amount of flat fronted heavy goods vehicles which cause significantly more damage than any 4x4 in a collision.

Monster-Mat · December 26, 2005

i took the bars of the pajero, as there was no need to have it fitted.

however i will be fitting them to the front of the hilux, as i will be fitting a bumper winch and i do take it off road up here.

plus twice in 3 months ive nearly hit deer on the country lanes......

TheDon · December 27, 2005

many thanks to those that have offered constructive ideas towards the question that i posed....

And also thanks that those that defended my right to choose what i adorn the front of my car with...

I will be choosing to fit a low down, knee/thigh height bar as ilustrated in the photo i place above, as i feel that this will incur no more damage to a "person" than the bumper itself!

As the height of the hood stands well above the average rib cage height, so to be honest you wouldnt stand much better if i didnt have it in the first place.

My insurance company said it would make no diffence to my policy and that they find that there are less claims when they are fitted for things such as parking bumps and minor knocks..

i am not what you would regard as a "green" person.....

For that matter nobody that buys a car from Lexus, could ever regard themselves as "eco friendly" etc due to the co2 emission rates and high fuel consumption.

I agree it is the driver of the car that causes incidents, and maybe those who attended JAE would argue that being drunk at the wheel of a car would be more dangerous than a bull bar any day!