# Fitted a Bullbar to my Camper



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

This is going to be a controversial one, I can feel it!

I've fitted a bullbar to the front of our Camper, I can't rightly tell you exactly why but I've always fancied one mainly for aesthetics but also in a misguided sort of way to protect the front end and the sump. I accidentally tested it this weekend while driving through a rough field while attending a horse race (although no damage would have come had it not been present).

I know that the majority will hate it or not understand it but all I can say is it does comply with the latest EU legislation on bull bars.

It wasn't expensive and will easily bolt off when I come to sell the van 

Some pictures on my blog: http://www.europebycamper.com/2011/01/fiat-ducato-black-bullbar-fitted.html


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Link don't work.  

tony


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

You're not on Plusnet are you GEMMY?

Direct link to pic:


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

Link works now.

Looks like a set of pram handlebars. :lol: Will come in hany when you need pushing off a boggy field. :lol: 


Nice and neat really


Dave p


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

YES :lol: why?

tony

EDIT: works now :lol:


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

GEMMY said:


> YES :lol: why?
> 
> tony


If you reboot your router, it should work. Plusnet had some DNS problems (the server which tells your computer where to find a website on the internet) which meant any new websites created weren't being added. The problem (should) now be fixed and you router should receive the new settings with a reboot 

(If not I'll get back on the blower, PlusNet are my ISP too!)


----------



## pneumatician (May 1, 2005)

*Bullbars*

I thought the idea behind modern vehicle design was to include crush zones and energy absorbing "Bumpers" to hopefully minimise injury to persons or animals in the event of a collision.

Bullbars are in effect more efficient People and animal killers.
A hit at 30mph = Death I assume.

Steve


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Blow the pedestrians, keep your bumper intact. :lol: 

tony


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

I assume you've notified your insurers? Not much point in manufacturers building in crumple zones only for someone to bolt some scaffolding onto the front.

Don't hate you or your bullbar, just hope you'll be able to live with yourself if you knock down and kill a kid that they would have walked away from without the modification. I'm sure they'll appreciate the aesthetics though.


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

Rosbotham said:


> I assume you've notified your insurers?


Yes, checked before it was fitted. No increase in premium.


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

Rosbotham said:


> I assume you've notified your insurers?


Yes, checked before it was fitted. No increase in premium.



Rosbotham said:


> Don't hate you or your bullbar, just hope you'll be able to live with yourself if you knock down and kill a kid that they would have walked away from without the modification.


I can't really comment on that, other than to say that it confirms to the necessary legislation and is much lower than those found on most 4x4's.


----------



## ramblingon (Jul 15, 2009)

German research shows that 95% of children would be expected to survive the impact of a car accident at about 20 miles per hour. A car fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening personal injuries on all children it if were travelling at 12 miles an hour, and they would possibly die at 10 miles an hour.

You may find yourself a victim of "van trashing" as these are considered rightly or wrongly- anti social.

Do you have kids?


----------



## loddy (Feb 12, 2007)

Not big enough, won't keep the Roooos away

Loddy


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Just ask yourself the following question.

Which would you rather have (possibly) happen 

Knock the front of your vehicle and do a few hundred quids worth of damage (covered by your insurance) 

OR

Collide with a small child who has run out in front of you (not your fault at all) and inflict brain damage (or death) as a result of the crush zone on your vehicle having been totally negated by the bull bars you fitted to pander to your personal vanity ? :?: ??

Just imagine its YOUR grandchild  

Sorry but I hate bull bars with a passion bordering on total, utter and unwavering hatred and fanaticism!!! having dealt with a crash involving the scenario above (brain damage) I will let you make your own mind up what the driver of the vehicle involved would answer to that question is now. 

Have you got your insurance companies acceptance in writing??? I would certainly want written proof !! 

If you have even asked your insurers it shows that you have serious concerns about the [email protected]@dy things, so why oh why have you still fitted them????


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

ramblingon said:


> German research shows that 95% of children would be expected to survive the impact of a car accident at about 20 miles per hour. A car fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening personal injuries on all children it if were travelling at 12 miles an hour, and they would possibly die at 10 miles an hour.


The shape of the Fiat front is a lot different to the shape of a car.
Does the same research include vans etc.

Dave p


----------



## ramblingon (Jul 15, 2009)

Not sure DPT, that was lifted from an official looking site they went on to say the majority of victims are forced under the vehicle,rather than being thrown clear so I would guess the shape of the front doesn't get as much priority. don't know.


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

I'm not going to rise to justifying it, other than to say that it meets the current EU legislation (passed in 2005) which is why it's lower / smaller than a lot of bullbars I've seen on Transits and the like, so is perfectly legal in that respect. 

After being in a field full of 4x4's yesterday I can confirm it was the least offensive bullbar on show but respect to a lot of people a bullbar is a bullbar.

I do appreciate the debate though and the different viewpoints on offer which I expected and was partly the reason for posting in the first place.


----------



## drcotts (Feb 23, 2006)

Hang on guys the bloke hasnt done anything illegal only controversial.

If we are suddenly worried about injuring someone however slightly why not just sell our vans and walk everywhere then. Then there would be NO possibility of us huring anyones kids, or damaging the ozone layer.

I dont like them either but thats my personal view. A bloke should have strips torn off him just cos he does something we dont happen to agree with.

Addie, your raised a bit of a hornets nest but at least you have taken some sort of step to make sure that its not illegal so thanks for that. If you see some of the stuff that drives round birmingham when the kids "do up" ther 500 quid BMWs you would laugh,

Phill


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

Addie said:


> I'm not going to rise to justifying it, other than to say that it meets the current EU legislation (passed in 2005) which is why it's lower / smaller than a lot of bullbars I've seen on Transits and the like, so is perfectly legal in that respect.
> 
> After being in a field full of 4x4's yesterday I can confirm it was the least offensive bullbar on show but respect to a lot of people a bullbar is a bullbar.
> 
> I do appreciate the debate though and the different viewpoints on offer which I expected and was partly the reason for posting in the first place.


Bullbars are only _ever _appropriate for Ozzie/African/USA/Similar *OUTBACKS*, RODEOS, JUNGLES, SAFARIS and FARMS _not_ highstreets/anywhere else.


----------



## ramblingon (Jul 15, 2009)

We had an invitation.


----------



## ramblingon (Jul 15, 2009)

drcotts said:


> Hang on guys the bloke hasnt done anything illegal only controversial.
> 
> If we are suddenly worried about injuring someone however slightly why not just sell our vans and walk everywhere then. Then there would be NO possibility of us huring anyones kids, or damaging the ozone layer.
> 
> ...


We had an invitation!


----------



## brillopad (Mar 4, 2008)

Addie, you must have known they'd all come out of the woodwork. Dennis


----------



## Nelson750FML (Jan 17, 2008)

Purchased from ???


----------



## kaacee (Nov 29, 2008)

Well obviously MHF have no qualms on this because if you look at the bottom of this page you will see an advert for "BULLBARS" !!!!!!


MY own personal view is everyone is entitled to fit what they see fit to their MH, and this includes bicycle racks at the rear of vans which could also do a fair bit of damage i presume if you were to hit one up the a**e and find a bike coming through your windscreen.

I appreciate it is a very contentious subject and therefore have sympathy with all points raised.

Keith


----------



## ramblingon (Jul 15, 2009)

We are not maggots :lol: just people who have lived long enough to acquire a little wisdom which we gladly share with those who are younger and who choose to stick their heads above the parapet. Seek Ask and you shall receive.
Our only hope is to spare you pain that is all it's about - We have been young and immortal too you know :lol:


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

Addie said:


> I'm not going to rise to justifying it, other than to say that it meets the current EU legislation (passed in 2005) which is why it's lower / smaller than a lot of bullbars I've seen on Transits and the like, so is perfectly legal in that respect.


Since I don't have a bullbar and have no intention of getting one, I'm not going to take the time to read into it. However, you should be aware that the 2005 Directive was repealed in 2009, to be replaced with this one. I've absolutely no idea whether there's any material difference between the two. A UK parliamentary briefing does suggest that there's no material change, but if I had one on my vehicle I'd want to look more deeply into it.

It's interesting to read the annex of the EU Regulation in particular, which goes into quite some (gruesome if you think about it) detail of the testing that has to be undertaken. From what I can see, it involves crashing the vehicle into a reference pedestrian with and without the frontal protection system (bullbar) in place. Can't be cheap to do that.

Paul


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

brillopad said:


> Addie, you must have known they'd all come out of the woodwork. Dennis


Indeed I did, as if a 26 and a 21 year old owning a motorhome isn't controversial enough! No, it's not stolen/hired/borrowed/on finance/ bought for us by parents or other windfall etc as we were constantly bombarded with on our one and only visit to a CC site! :lol:

I try and stay off my moral high horse where possible but don't mind a bit of intelligent debate 



Rosbotham said:


> I've absolutely no idea whether there's any material difference between the two. A UK parliamentary briefing does suggest that there's no material change, but if I had one on my vehicle I'd want to look more deeply into it.


I had read a lot of that type approval / UK Parliamentary briefing stuff and as far as I can gather it's only 'illegal' to manufacture or sell a bar which does not meet the approval. Having said that if it was illegal to supply then I certainly don't think I'd want to have one fitted.

To the best of my knowledge and that of my MOT tester and supplier all is above board. If someone was to prove me otherwise I would have no hesitation in removing it.


----------



## loddy (Feb 12, 2007)

The bull bar is no worse than the great steel bumper on the front of my RV. what crumple zones do commercial vehicles and buses have ????
Live and let live

Loddy  

P.S I don't like kids anyway
(tongue in cheek)


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Its really low down. You would have to be pretty small to suffer a head injury from that.

Very brave posting that on here!


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

The tests for the Type Approval req'd in the EU Regulation I referred to are all about leg damage rather than head. As someone has already said, I think the concern is more that they funnel pedestrians under the vehicle which is where the head injuries occur.


----------



## dinger (Jul 30, 2007)

*BULL BARS*

Cant say they do alot for me frankly , but each to their own ,. I did have some once on a Shogun and saw what they could do to the rear of a Vauxhall Astra...not good :roll:

If your after a bit of accident prevention what about a pair of Twin Air horns stuck on your roof........or maybe some noce LED,s implanted in the front grill.....sort of Dukes of Hazards Stylee.. :lol:


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Or how about some Carlos Fandango Extra Wide Wheels?


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

One of my old training drivers said to me many years ago, if you have to resort to the horn, then it is already too late !!!!!!!
children would not see led lights, they never see the vehicle even.

Bull bars were designed to protect the driver and vehicle not pedestrians.although they are useful for pushing a vehicle out of the way, especially those that block you in. :wink: :wink: 
have used one on a4x4 to push start a lorry.
could you not fill the fron bumper with concrete as we used to do. :lol: and the sills for the mot.

cabby


----------



## androidGB (May 26, 2005)

Don't suppose anyone who is concerned about the fitting of the bull bar, has a TOAD, as some of the fittings on those seem pretty suspect.

Andrew


----------



## Annsman (Nov 8, 2007)

My motorhome hasn't got a bullbar, but I can drive it legally upto the GVW of 4 tonnes. At 30 MPH there's not going to be much left of an adult never mind a child. A car that weighs at least two and a half tonnes lighter and has a low bonnet might not kill a child at 30 but I would imagine the extra weight of the van might make more difference than the bullbar.


----------



## dinger (Jul 30, 2007)

*bull bars*

Glad you said Children then cabbie and not females.....could of had an Andy Gray moment on your hands... 8O

No you cant beat a nice set of neon,s positioned under the front grill
people will admire them from miles ..... 8)

And if people cant see them Why do some many truck drivers have rigs that look like they are the spaceship Enterprise.. :lol:


----------



## androidGB (May 26, 2005)

Annsman said:


> My motorhome hasn't got a bullbar, but I can drive it legally upto the GVW of 4 tonnes. At 30 MPH there's not going to be much left of an adult never mind a child. A car that weighs at least two and a half tonnes lighter and has a low bonnet might not kill a child at 30 but I would imagine the extra weight of the van might make more difference than the bullbar.


Not sure it makes any difference. Once you've gone past the point where the damage is done it's pretty academic. Bit like striking a fly with a hammer or a car, it really makes no difference.

I think it's more about the design of the vehicle rather than the weight behind it. (I'm assuming here that the vehicle stops, before running over the victim)

Andrew


----------



## dandywarhol (Nov 14, 2010)

The rounded front of the Adria will tend to "scoop" up a pedestrian and the shallow radii of the curves will be designed to inflict as little damage as a 3 tonne van can - the radius of the bullbars will just shatter bones/skulls.

There seems to be a demand for "soft" wrap bullbars made from "soft" plastic (presumably for soft bulls :? ) which aren't made from steel but are just for cosmetic effect - whatever that may be........

Not for me but let your conscience go with you :wink:


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

this topic is a bit like motorcycles. You like them or hate them.

The best reason to have a bull bar and tow bar fitted is to stop people damaging your pride and joy when they are trying to squeeze into a tight parking spot.

I laugh at people who tell me that they dont like motorbikes, then get on an electric or pushbike with no head protection. :lol: :lol: :lol: 




Dave p


----------



## Bryandh (Oct 6, 2010)

ramblingon said:


> We are not maggots :lol: just people who have lived long enough to acquire a little wisdom which we gladly share with those who are younger and who choose to stick their heads above the parapet. Seek Ask and you shall receive.
> Our only hope is to spare you pain that is all it's about - We have been young and immortal too you know :lol:


Not sharing.................. pontificating and hectoring !!


----------



## Jented (Jan 12, 2010)

Hi.
A bull bar would not be for me,however if it pleases you,there you go. On a cautionary note,i seem to have read that in the event of hitting something other than a pedestrian,like a bollard,wall,lorry,central reservation barrier,the damage caused by the fitting of a B/bar,is more extensive than the "Un armed"(lol) crumple zone.
Being as you have had it fitted to please yourself,and being as it is out of your direct line of vision,PLEASE!,do not run into anything/body while you are admiring it by looking at your reflection,in shop windows.
Ted


----------



## speedytincan (Dec 22, 2005)

*Eu legislation*

Admiral Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."

Captain Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning of this?"

Hardy: "Sorry sir?"

Nelson (reading aloud): " England expects every person to do his or her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledegook is this?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal Opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting ' England ' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."

Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."

Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free working environments."

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle."

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it .... full speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness; and they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck, Admiral."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."

Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."

Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons.."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"

Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"

Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"

Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-ordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King."

Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your life"

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"

Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."

Nelson: "In that case... kiss me, Hardy."


----------



## kaacee (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Eu legislation*




speedytincan said:


> Admiral Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
> 
> Captain Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."
> 
> ...


And precisely what has this got to do with Bullbars????


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Eu legislation*



gudlucker said:


> speedytincan said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
> ...


ditto :?


----------



## Fatalhud (Mar 3, 2006)

Addie said:


> This is going to be a controversial one, I can feel it!


Controversial Yes
A: You should have got it in "Stainless steel"
B: you should have called it, the more socially acceptable "A frame" :wink: :wink: :wink:

Alan H


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

*Re: Eu legislation*



gudlucker said:


> speedytincan said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
> ...


Just do what Nelson did and turn a blind eye to it. :wink:


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

Some accident figures for 2009

The number of people killed in road accidents were 2,222. 
26,912 people were killed or seriously injured. 
There were just over 222,000 road casualties. The number of deaths among car users was 1,059. The number seriously injured in accidents reported to the police fell to 10,053. 
Total reported casualties among car users were 143,412.

Reported Child casualties fell by 6 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured was 2,671 (down 5 per cent on 2008). Of those, 1,660 were pedestrians.

*81 children died on the roads, 43 less than in the previous year, a reduction of over a third.*

There were 500 pedestrian deaths. Reported seriously injured casualties fell to 5,545. The all pedestrian casualty figure fell to 26,887.
The number of pedal cyclists killed fell to 104 . 
The total casualties among pedal cyclists rose by 5 per cent to 17,064.
There were 472 motorcycle user fatalities, 4 per cent lower than during 2008. The number reported as seriously injured fell by 4 per cent to 5,350. Total reported motorcycle user casualties fell by 4 per cent to 20,703 in 2008. Motorcycle traffic rose by 2 per cent over the same period. The all motorcycle user casualties figure for 2009 of 20,703 is 4 per cent lower than in 2008. 
All the figures show a reduction on 2008 figures.

In 2009, the overall motor vehicle traffic volume in Great Britain was 313.2 billion vehicle miles, down by 3.0 billion vehicle miles from last year.

For the amount of miles travelled by all forms of transport are the above figures acceptable.


----------



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

Addie said:


> but I've always fancied one mainly for aesthetics


What? You wanted your van to look uglier? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Success. And after the anti bull bar mob have finished it may look worse than if it was in an accident without them. 8O

Karl


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

Witnessed an accident in town one night, a car set off from a set of Traffic lights and was doing no more than 20 MPH, a youth ran out of a bar straight across the road and the car hit him, The driver had no chance, The youths head hit the A frame at the side of the windscreen, It didn't kill him, But he is a total Paraplegic, Not a Bull bar in sight, No prosecutions at all as all witnesses confirmed the above.

What I am getting at is no matter what fittings etc are on a car or van or Mh if anyone is hit Child or Adult, It all depends on what part of the body and what part of the vehicle connect.

Personally I would have thought a "Bull Bar" being lower would have a tendency to reduce the chances of a person being "Funneled" under the vehicle.


----------



## dandywarhol (Nov 14, 2010)

Like I said - it's the tight radius of a steel bar that does the damage and that's exactly what bull bars do.

I've a friend who now has the luxury of owning a disabled driver's sticker on his car as the result of a bullbarred Pajero (suitable name for those up on their Spanish slang 8) ) came out of a side road and drove into him on his cycle, smashing his pelvis - "Sorry mate, I didn't see you................."

Still, if it improves the looks of the van............................. :roll:


----------



## geordie01 (Apr 20, 2006)

i bet it eats into the payload on the front axle


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

Vehicles equiped with bull bars kill less people than those without.
Leave the guy alone.

Dave p


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

Geordi02 said:


> i bet it eats into the payload on the front axle


I think it's about 15kg from memory, it was much ligher than I expected.



dandywarhol said:


> I've a friend who now has the luxury of owning a disabled driver's sticker on his car as the result of a bullbarred Pajero


This bar is knee height on me at best, so I'd like to think that it wouldn't inflict the same injurys. I would say that I'm mindful of it's presence and have found myself leaving bigger gaps and looking further ahead so maybe in that respect it's actually better than driving around thinking you've driving 3.5t on energy absorbsion material and pedestrians and cyclists will just bounce off? *ducks*



DTPCHEMICALS said:


> Vehicles equiped with bull bars kill less people than those without.
> Leave the guy alone.


Thanks Dave, but I don't mind. I've seen the swarms gather on much lesser threads so expected as much as I've got on here. It's an interesting insight into human psychology how the negative posters thank each other for equally negative posts, although I'd like to think the debate would be much friendlier if it was sat in a pub with a pint of ale!

I'll just not name those who've PM'd me asking where they can get one too :wink:


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

OK.

I have kept out of this as I have knocked a little lad over that ran out in front of me and I can say quite categorically what ever you are driving with or without bull bars it's going to hurt someone.

All you without bars and I wouldn't put any on my van as it is going to save life's as I have a crumple zone to protect the person who will be unfortunate to get knocked down by me is talking from out of the rear end.

Whatever vehicle you are driving but especially something that is big and heavy with a large ground clearance like a motor home is going to inflict serious damage no matter what you think, you are not minimising anything only your conscience and the end result will be the same.

Once the van is moving its the energy of the vehicle that causes the injury, its like falling out of boat at a couple of miles per hour you fall in the water and its soft and you end up with a soaking, fall out of a boat at 30 kts and the water is like concrete and you bounce a good long way and it hurts, its exactly the same when you hit skin and bone travel at a greater velocity and you knock them up in the air, travel slower and a child will go under the van and you will go over the top of them, either scenario will be the same end result.

Skin and bone against a vehicle travelling more than 10mph is a no contest with or without a bull bar, spotlights, mascot etc.... I know.

And you would be deluding yourself if you think anything different..


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

dandywarhol said:


> Like I said - it's the tight radius of a steel bar that does the damage and that's exactly what bull bars do.
> 
> I've a friend who now has the luxury of owning a disabled driver's sticker on his car as the result of a bullbarred Pajero


Not exactly correct, it should be "As a result of the DRIVER of a bullbarred pajero.


----------



## ramblingon (Jul 15, 2009)

Bryandh said:


> ramblingon said:
> 
> 
> > We are not maggots :lol: just people who have lived long enough to acquire a little wisdom which we gladly share with those who are younger and who choose to stick their heads above the parapet. Seek Ask and you shall receive.
> ...


Yeh Yeh Yeh! You don't tell the world you've done something controversial unless you want your ear bending!

I am sure he knows the above sentiment is sincerely meant -even if you can't work it out.


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

SaddleTramp said:


> Personally I would have thought a "Bull Bar" being lower would have a tendency to reduce the chances of a person being "Funneled" under the vehicle.


If that was the really the case, don't you think all of the 5* NCAP vehicles would come equipped with them?

I don't think anyone on this thread has claimed that a van without bullbars won't do substantive damage if they hit a pedestrian at speed. However it's pretty clear that adding a bullbar will increase that damage : if anyone bothered to take a look at the EU legislation I linked, the tests are before/after aimed at keeping the incremental damage within defined constraints. If I was a buyer of a bullbar, I'd also be a little concerned that the supplier is claiming compliance with current legislation, when they actually cite a regulation which was revoked/replaced 2 years ago.

It's a moot point whether a bullbar will reduce damage to the front of the vehicle in the event of a collision...the van designers will have built in crumple zones while the bullbar will (assuming it doesn't snap) channel the forces through to whatever it's attached to. Maybe the manufacturers provide data for crash test impact?

Read literally, Dave is correct - vehicles with bullbars kill fewer people than those without. But that's because the vast majority of vehicles don't have them. (I could insert an equally spurious statistic that one-legged people called Eric wearing a flowery hat are safer drivers than everyone else, because the data shows no-one's been killed by a one-legged bloke called Eric wearing a flowery hat). If there's _any_ evidence to suggest that of those vehicles involved in accidents, the ones with bullbars killed proportionately fewer people, I'd like to see it : and if it is the case we have a national scandal that provision of bulbars isn't mandatory.

I'm not lecturing Addie at all...it's his choice...I just don't see the point of paying to add something to the front of your vehicle that makes it less safe to others and is of dubious merit in protecting your own. Each to their own...

Paul


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

Rosbotham said:


> I just don't see the point of paying to add something to the front of your vehicle that makes it less safe to others and is of dubious merit in protecting your own.


To flip this on it's head for a moment, would people pay for a device which has shown to *reduce* pedestrian injury?

Judging by the sentiment on this thread, I'd suspect these will be a massive hit with motorhome owners once they release a version for the Ducato?

http://www.endura-fps.com/ec-approved-fps/Mercedes-Vito-2003-Current.php


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

If they actually did & were reasonably priced, yes I would consider them. Those ain't what you've got fitted, though....

Edit : May be worth noting that the "standard" numbers on the site (e.g. head impact, centre = 18%) don't refer to what the unadorned vehicle would achieve, they refer to what the EU standard says must be achieved to be legal. As such - unless I'm misreading the site and I'll concede I may be - the site is not claiming better pedestrian performance with the FPS than without, instead they're claiming that they're X% better than the legal minimum. There is material elsewhere where they've tested against 3 typical vehicles, but none of these is current generation...newest is a 2005 Renault Trafic.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 
And they do one for my scudo


DAve p


----------



## cater_racer (May 1, 2005)

Leave him alone! If I was a crap driver i'd fit one to.


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

Rosbotham said:


> If they actually did & were reasonably priced, yes I would consider them. Those ain't what you've got fitted, though....


They're about £300 from what I can see.

No, they're not what I've got, but still legal none the less 

Now if I had gone for my second choice...


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

cater_racer said:


> Leave him alone! If I was a crap driver i'd fit one to.


 

This is like family fortunes, one more insult to find... I think it's a manhood related one!


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

You may want to read my edit Dave...


----------



## Jented (Jan 12, 2010)

Hi.
I cannot help thinking,had i had seen a m/home with the chrome wrap around jobby,i would have thought,"Gypsy?". Any add ons,draw attention,as being different from the normal,and when out and about in the lorry ,there were times i did not want to appear on "Police Five"lol. 
No doubt you are a fine upstanding citizen,however,someone will remember a M/home with a B/bar on for far longer,i suppose this bar and other add ons,are like Tattoo's,not for everybody,my concern was and still is,you MAY? be interfereing with the front crumple zone,this does need checking,if so,surely the fitting of a towbar on a M/home/car,would cause problems with the rear crumple zone.
You will have probably seen bars that fold down to make a "Hay bale carrier/seat",these are handy if you are ringside at an Agri/any/show,are well,back to the drawing board.
Ted.


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

Addie said:


> cater_racer said:
> 
> 
> > Leave him alone! If I was a crap driver i'd fit one to.
> ...


So you think it's "Penis" envy.. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

Jented said:


> .......would cause problems with the rear crumple zone.


Yes, I could see that being a problem with protecting a pedestrian running into you at 15 mph or the M/H reversing at 30 mph!


----------



## goldi (Feb 4, 2009)

Afternoon all,

Happen everybody should drive around with 3 foot of sponge rubber fastened to the front. hey hey hey.



P.S. why could n,t you pick something less controversial like gay rights or something.




norm


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

It wasn't long ago, one of our lady members wanted to carry her spare wheel on the front of her van, what would you now think of that scenario. :lol: 

tony


----------



## goldi (Feb 4, 2009)

Well tony ,

I think we could have 70 page discussion about women driving with something stuck on their front lol




norm


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes, some have a bigger crumple zone than others. :lol: 

tony


----------



## dandywarhol (Nov 14, 2010)

rayrecrok said:


> OK.
> 
> I have kept out of this as I have knocked a little lad over that ran out in front of me and I can say quite categorically what ever you are driving with or without bull bars it's going to hurt someone.
> 
> ...


Ermm.....the crumple zone protects the occupants of the vehicle - not the victime outside................... :wink:


----------



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

My biggest concern is the profile of these bars.
If they change the angle of the vehicle profile will the result in more people being pushed under the vehicle as opposed to up and over the bonnet?

I would rather go up and over than down and under.....

it's a bit hard to tell from the pictures but if the point of impact is moved from knee/mid thigh height to a higher point on the body the chances of being pushed under is greater?

I just stood at the front of my van and I would anticipate if my Ducato hit me I would be either propelled forward or up and over.
If the impact point was moved up to hip height I would anticipate being pushed under.

Add to that there is some give in the plastic bumpers and the bonned is easily deformed. I am guessing the bars won't have any give in them at all?

If I am correct about point of impact it will be even worse for someone younger/shorter than me. I would rather my head smacked into the bonnet than a solid set of bars (would prefer neither if I am honest though)


Karl


----------



## andyman (Aug 31, 2006)

Whats the take on an A Class. The standard front end that was designed to reduce injury to pedestrians is gone. I would have thought the the fairly flat front would inflict more harm. ???

Andy


----------



## speed080 (May 27, 2010)

*bull bars*

lucky to get a fiat to go in reverse never mind at 30 mph,it would shake to bits,but you could allways "fix it again tomorow"(fiat) :lol:


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

I suppose it would be very interesting, after a long trip, to check the bars and see what you have 'picked up' on the journey.

You could award yourself points.

1 for a Granny or blind person
2 for somebody younger
50 for an illegal immigrant

....and so on.

Keep us up to date with the total Addie. :lol:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

747 said:


> I suppose it would be very interesting, after a long trip, to check the bars and see what you have 'picked up' on the journey.
> 
> You could award yourself points.
> 
> ...


And 500 for a Nun but only on the black bits of the crossing.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

All this talk of altering the crumple zone is mostly irrelevant with regard to those outside the vehicle. 

Crumple zones are designed to protect (belted) occupants. The sort of energy required to crumple them is way over the sort of figures that would gentle cushion outsiders. 

Crumple zones are not soft.


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

Yes, Frank, you're right, as was the other poster who highlighted this earlier. However it's a pedantic point. What people mean is whether the bars;

- interfere with the crumple zones so that a shunt could cause more damage to the vehicle (& potentially occupants) than would have been the case, and

- interfere with the pedestrian protection characteristics of the vehicle (e.g. usage of panels with "give", shape of panels designed to funnel anything that's hit in a particular direction) which could mean the chances of injury to a pedestrian are increased.

Interestingly, from what I can see, the legislation solely relates to the latter, and is aimed at constraining the increased danger of the bar. You could theoretically have one which meets the legislation because it's of little additional risk to pedestrians, but is lethal to the occupants - I'm sure Adie's isn't.

"Crumple zone" is just a short-hand for both aspects IMHO.


----------



## Richard_M (Dec 17, 2010)

Addie said:


> I've fitted a bullbar to the front of our Camper, I can't rightly tell you exactly why but I've always fancied one mainly for aesthetics but also in a misguided sort of way to protect the front end and the sump.


I haven't read all 8 pages of this thread so sorry if this has already been brought up.

Without bullbar, you hit something and your front bumper needs replacing, grill, radiator maybe some other bits. However, repairable.

Hit something with a bullbar and you can twist your chassis. Yes, your bumper might survive but your MH will be a write off.

Bullbars are for..........well, bulls. They were designed for the Australian outback where you you can hit some very large wildlife. Out there, a broken radiator could kill you so you would rather go for a twisted chassis but a car which could still get you home.


----------

