[nshashank]

Originally Posted by RavenAvi

The Government of India's Ministry for Road Transport and Highways has issued a fresh notification deeming bull bars & crash guards as unauthorised fitments which are in contravention of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus attract penalties under Sections 190 & 191 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Thus, the Ministry has instructed all States and Union Territories to take strict action against any/all vehicles fitted with crash guards and bull bars.

Attachment 1706573

Great News! As Team BHP members, how do we take this ahead?

[typlo]

This is such a relief, at least in theory. I see that people on social media and the 'average Indian' consumers already have a surprisingly repulsive reaction to this news since most of them believe that bull bars enhance the safety of a car.

Regardless, this law notification has not made a significant difference in the number of cars sporting these bars, the most offending vehicles being SUVs, the taxis and the Swift Dzires. At least in the city of Dehradun, UK. Unless law enforcement takes its path, this much-needed law is powerless.

Also, I see some cars with bull bars installed JUST at the rear. Is this allowed? (Although if it is, it shouldn't be)

[locusjag]

Apr 18, 2018 - Bullbars removed from Chennai HC judges' cars

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/...le23578678.ece

Judges of the Madras High Court have set an example by removing the crash guards on the front and rear sides of the cars provided to them by the court for their official use. The “unauthorised” fitments have been removed following a directive issued by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee to the High Court Registry.

A communique sent by the Registry to individual judges read: “It is respectfully submitted that in view of the letter from the Director, Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated December 7, 2017, the honourable Chief Justice has directed the Registry to remove the crash guards... since these obstruct the functioning of the airbag sensors.”

The Ministry’s letter addressed to the Transport Secretaries as well as Commissioners of all State Governments and Union Territories stated that unauthorised fitment of crash guard/bull bar on motor vehicles posed serious safety concerns to the pedestrians as well as occupants of the vehicle. “It is brought to your notice that the fitment of crash guards/bull bar is in contravention of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and attracts penalty under Section 190 and Section 191 of the Act. It is, therefore, requested that States may take strict action against the unauthorised fitment of crash guard/bull bar on motor vehicles,” it added.

A court officer pointed out that a vehicle belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) and used by one of the High Court judges alone continued to have the crash guard on it.

“That shall also be removed soon because the Chief Justice is the patron-in-chief of TNSLSA, and therefore, her direction would be equally applicable to the vehicles owned by the authority,” he added.

What it probably means for Team-BHP members in Chennai:

The Chennai police is probably bound to start cracking down on the general public's cars as well very soon! Truth be told, I haven't seen any action taken on them so far.

[DirtyDan]

I would like to see real data and research done on this. I am not at all convinced that bull guards are a peril to pedestrians...or bulls. It's not at all as self-evident to me as it seems to be to many posting here.

In other countries this kind of legislation is often traced back to some insurance companies who like to manipulate and meddle in government regulations so as to decrease their payouts while still increasing their premiums. I don't trust their assumptions about safety either.

Bull guards could be devised with thick padding that could actually diminish injury to pedestrians.

[Mu009]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I would like to see real data and research done on this. I am not at all convinced that bull guards are a peril to pedestrians...or bulls. It's not at all as self-evident to me as it seems to be to many posting here.

In other countries this kind of legislation is often traced back to some insurance companies who like to manipulate and meddle in government regulations so as to decrease their payouts while still increasing their premiums. I don't trust their assumptions about safety either.

Bull guards could be devised with thick padding that could actually diminish injury to pedestrians.

Here's something along those lines:

http://www.advanceddrivers.com/2017/...-they-prevent/

[DirtyDan]

Originally Posted by Mu009

Here's something along those lines:

http://www.advanceddrivers.com/2017/...-they-prevent/

I actually had it in mind to install a bull guard with shockers on my jeeps and thick padding, as well, to absorb impact. All to be held by slender bolts to the frame that would sheer as opposed to a hard connection to the frame rails.

Frankly, I wasn't thinking of pedestrians, I was just looking to minimalize front end damage in general.

I did not find this link particularly informative or convincing. If governments really cared about pedestrians it seems to me that they could require manufacturers to produce much
more pedestrian-safe front ends than are currently OEM. I am growing cynical, skeptical and jaded in my old age. I question the wisdom and motivations behind just about everything.

[Mu009]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I did not find this link particularly informative or convincing.

I agree, but well, you asked for data/research.
The fact is, most searches in my case have illicited only this sort of information.

Anywhere data is mentioned, it is speculative, since there are no separate numbers for deaths caused by vehicles equipped with bull bars. This disclaimer is appended by the kind of lab/simulated test result research the above link describes. These tests are akin to standard safety tests which are used to give vehicles safety ratings.

And it is of a similar nature, whether the research is Australian, European or North American.
I simply picked the one link which covered the most ground (however cursorily).

In short, no separate numbers, yes simulated experiments.

It is entirely up to us how we interpret these in forming our opinions. As it is for the authorities - the European, Australian and Indian authorities appear to have done so.
A large part of said interpretation would be to do with how you feel about uniform crash testing done in a controlled environment - whether you trust star safety ratings, or form your own assessment (I couldn't say how, or how valid) after seeing vehicles in the real world.

But however you spin it, however thin the numbers are, one thing is clear: the same safety tests with bull bars result in poorer results for both pedestrians and occupants.

Cheers!

Edit:

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

Frankly, I wasn't thinking of pedestrians, I was just looking to minimalize front end damage in general.

On this front, I am absolutely in agreement with you - beyond a point of basic design, pedestrian safety has gone overboard with pedestrian airbags etc coming up.
It's almost like the world suddenly decided to adopt our "bigger party is always wrong" mentality.
We were taught to look before crossing a road. And if vehicles stick to speed limits, that's all the pedestrian safety I need. Adding weight to and compromising vehicle designs (it is happening) in the name of such elaborate pedestrian measures is heinous IMO.
But just like your preference for bull bars, the powers that be do not agree with me.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

If governments really cared about pedestrians it seems to me that they could require manufacturers to produce much
more pedestrian-safe front ends than are currently OEM.

Please consider. Which would you rather run against? A flat surface or a knife? There is some very simple physics here about the pressure applied and the area of contact.

Actually, some governments do care, and the effect of car front-end design on pedestrians has been taken into account for quite a few years now. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your research on this! but still,

I am growing cynical, skeptical and jaded in my old age. I question the wisdom and motivations behind just about everything.

Very wise!

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I would like to see real data and research done on this. I am not at all convinced that bull guards are a peril to pedestrians...or bulls. It's not at all as self-evident to me as it seems to be to many posting here.

Bull guards could be devised with thick padding that could actually diminish injury to pedestrians.

Dear sir,

It does not need research papers to explain this. The bumper and bonnet in current regulations must be made soft since the bumper comes in contact with the lower body of the pedestrian, and this impact will result in them banging the head on the bonnet. Banging the head against the bonnet is a softer hit than the head hitting an object like a bar since the bar can easily fracture the neck or break the skull. The padding you speak of should be so thick that it will make the bull bar look like a barrel, which in all means would be undesirable by any vehicle owner.

FYR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBJS_tKvAeU

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by audioholic

The bumper and bonnet in current regulations must be made soft since the bumper comes in contact with the lower body of the pedestrian, and this impact will result in them banging the head on the bonnet. ...

The whole front-end design in also intended to roll the pedestrian onto the bonnet, rather than dragging them under the vehicle (Oh, I didn't see the video: this may be covered) or just pushing them.

None of this makes a vehicle harmless to pedestrians of course, which probably cannot be done. Cars still kill pedestrians. But bullbars is like adding a knife

[DirtyDan]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Dear sir,
I Banging the head against the bonnet is a softer hit than the head hitting an object like a bar since the bar can easily fracture the neck or break the skull.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

The whole front-end design in also intended to roll the pedestrian onto the bonnet,

None of this makes a vehicle harmless to pedestrians of course, which probably cannot be done. Cars still kill pedestrians. But bullbars is like adding a knife

About 6 years ago I and 400 people got out of a meeting and exited outside. A taxi lost control and plowed into us at only about 12kph. It was a mid-sized sedan with OE bumper. There were 5 victims including me. One man was hit hard by a headlight, breaking it and tossing him to the side with a broken leg. Three women were scooped up landing on the bonnet, as you surmise, but they also hit hard enough to break the windshield. All 3 had to be hospitalized, one had internal injuries and needed surgery, the other two had back and hip injuries and cuts and bruises. I was facing away and got hit in the back of the knees and I was propelled 6 feet forward landing hard on the pavement. The taxi stopped with his left front wheel 20 inches from my head. I had a wrenched back and scrapes and bruises. Now, I know this is only one experimental trial, but none of the victims seemed willing to participate in repeated trials.

Lesson learned? Wear body armor at all times...no that's not it. Even at low speeds an OE front end is going to injure people and so will a bull guard. Especially if the bull guard or OE bumper has sharp edges or appendages like the license plate and holder. The one plus for the OE bumper is that maybe it tends to keep people from falling under the wheels, although I almost got squashed.

At higher speeds, both OE bumper and bull guard are going to injure or kill people and I doubt it there is much difference. Some years back I saw a teenager on a bike get hit right in front of me by a wedge shaped small car. The kid was popped up into the air about 12 feet, cart wheeling thru the air and landing about 40 feet away. It was sickening to see. Bull guard or no bull guard would have made no appreciable difference IMHO.

You guys should stay away from exaggerations. A bull guard is not a knife, nor does it have to be in any way sharp. A bull guard is too low to break skulls upon impact...unless you have a bodacious lift kit or the victim is 3 feet tall, a child. One inch of foam padding on a bull guard would eliminate a lot of injury. One or two inches of foam padding on an OE bumper would eliminate a lot of injury.

I suspect that this type of legislation is influenced by "interested parties" rather than anybody with real expertise. But i am a vile, suspicious, skeptical character.

[Mu009]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

Lesson learned? Wear body armor at all times...no that's not it. Even at low speeds an OE front end is going to injure people and so will a bull guard.

Pardon me sir, but that is a fallacious argument.
Frighteningly 20 inches away though the vehicle's wheel may have ended up from you, each one of you was either tossed over or away thanks to the design of the OE bumper. A bull bar would've both mowed you down and caused more significant impact injuries. If glass (head injury) and OE bumper (the fracture) can cause the injuries you described, what do you think a sharper (lower contact area) impact from a metal (unyielding) would've done?

At higher speeds, both OE bumper and bull guard are going to injure or kill people and I doubt it there is much difference.

Again, I'm afraid it's the same. A bull bar will mow down a pedestrian, and a bumper will toss. There will naturally be accidents where there are fatalities in both, given the "right" conditions. But it is simply that the former is much more likely to cause fatality/grievious injury than the latter.
As I said in my previous post, I cannot see the merit of our inferences based on increasingly random accidents (with many variables beyond our comprehension) that we witness once in a blue moon over and above those of standardized, simulated crash testing. So forgive me for giving no credence to the incident that follows your statement as substantiation.

You guys should stay away from exaggerations. A bull guard is not a knife, nor does it have to be in any way sharp.

It is sharper. Literally. Sharpness of a surface refers to the minimal-ity of its contact area. A bull bar is therefore, by design and definition sharper than a OE bumper.
And no, nowhere close to a knife. But there have been no exaggerations from "us guys". The one (as opposed to a plurality) erudite gentleman who did make the statement has put forth an illuminating analogy, not an exaggeration.

In all the above arguments, the point being made may be thought of as driving the side of your fist into your other forearm, with and without a knife. Both would hurt above a certain force. It's the thresholds that matter. With a knife, there'd barely be a threshold to speak of.

"German research proved that bull bars are deadly in crashes at low speeds. Whereas 95 per cent of children would be expected to survive the impact of a normal car at 20mph, a vehicle fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening injuries on all children it hit at 12mph and many would die even at 10mph."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...39275.html?amp

"It is clear that bull bars certainly increase the risk of bodily injury, that’s how they work. Their whole purpose is to prevent energy being dissipated through the body of the vehicle when it strikes an animal. In order to satisfy Isaac Newton more of the energy of the impact must therefore be taken by the animal’s body which will injure it more. Exactly the same physics applies to pedestrians too."

https://www.racv.com.au/membership/m...-bad-idea.html

"The CASR study found that steel bull bars significantly degrade the performance of the front of the vehicle with respect to pedestrian safety.
Steel, aluminium/alloy and polymer bull bars were tested on six popular four wheel drive vehicles. The two metal bars performed much worse in impact tests than the front of the vehicles prior to bull bar fitting.
Polymer bull bars gave much better results and in some cases, slightly improved the safety performance."

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news14682.html

If you look for it, you can find weakness against, and even justification for your arguments in any of these links. But this has a contentious nature not due to any inherent weakness in argument/lack of proof, but only because of the way stakeholders perceive the situation. But if one looks through it with an unbiased eye, it is clear they do cause more harm.

A bull guard is too low to break skulls upon impact...unless you have a bodacious lift kit or the victim is 3 feet tall, a child.

Agreed.

One inch of foam padding on a bull guard would eliminate a lot of injury. One or two inches of foam padding on an OE bumper would eliminate a lot of injury.

At crawling speeds only perhaps - but given its rate of deformation, at any real speed there would be no practical difference.

Lastly (as far as this goes), despite a perception that since I'm investing time in replying to this thread, I might be one with a personal bias against bull bars, I'm not. I am not convinced they are a safety risk simply because I think they're pointless and aesthetically displeasing. Your opinions may be more suspicious about my motives. I cannot do anything about that.

For what it's worth:
A. You can try and be as careful as possible, and pay more when (no question of if in India) when front end damage occurs due to lack of a bull bar. You can choose to accept it as a genuine safety concern, or add it to one of the many things we accept about India and its regulations/problems and curse the damn place until you feel better.
B. You could move to a different city if you absolutely can't live without a bull bar. There will be options. Purely as an example, mine will simply not bother about your bull bar. They would have to start bothering about helmets more than once a month before that, I imagine. And that's something they know is law - I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about bull bar laws.

I suspect that this type of legislation is influenced by "interested parties" rather than anybody with real expertise. But i am a vile, suspicious, skeptical character.

As someone who has already become "cynical, skeptical and jaded" (well before my years), since you claim to be still becoming those things, allow me to say that that line can only get you so far, I'm afraid.

[DirtyDan]

What I think you don't get is that past a certain speed, and it's a lot lower than I think that you are aware of...a pedestrian is going to be badly hurt or killed regardless of whether he gets hit with an OE bumper or a bull guard. Furthermore, bull guards can and should be made safer.

I would rather see the Indian Government spend its resources, energies and time making sure drivers are really skilled and ready for the road. And, most importantly, designing roads and intersections in which pedestrians are isolated from roads and intersections as much as possible. This is what they do in much of the rest of the world.

[Mu009]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I would rather see the Indian Government spend its resources, energies and time making sure drivers are really skilled and ready for the road. And, most importantly, designing roads and intersections in which pedestrians are isolated from roads and intersections as much as possible. This is what they do in much of the rest of the world.

In this regard, we are entirely in agreement, good sir.
But what can you expect from the government which thinks AHO is a safety feature?

That said, I would rather have a government that bans something as useful as tinted glass in a tropical/subtropical country owing to possible malicious activity of a few, than a government which turns a blind eye to dying citizens defending a now largely irrelevant right to a dangerous object a few stakeholders cannot let go.
I speak of guns in the United States of course. As an example. It may or may not apply to other things.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I have no patience with so many words claiming that because a car is dangerous it might as well be more dangerous. If you believe that, fine, but thankfully, many actual authorities do not. And bull bat's are used by those who don't care anyway.