ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of the global death and injury burden, accounting for 65 percent of the 1.2 million annual road deaths. The purpose of this brief literature review is to examine whether bull bars, a rigid aftermarket accessory fitted to the front end of passenger vehicles, increase the risk of severe and fatal injuries to vulnerable road users in the event of a collision. Applicable peer-reviewed research, review papers, and grey literature were identified from a search of MEDLINE; the Transportation Research Board (TRB) database composed of Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) and International Transport Research Documentation (TRID) databases; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Google Scholar. The following search terms were used: "bull bars" OR "nudge bars" OR "sahara bars" AND "pedestrians" OR "vulnerable road users" for 1948 to March 1, 2011. A secondary set of search terms was also included "bull bars" OR "nudge bars" OR "sahara bars" OR "vehicle frontal protective systems" AND "pedestrians" OR "vulnerable road users" for 1948 to March 1, 2011. Neither the MEDLINE search nor the Cochrane Review search returned any relevant literature. The TRID search returned 19 research articles, 9 of which were included. Searches using Google Scholar returned 110 items, of which 21 were included in the present review after excluding patents and citations. Seven of the articles from TRID were also found in the Google Scholar search, resulting in 23 unique articles being included in this review. The studies used included 12 real-world studies, 3 computer modeling studies, and 8 laboratory testing studies. Very few studies examined the road safety of pedal-cyclists and motorcyclists; therefore, we focused solely on studies examining pedestrian safety. The literature reviewed in this study indicates that vehicles fitted with bull bars, particularly those without deformable padding, concentrate crash forces over a smaller area of vulnerable road users during collisions compared to vehicles not fitted with a bull bar. Rigid bull bars, such as those made from steel or aluminum, stiffen the front end of vehicles and interfere with the vital shock absorption systems designed in vehicle fronts. These devices therefore significantly alter the collision dynamics of vehicles, resulting in an increased risk of pedestrian injury and mortality in crashes. This literature review shows that bull bars do indeed increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable road users in the event of a collision and highlights the need for current traffic safety policies to reflect the safety concerns surrounding the use of bull bars.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [HINARI]
On: 12 February 2013, At: 23:52
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Traffic Injury Prevention
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Bull Bars and Vulnerable Road Users
Ediriweera Desapriya a b , John M. Kerr a b , D. Sesath Hewapathirane a b c , Dinithi Peiris a b ,
Bikaramjit Mann d , Nayomi Gomes a b , Kavindya Peiris a b , Giulia Scime a b & Jennifer Jones
a b
a Developmental Neurosciences and Child Health, Centre for Community Child Health
Research, Child and Family Research Institute, Department of Pediatrics, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
b British Columbia Injury Research and Prevention Unit, Vancouver, BC, Canada
c Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
d Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Accepted author version posted online: 07 Nov 2011.Version of record first published: 12 Jan
2012.
To cite this article: Ediriweera Desapriya , John M. Kerr , D. Sesath Hewapathirane , Dinithi Peiris , Bikaramjit Mann , Nayomi
Gomes , Kavindya Peiris , Giulia Scime & Jennifer Jones (2012): Bull Bars and Vulnerable Road Users, Traffic Injury Prevention,
13:1, 86-92
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.624143
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Traffic Injury Prevention, 13:86–92, 2012
Copyright C
2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online
DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2011.624143
Bull Bars and Vulnerable Road Users
EDIRIWEERA DESAPRIYA,1,2 JOHN M. KERR,1,2 D. SESATH
HEWAPATHIRANE,1,2,3 DINITHI PEIRIS,1,2 BIKARAMJIT MANN,4NAYOMI
GOMES,1,2 KAVINDYA PEIRIS,1,2 GIULIA SCIME,1,2 and JENNIFER JONES1,2
1Developmental Neurosciences and Child Health, Centre for Community Child Health Research, Child and Family Research
Institute, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2British Columbia Injury Research and Prevention Unit, Vancouver, BC, Canada
3Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
4Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Objectives: Pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of the global death and injury burden, accounting for 65 percent of the
1.2 million annual road deaths. The purpose of this brief literature review is to examine whether bull bars, a rigid aftermarket
accessory fitted to the front end of passenger vehicles, increase the risk of severe and fatal injuries to vulnerable road users
in the event of a collision.
Methods: Applicable peer-reviewed research, review papers, and grey literature were identified from a search of MED-
LINE; the Transportation Research Board (TRB) database composed of Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS)
and International Transport Research Documentation (TRID) databases; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and
Google Scholar. The following search terms were used: “bull bars” OR “nudge bars” OR “sahara bars” AND “pedestrians”
OR “vulnerable road users” for 1948 to March 1, 2011. A secondary set of search terms was also included “bull bars” OR
“nudge bars” OR “sahara bars” OR “vehicle frontal protective systems” AND “pedestrians” OR “vulnerable road users”
for 1948 to March 1, 2011.
Results: Neither the MEDLINE search nor the Cochrane Review search returned any relevant literature. The TRID search
returned 19 research articles, 9 of which were included. Searches using Google Scholar returned 110 items, of which 21
were included in the present review after excluding patents and citations. Seven of the articles from TRID were also found
in the Google Scholar search, resulting in 23 unique articles being included in this review. The studies used included 12
real-world studies, 3 computer modeling studies, and 8 laboratory testing studies. Very few studies examined the road safety
of pedal-cyclists and motorcyclists; therefore, we focused solely on studies examining pedestrian safety.
Conclusions: The literature reviewed in this study indicates that vehicles fitted with bull bars, particularly those without
deformable padding, concentrate crash forces over a smaller area of vulnerable road users during collisions compared to
vehicles not fitted with a bull bar. Rigid bull bars, such as those made from steel or aluminum, stiffen the front end of vehicles
and interfere with the vital shock absorption systems designed in vehicle fronts. These devices therefore significantly alter
the collision dynamics of vehicles, resulting in an increased risk of pedestrian injury and mortality in crashes. This literature
review shows that bull bars do indeed increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable road users in the event of a collision and
highlights the need for current traffic safety policies to reflect the safety concerns surrounding the use of bull bars.
Keywords Vehicle design; Pedestrian injury; Vehicle fronts; Rigid bull bars
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of global death and
injury burden, accounting for 65 percent of the 1.2 million an-
nual road deaths (Peden et al. 2004). Efforts have been made to
reduce the incidence of traffic fatalities caused by motor vehicle
collisions. Improvements to vehicle design, for example, have
Received 31 May 2011; accepted 13 September 2011.
Address correspondence to Dr. Ediriweera Desapriya, L-408, 4480 Oak
Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3V4, Canada. E-mail: edesap@cw.bc.ca
been shown to reduce the severity of injuries to pedestrians and
cyclists in the event of a collision (Peden et al. 2004). Although
road safety researchers have had a basic understanding of the re-
lationship between vehicle design and pedestrian injuries since
the 1960s (Kratzke 1995), the safety of vulnerable road users,
defined by the World Health Organization (Peden et al. 2004)
as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, did not become a
serious concern in the field of vehicle design safety research
until the early 1990s. This delay may have been partially due
to the belief that little could be done to protect pedestrians
in the event of a vehicle crash (Kahane 2004; Kratzke 1995).
86
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
BULL BARS AND VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 87
Furthermore, manufacturers may have been reluctant to de-
velop and invest in an area not considered to provide sufficient
added value to the vehicle from a market share perspective.
Therefore, safety research for vulnerable road users has been
relatively slow and poorly funded, in comparison to safety
considerations for vehicle occupants. Moreover, scientific
consensus on the requirements of vehicle design for pedestrian
protection has still not been fully achieved (Crandall et al.
2002).
Studies have been conducted examining how the shape, stiff-
ness, and speed of motor vehicles can influence injury type
and severity to pedestrians and cyclists. Early work by Ash-
ton and McKay (1979) related specific vehicle impact speeds
to risk of death. In the 1990s, the term aggressivity was in-
troduced to describe the vehicle properties of geometry, mass,
and stiffness, defined by Fildes et al. (1993) as the extent to
which a vehicle transfers collision energy to the struck ob-
ject in comparison to the amount of collision energy that
it absorbs itself. The design of vehicles, particularly frontal
structures, determines aggressivity and contributes largely to
the severity of injuries sustained in pedestrian–vehicle and
cyclist–vehicle crashes. Semi-trailer trucks and large 4-wheel-
drive vehicles, vans, and sports utility vehicles (SUVs) have par-
ticularly harmful effects on vulnerable road users (Oxley et al.
2004).
The subject of this review, bull bars, are predominantly rigid
metal bars fixed to the front end of an SUV, originally designed
to prevent damage to the vehicle upon contact with animals in
rural areas (Higgins 1994). Fitting of rigid, aggressive bull bars
for protection against wildlife or simply for aesthetic reasons
has been publicized as a cause for concern in many countries
(Higgins 1994; Peden et al. 2004). It has been argued that bull
bars are essential safety features that protect occupants in the
event of such a collision; however, there has been much debate
about their use in densely populated urban areas where pedes-
trians are often the only casualties they come into contact with
(Attewell and Glase 2004). Figure 1 (top) presents a photograph
of a pickup truck fixed with a metal bull bar. Figure 1 (bottom)
presents a photograph of a pickup truck fixed with a metal nudge
bar.
Determining the impact of bull bars on vulnerable road users
is necessary for informed traffic safety and car manufacturer
policy making, especially to support the Global Technical
Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian protection (United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe [UNECE] 2009). The
purpose of this brief review, therefore, is to examine whether
bull bars increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable road
users in the event of a collision and to shed light on the reasons
motorists choose to fit these devices to their vehicles. Though
the goal of this study was to research the influence of bull
bars on collision outcomes with all vulnerable road users,
very few studies identified in this review elaborated on the
impact of these devices on the road safety of pedal-cyclists and
motorcyclists. Thus, our study focused solely on pedestrian
safety.
Figure 1 Pickup trucks fitted with a metal bull bar (top) and a nudge bar
(bottom) (color figure available online).
METHODS
Sources
Applicable peer-reviewed research, review papers, and grey
literature were identified from a search of MEDLINE; the Trans-
portation Research Board (TRB) database composed of Trans-
portation Research Information Services (TRIS) and the Interna-
tional Transport Research Documentation (TRID) databases; the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Google Scholar.
Study Selection
The following search terms were used: “bull bars” OR “nudge
bars” OR “sahara bars” AND “pedestrians” OR “vulnerable
road users” for 1948 to March 1, 2011. A secondary set of search
terms was also used: “bull bars” OR “nudge bars” OR “sahara
bars” OR “vehicle frontal protective systems” AND “pedestri-
ans” OR “vulnerable road users” for 1948 to March 1, 2011.
Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms were not available for
any of the search terms. Abstracts were evaluated against criteria
as follows.
Inclusion criteria.
English language;
Real-world studies or computer modeling or laboratory
testing results from:
Research on bull bars and impact on safety of vulnerable road
users published as independent studies; or
Research from traffic safety conference proceedings; or
Research within traffic safety reports; or
Research supporting reviews of current regulations.
Exclusion criteria.
Textbooks
Non-research papers
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
88 DESAPRIYA ET AL.
Patents
Citations
Full articles were retrieved for included abstracts, and articles
were examined to confirm satisfaction of inclusion standards.
All literature searches were supplemented with manual screen-
ing of bibliographies in publications accepted for inclusion into
the evidence base. The selection and results flowchart is pre-
sented in the Appendix.
RESULTS
As seen in the Appendix, neither the MEDLINE nor
Cochrane database of systematic review search returned any
entries on bull bars and pedestrian crashes.
The TRID search returned 19 research articles, 9 of which
were included. Google Scholar provided 110 articles, which,
after excluding patents and citations, yielded 21 articles. Seven
of the articles from TRID were also found in the Google Scholar
search, resulting in 23 unique articles being included in this
review.
Studies on bull bars were categorized into real-world studies,
computer modeling studies, and laboratory testing, as described
in the following subsections.
Real-World Studies
Real-world studies represented the largest category of literature.
These 12 papers were mainly from Australia (10 papers). There
was also one paper from Ireland and one from The Netherlands.
Computer Modeling
Three studies using computer modeling were included in this
review, all from Australia.
Laboratory Testing
Eight of the included studies utilized laboratory testing to study
the effects of bull bars and vulnerable road users. Four papers
were from work done in Australia, 2 from Britain, 1 from Bel-
gium, and 1 from Japan.
DISCUSSION
Real-World Studies
In 2006, 11.5 percent of pedestrians struck by large SUVs in the
United States were killed, compared to 4.5 percent of pedestrians
struck by passenger cars. Simms and Wood (2006) attributed
the high bumpers and bonnets (hoods) present on these vehicles
as the cause of the observed increase in pedestrian mortality
during collisions, using real-world data and simulation models.
Bull bars are an additional hazard contributing to an already
high injury rate because they reduce the average impact speed
for fatal collisions and thus severe injuries and death rates are
higher (Bowd 1995).
The Federal Office of Road Safety in Australia (1996)
estimated that 12 percent of pedestrian deaths in Australia in
1992 involved vehicles fitted with bull bars. Subsequent work
has suggested that this value may in fact be an underestimate,
due to a large proportion of missing data, raising the possibility
that vehicles fitted with bull bars may have been involved in up
to 20 percent of collisions resulting in road deaths (Bowd 1997;
Federal Office of Road Safety 1996). Due to the incompleteness
of bull bar status of vehicles in the Australian national fatality
database, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the effect
of bull bars on pedestrian fatalities in this jurisdiction (Ander-
son et al. 2008). Upon examination of the South Australian
Coroner’s records of pedestrian fatalities between 1991 and
1997, researchers found that bull bars were fitted to 8.8 percent
of vehicles involved in fatal pedestrian collisions (Kloeden et al.
2000).
The prevalence of bull bar use in urban areas is significantly
high. A recent survey of vehicles in areas where pedestrian
crashes have occurred showed that 8.6 percent of vehicles in
the region of Adelaide, Australia, were equipped with bull bars.
However, a higher proportion of vehicles in the outer metropoli-
tan region were equipped with bull bars compared to those in
the central business district and the inner metropolitan region
(Anderson et al. 2008). A follow-up study determined propor-
tions of vehicle types equipped with bull bars by using video
footage of survey sites. It showed that 45.4 percent of 4-wheel-
drive vehicles (4WDs)/SUVs, 49.8 percent of work utility ve-
hicles, 15.6 percent of vans, 1.5 percent of passenger cars and
derivatives, 28 percent of trucks, and 23.3 percent of buses were
equipped with a bull bar, with alloy bull bars being the most
common (Doecke et al. 2008).
The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL 1996) in Britain
examined crashes involving vehicles equipped with bull bars
and found that there were 2 to 3 additional fatalities and ap-
proximately 40 additional serious injury casualties as a result of
vehicles being fitted with bull bars.
An analysis of Dutch national road statistics showed that
SUVs are significantly more aggressive toward vulnerable road
users compared to other vehicles (Margaritis et al. 2005). One
factor found to have an influence on accident severity was frontal
stiffness, which is increased by bull bars. The large difference
between the stiffness of the bull bar and impact partner in-
creases the deformation of the partner. The authors noted that
bull bars are of no use in road traffic and recommended more re-
stricted regulations on the use of bull bars (Hoogvelt et al. 2004;
Margaritis et al. 2005). If used, bull bars should conform to the
geometry of the vehicle, and sharp edges from additions such
as a fishing rod carrier must be removed because they are also
hazards to pedestrians and are noncompliant with bylaws in
some areas (Staysafe Committee 2006).
Older road users are especially vulnerable to the effects of
bull bars, accounting for up to 45 percent of pedestrian fatalities
and up to 70 percent of cyclist fatalities. Increased frailty in older
pedestrians and cyclists often results in increased severity of
injuries when compared to younger road users, even in moderate
crashes (Oxley et al. 2004). The trend toward aggressive and
large vehicles with rigid bull bars is thus of large consequence
to this population in particular.
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
BULL BARS AND VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 89
Though a majority of motorists chose to fit these devices
to protect their vehicle and passengers from damage during a
collision, some chose to use bull bars for purposes other than
protection. A survey by Page et al. (1984) indicated that the
3 major reasons given for fitting bull bars to sedans were to
protect against parking collisions, to make the vehicle more
visually attractive, and to allow for more aggressive driving
in peak hours. Bull bars provide motorists with a convenient
location to mount additional accessories to their vehicles, such
as spotlights and recovery winches. Further, though drivers have
the option of fitting “pedestrian-friendly” bull bars in place of
metal varieties for this purpose, a study by Anderson et al.
(2008) demonstrated that the majority of motorists still prefer
steel or alloy models over plastic, even in densely populated
urban areas. The prevalence of these devices in urban areas, in
conjunction with the increased risk of severe injury and death
they pose to vulnerable motorists, raises the question of why bull
bars, particularly those made of rigid metal materials, continue
to remain permitted in urban zones where they serve no safety
benefit.
Computer Modeling Studies
Recent computer simulation tests conducted by the University
of Adelaide found that in a test simulating a pedestrian’s head
striking the front of an SUV with a steel bull bar, the head
decelerations produced were typically 5 times greater than those
from a vehicle with no bull bars (Anderson et al. 2009).
Modeling studies have also indicated that bull bars might
have other effects in pedestrian crashes because they alter the
front geometry of the vehicle and therefore alter the kinematics
of the struck pedestrian, either onto the upper surface of the
vehicle or onto the road. The simulation results further showed
that the addition of a bull bar to the front of a vehicle increases
the speed of the head impact with the bonnet (Anderson et al.
2009). The MADYMO simulation showed that a bull bar alters
the trajectory of the head of struck pedestrians and consequently
increases the danger of fatal head injuries (Anderson et al. 2009).
Laboratory Testing Studies
From laboratory testing conducted as early as the 1970s, it was
recognized that bull bars altered the profile of a vehicle front end,
making it potentially more aggressive in pedestrian collisions. A
number of crash simulation studies have been conducted using
pedestrian dummies and vehicles equipped with and without
bull bars in order to investigate the altered injury mechanisms
and kinematics involved.
Chiam and Tomas (1980) examined the effect of bull
bars on vehicle–pedestrian collision dynamics. The experi-
ments reproduced collisions between an adult male dummy
and cars with and without bull bars and at impact speeds
of 20 km/h. The results showed that impacts with bull bars
result in a higher incidence of knee or ankle fractures and
higher severity head injury in both adults and children. It
was concluded that this is due to higher and more concen-
trated impact points in the case of bull bars (Chiam and Tomas
1980).
Zellmer and Otte (1995) reported on crash tests conducted
in Germany at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt).
They concluded that bull bars strongly increase the risk of in-
jury and injury severity in vehicle crash with pedestrians or
cyclists (Zellmer and Otte 1995). The study further stated that
injury risk for a child in an impact with a vehicle fitted with
a bull bar at 20 km/h is similar to an impact with an off-road
vehicle traveling at 30 km/h and a regular passenger car travel-
ing at 40 km/h. It was also concluded that hip and lower limb
fracture risk for an adult impacting a bull bar at 25 km/h is
similar to impacting a car bonnet at 40 km/h (Zellmer and Otte
1995).
Mizuno et al. (2001) conducted child pedestrian headform
impact tests and found that the head injury criteria are higher
when struck by an SUV fitted with steel bull bars. The study
went on to state that the geometrical incompatibility (e.g., the
steel bull bars, the higher bonnet height) of SUVs is the major
cause of a higher mortality rate (Mizuno et al. 2001).
Testing using impact test procedures developed to assess the
safety of cars in impacts with pedestrians has shown that, in
general, vehicles equipped with bull bars are more likely to
cause injuries to pedestrians, especially child pedestrians, than
vehicles not fitted with bull bars (Shield 1999; Zellmer and Otte
1995). Full-scale crash testing has proven that impact kinematics
are significantly changed by the addition of a bull bar (Reilly-
Jones and Griffiths 1996).
Anderson et al. (2006a) examined the performance of various
bull bars in pedestrian impact tests and found that steel and
aluminum bull bars can produce extremely high impact loads
which, in the case of pedestrian contact, can cause high levels
of morbidity and mortality. Their research on the impact of bull
bar material showed that steel poses the most significant risks
to pedestrians in the event of a collision. Bull bars constructed
of lighter metals (e.g., aluminum or alloy) performed better but
were still a dangerous addition to the vehicle. Polymer bull bars
were suggested to be an acceptable way to protect the front of the
vehicle without causing increased risk of injury to pedestrians
(Anderson et al. 2006b). In a later observational study of bull
bars at pedestrian crash sites, it was found that metallic bull bars
were the most common of all bull bar types (Anderson et al.
2008). It was suggested that more rigorous testing protocols and
a bull bar rating system should be implemented for regulators
(Anderson et al. 2006b; McLean 2005).
Current Regulations and Recommendations
European, Japanese, and Korean carmakers committed in 2001
to stop installing “rigid” bull bars on new cars beginning in
2002 (European Union Committee 2007). The vehicle safety
regulations introduced in Europe and Japan in 2005 required all
new vehicle models to comply with pedestrian safety standards
(McLean 2005). These regulations are expected to lead to safer
bull bars that are designed with more pedestrian-friendly mate-
rials. More recently, the Working Group on Passive Safety under
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
90 DESAPRIYA ET AL.
the UNECE drafted a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on
pedestrian protection (UNECE 2009).
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for pedestrian safety in
Australia reviewed the evidence for an intervention to improve
the pedestrian safety performance of new Australian vehicles.
It was recommended that a mandatory standard, known as an
Australian Design Rule (ADR), be adopted based on the GTR
on pedestrian protection (Vehicle Safety Standards Branch, De-
partment of Infrastructure and Transport 2011). Currently there
are no ADRs in Australia related to the protection of vulnerable
road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. It was
acknowledged that the fitting of extra equipment, including bull
bars and/or vehicle frontal protection systems (VFPS), is almost
exclusively an aftermarket activity. It was also acknowledged
that VFPS manufacturers could be affected by the adoption of
an ADR relating to pedestrian safety, so VFPS were considered
as part of the RIS analysis. ADR 42/04 specifies design and
construction requirements such that “any additional objects or
fittings must be technically essential” (Vehicle Safety Standards
Branch, Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2011, p. 3).
Whether VFPS are technically essential depends primarily on
where the vehicle is being used. However, the ADR can only
mandate requirements to apply to all vehicles in Australia. To
address this issue, it was proposed that the fitting of a VFPS
could be considered in terms of the primary use of the base
vehicle. For instance, adjustments for VFPS could be limited
to vehicles designed for off-road use (Vehicle Safety Standards
Branch, Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2011). De-
spite the RIS recommendations, a recent statement released by
the Australian government indicates that a ban on bull bars is
not a consideration (Noller 2011).
Study Limitations
The most obvious limitation of this review is the lack of sci-
entifically sound peer-reviewed literature on the impact of bull
bars on vulnerable road users, fatal injuries, injury patterns, and
injury mechanisms. This greatly limits the understanding of ac-
tual traffic safety problems and solutions concerning bull bars,
both among the traffic safety research community and policy
makers. In general, clinical understanding of bull bar impact
injuries is poor due to lack of scientifically sound real-world
studies. Similarly, there are no scientifically sound real-world
studies examining the benefit of bull bars for preventing animal-
related crashes. Further, there is a lack of research examining the
impact of bull bars on pedal-cyclist and motorcyclist road safety.
Though there is little doubt that bull bars represent a hazard to
cyclist and motorcyclist safety, the underrepresentation of these
vulnerable road users in the literature makes it difficult to assess
the influence these devices have on collision outcomes. This
population of road users represents an important component of
many traffic systems, and the dangers that bull bars pose to these
vulnerable road users is a topic that needs to be addressed in
future studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the evidence base is limited to a relatively small
number of studies, the data conclusively point to the contribution
of bull bars to unnecessary levels of human trauma and fatalities.
Presently, there is active discouragement toward the manu-
facture of rigid and aggressive bull bars. Recently, the European
Council Working Group and European Parliamentary Commit-
tee reached consensus on a proposal that will effectively outlaw
aggressive metal bull bars while permitting the use of compliant
(non-rigid) systems that offer broadly equivalent levels of pro-
tection to the vehicle to which they are fitted (European Union
Committee 2007). As noted above (Anderson et al. 2006b), re-
designing bull bars with softer materials such as plastic would
make them more pedestrian friendly.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Working Party on the Protection of Pedestrians recommended
that the use of bull bars on roads be banned, notably by encour-
aging both car manufacturers and component manufacturers to
stop selling them as vehicle accessories (UNECE 2002). GTR
No. 9 introduced performance criteria to improve the construc-
tion of certain parts of the front of vehicles and thereby reduce
the levels of injury sustained by pedestrians involved in frontal
impacts with motor vehicles. The GTR outlines requirements
such as the height and lateral limits of the frontal structures of
a vehicle, including any attachments to the structure (UNECE
2008). Furthermore, the European Commission recently intro-
duced a consolidated regulation on the construction and function
of motor vehicles and frontal protection systems in an effort to
reduce pedestrian injuries (European Parliament Council 2009).
This review shows that rigid bull bars, particularly those
made of metal, increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable
road users. Our findings highlight the urgent need for current
traffic safety policies to reflect the safety concerns surrounding
the use of such bull bars.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank our research team member Jennifer Campbell of
the Faculty of Medicine University of Toronto for her assistance
with earlier version of this manuscript. We also acknowledge
the financial support of the AUTO21 Networks of Centers of
Excellence of Canada.
REFERENCES
Anderson RWG, Doecke S, Van Den Berg AL, Searson DJ, Ponte G.
The Effect of Bull Bars on Head Impact Kinematics in Pedestrian
Crashes. Adelaide, South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety
Research; 2009. Report CASR059.
Anderson RWG, Ponte G, Doecke S. A Survey of Bull Bar Prevalence
at Pedestrian Crash Sites in Adelaide, South Australia. Adelaide,
South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2008.
Anderson RWG, Van Den Berg AL, Ponte G, Streeter LD. Testing
the Pedestrian Safety of Bull Bars: Methods and Results.Adelaide,
South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2006a.
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
BULL BARS AND VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 91
Anderson RWG, van den Berg AL, Ponte G, Streeter LD, McLean
AJ. Performance of Bull Bars in Pedestrian Impact Tests.Ade-
laide, South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research;
2006b.
Ashton SJ, MacKay GM. Some characteristics of the population who
suffer trauma as pedestrians when hit by cars and some resulting
implications. In: Proceedings of the 4th IRCOBI Conference. Goth-
ernburg. 1979.
Attewell R, Glase K. Bull Bars and Road Trauma. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Transport Safety Bureau; 2004. Report CR200.
Bowd D. Impact of bull-bars on pedestrians. In: Proceedings from
the Inaugural International Conference on Accident Investiga-
tion, Reconstruction, Interpretation and the Law. October 16–19,
1995:389–400. IRRD 868526.
Bowd D. Trends in fatalities associated with bull-bars,1990–1992. Pa-
per presented at: International Conference on Accident Investigation,
Reconstruction, Interpretation and the Law; September 22, 1997;
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Chiam HK, TomasJA. Investigation of the Effect of Bull Bars on Vehicle
Pedestrian Collision Dynamics. Canberra: Department of Transport
Australia, Office of Road Safety; 1980. Report CR13.
Crandall JR, Bhalla KS, Madeley NJ. Designing road vehicles for
pedestrian protection. BMJ. 2002;324:1145–1148.
Doecke SD, Anderson RWG, Ponte G. Bull bar prevalence among
types of vehicles in metropolitan Adelaide. In: Proceedings 2008
Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Confer-
ence. Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions; 2008:43–51.
European Parliament Council. Regulation (EC) No. 78/2009 of the Eu-
ropean Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the type-
approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestri-
ans and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC
and repealing Directives 2003/102/E and 2005/66/EC. 2009.
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:32009R0078:en:NOT. Accessed December 27, 2010.
European Union Committee. Correspondence with Ministers—March
2005 to January 2006 (forty-fifth report of session 2005–06),
HL 243; 2007 Jan 23, section 90. 2007. Available at: http://
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/
243/24394.htm. Accessed December 27, 2010.
Federal Office of Road Safety. Pedestrian Fatalities in Aus-
tralia. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety;
1996. Monograph 7. Available at: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/
roads/safety/publications/1996/pdf/Ped Crash 2.pdf. Accessed De-
cember 27, 2010.
Fildes BN, Lee SJ, Lane JC. Vehicle Mass, Size and Safety. Melbourne,
Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 1993. Re-
port No: CR133.
Higgins T. Why do motorists fit bull bars? In: Griffiths MJ, Jones
CJ, eds. Proceedings of Bull Bar Safety Workshop. Sydney, Aus-
tralia: Road Safety Bureau, Roads and Traffic Authority NSW;
1994;68–72.
Hoogvelt RBH, de Vries YWR, Margarites D, et al. Impact of sport util-
ity vehicles on traffic safety and the environment in The Netherlands.
The report of TNO Automotive, report Delft, Netherlands.
Kahane CJ. Lives saved by the federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dards and other vehicle safety technologies,1960–2002: passenger
cars and light trucks: with a review of 19 FMVSS and their ef-
fectiveness in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes. 2004. DOT
HS 809 833, 88. Available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/
regrev/evaluate/pdf/809833Part1.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2011.
Kloeden CK, White K, McLean AJ. Characteristics of Fatal and Se-
vere Pedestrian Accidents in South Australia. Adelaide, Australia:
Transport SA; 2000.
Kratzke S. Regulatory History of Automatic Crash Protection in
FMVSS 208. Warrendale, Pa; 1995. SAE Paper No. 950865.
Margaritis D, Hoogvelt B, de Vries Y, Klootwijk C, Mooi H. An
Analysis of Sport Utility Vehicles Involved in Road Accidents. 2005.
TNO Automotive report, Delft, Netherlands. Paper No. 05-0370.
McLean AJ. Vehicle Design for Pedestrian Protection. Adelaide, Aus-
tralia: University of Adelaide, Centre for Automotive Safety Re-
search; 2005. CASR037.
Mizuno K, Yonezawa H, Kajzer J. Pedestrian Headform Impact Tests
for Various Vehicle Locations. Hokoku, Japan: Traffic Safety and
Nuisance Research Institute; 2001.
Noller M. Government says it will not ban bull bars. Toowoomba News.
February 28, 2011. Available at: http://www.australianews.com.au/
australia/queensland/darlingdowns/toowoomba/story?cityid=9901
bdf5-f527-4b68-852d-149172949fd4&storyid=9d7c4a96-cbff-
43e1-a3e4-15d7b335158f. Accessed March 27, 2011.
Oxley J, Corben B, Fildes B, O’Hare M, Rothengatter T. Older Vul-
nerable Road Users—Measures to Reduce Crash and Injury Risk.
Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Cen-
tre; 2004. Report No. 218.
Page G, Hird T, Tomas J. Safety of Vehicle Structures. Adelaide, Aus-
tralia: The SAE Australasia; 1984.
Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, et al. World Report on Road Traffic Injury
Prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
Reilly-Jones C, Griffiths M. The effects of bull bars on pedestrian injury
mechanisms and kinematics. International Technical Conference on
the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. NHTSA. Report DOTHS 808 465.
1996:1782–1787.
Shield J. Bull bars. Inj Prev. 1999;5:80–81.
Simms CK, Wood DP. Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility
vehicles—a comparative analytical study. Proc Inst Mech Eng D
Auto Eng. 2006;220–229.
Staysafe Committee. Inquiry Into Road Safety Administration and Mid-
Term Review of the New South Wales Road Safety 2010 Strategy.New
South Wales, Australia; 2006. Report No. 22/53.
Transport Research Laboratory. A Study of Accidents Involving Bull
Bar Equipped Vehicles. Berks, UK; 1996. Report No. 243.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Global Techni-
cal Regulation No. 9, Addendum. 2008. Available at: http://live.
unece.org/ fileadmin / DAM/ trans / main /wp29/wp29wgs / wp29gen/
wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a9e.pdf. Accessed January 21,
2011.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Paper presented
at: UNECE-Inland Transport Committee. Working Party on Road
Traffic Safety, Thirty-eighth session; March 19–22, 2002; Brussels,
Belgium.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Regulation
on Pedestrian Safety. Copenhagen, Denmark; 2009. Document
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/10.
Vehicle Safety Standards Branch, Department of Infrastructure and
Transport. Regulation Impact Statement for Pedestrian Safety.Brus-
sels, Belgium: Australian Government, Department of Infrastructure
and Transport; 2011. Report No. DIT VSS 01/2011.
Zellmer H, Otte D. Injury risk of vulnerable road users in case of acci-
dents with crash bar equipped off-road vehicles. Paper presented at:
International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact;
1995; Canberra, Australia.
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
92 DESAPRIYA ET AL.
APPENDIX—LITERATURE SEARCH FLOWCHART
Note: overlaps occurred during literature searches.
P
rimary screening Cochrane Review (0), MEDLINE (0), TRID (19), Google Scholar (110)
Secondary screening Included (23), Excluded (106)
Real world
(
12
)
, Computer modellin
g
(
3
)
, Laborator
y
testin
g
(
8
)
Downloaded by [HINARI] at 23:52 12 February 2013
... These criteria and sub-criteria may be in terms of consequences, for example, disturbance of the natural environment, soil erosion, increase in air pollution, etc. When the condition of rural roads is improved, it can potentially attract more traffic, leading to an increase in the number of accidents and localized air pollution (Desapriya et al., 2012). It has been determined that casualty accidents are more sensitive to the traffic volume and pavement condition in rural roads than their sensitivity concerning design or operational aspects (Chen et al., 2019). ...
... The volume of motorized traffic is considerably lower compared to the other two components. However, due to improved road conditions, there are possibilities of increasing in motor vehicles making pedestrian and non-motorized traffic vulnerable to accidents and injury (Desapriya et al., 2012;Chen et al., 2017). The rate of accidents across all road types is higher in the case of rural roads. ...
Article
Rural roads contribute significantly to the living conditions of rural populations. However, they also lead to detrimental impacts on physical and social environments. In this context, the present study proposes a novel fuzzy multicriteria approach that amalgamates fuzzy TOPSIS and an improved fuzzy weighted average method to assess the negative impacts on physical and social environments, due to rural road construction. The approach offers a structured comprehension and incorporates detailed criteria that reflect the adverse effects. The attributes identified and assessed in this study are air quality, vegetation cover status, noise pollution, transmissible disease, habits/behaviour, safety and security, and road accidents. The approach includes both qualitative and quantitative data from focus group discussions. The results presented here are essential to identify corrective actions, promote effective distribution of funds, and facilitate effective decisionmaking for sustainable rural development.
... The shifting of risks, although not intended, is not completely new to the automotive industry. Studies found that bull bars attached to vehicles increase the risk for vulnerable road users in road traffic (Desapriya et al., 2012). For this reason, the European Union decided to prohibit bull bars on road vehicles (Bonnefon et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2017, the German ethics commission for automated and connected driving released 20 ethical guidelines for autonomous vehicles. It is now up to the research and industrial sectors to enhance the development of autonomous vehicles based on such guidelines. In the current state of the art, we find studies on how ethical theories can be integrated. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no framework for motion planning has yet been published which allows for the true implementation of any practical ethical policies. This paper makes four contributions: Firstly, we briefly present the state of the art based on recent works concerning unavoidable accidents of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and identify further need for research. While most of the research focuses on decision strategies in moral dilemmas or crash optimization, we aim to develop an ethical trajectory planning for all situations on public roads. Secondly, we discuss several ethical theories and argue for the adoption of the theory “ethics of risk.” Thirdly, we propose a new framework for trajectory planning, with uncertainties and an assessment of risks. In this framework, we transform ethical specifications into mathematical equations and thus create the basis for the programming of an ethical trajectory. We present a risk cost function for trajectory planning that considers minimization of the overall risk, priority for the worst-off and equal treatment of people. Finally, we build a connection between the widely discussed trolley problem and our proposed framework.
... In an observational study of vehicles in Adelaide, Doecke et al. (2008) reported that 45.4% of four wheel drive vehicles and 49.4% of work utilities were fitted with bull-bars. Desapriya et al. (2012) reviewed the literature addressing rigid bull bars on vulnerable road user safety and noted that vehicles fitted with bull bars, particularly those without deformable padding, concentrate crash forces over a smaller area of vulnerable road users during collisions compared to vehicles not fitted with a bull bar. Rigid bull bars, such as those made from steel or aluminium, stiffen the front end of vehicles and interfere with the vital shock absorption systems designed in vehicle fronts. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report seeks to provide the clearest possible picture of pedestrian crashes in Victoria given the available information Data was extracted from the Victoria Police Accident Records System (VPARS) linked to the TAC claims dataset, for pedestrian crashes between 2009 and 2018 and compared against hospitalised data. Separate datasets were analysed for both hospital admissions and Emergency Department (ED) presentations, for all pedestrian cases between 2008 and 2017, which was the most current data available. In addition to analysis of the datasets above, pedestrian deaths in Victoria between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from the National Cause of Death Unit Record File. The following recommendations are made to reduce on-road pedestrian deaths and serious injuries. Safer speeds and safer roads: Recommendations include: • Reductions in speed limits, including to 30km/h in areas of high pedestrian activity and residential streets; • Speed limit reductions are supported with appropriate traffic calming infrastructure to ensure drivers and riders are compliant with speed limits; • Provision of more pedestrian oriented developments (pedestrian prioritisation); • Implementation of Safe System aligned treatments to separate vulnerable road users and vehicles and create safer crossing points; • Implementation of Safe System aligned treatments to improve sight distance and visibility of pedestrians; • Provision of safe, convenient and direct walking routes to minimise the need for risky walking behaviours; and • An ongoing program of state government investment to deliver these improvements. Safer vehicles: Recommendations include: • Development of programs and initiatives to address improved uptake and awareness of safer vehicles (e.g., targeted education campaign on safe vehicle purchase and use; providing financial or other incentives for purchasing safer vehicles); • Enhance and further promote existing information and resources such as www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au, www.ancap.com.au, used car safety rating guides; • Further development of technologies to assist with detection of pedestrians and crash avoidance. Safer road users: Recommendations include: • For drivers, develop educational and training programs addressing pedestrian safety and adoption of safer driving practices and enforcement of lawful driving. • Support national efforts to promote walking and walkable communities through health promotion campaigns • For older pedestrians, development and implementation of education and behavioural programs providing information on schemes and initiatives to support and promote active travel, technologies and other media to provide active travel information. • For children, development and implementation of educational and training programs promoting safe active travel co-ordination with schools, parents and councils to provide safety around school environments; • For young adults, development of programs addressing alcohol and drug use and walking, alongside measures to manage the road environment around alcohol venues.
... Furthermore, investigations by Farley and Waddell did not utilize the AIS score as a measure for coherence of injury patterns and severity. For a comprehensive picture of the differences in injury type and severity, not only the pedestrian involved but also the external circumstances such as the type of vehicle, raod and traffic circumstances have to be taken into account [3,5,[33][34][35]. All together it has to be stated, that the "fatal triad" theory has nowadays less relevance. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Pedestrians who are involved in motor vehicle collisions present with a unique trauma situation. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the specific clinical characteristics of this patient population in comparison to injured motor vehicle occupants in the medical emergency setting. Methods: A total of 4435 pedestrian traffic collision victims admitted to hospitals participating at TraumaRegister DGU® between 2002 and 2012 (primary admission, Injury Severity Score, ISS ≥ 9; age ≥ 2 years) was assessed and compared to 16,042 severely injured motor vehicle occupants. Analyses included features such as demographic distribution, injury patterns, treatment course, subsequent complications and overall clinical outcome. Results: Severely injured pedestrians more commonly were female (42 % vs. 34 % of motor vehicle occupants) and children below 16 years (12 % vs. 2 %) or seniors above 60 years of age (39 % vs. 17 %). Pedestrians were injured more severely (ISS: 26 vs. 25; NISS 32 vs. 30) with higher rates of head injuries (64 % vs. 47 %), pelvic injuries (32 % vs. 23 %) and lower extremity injuries (52 % vs. 43 %). Accordingly, pedestrians more commonly presented with Glasgow Coma Scale <9 (36 % vs. 28 %) and a systolic blood pressure below 90 mmHg (18 % vs. 13 %) accumulating in a worse prognosis (RISC-Score 24 % vs. 15 %) despite of a shorter on-scene treatment time (26 min vs. 38 min) and a shorter period from the collision until hospital admission (61 min vs. 78 min). Finally, pedestrians showed a higher mortality (22 % vs. 12 %). Conclusion: Severely injured pedestrians represent a challenging patient population with unique injury patterns and high subsequent mortality. Emergency team members should be sensitized to the trigger term "pedestrian" in order to improve the initial emergency management and thus the overall clinical outcome.
... There is an ongoing debate about the accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity of either using the PubMed or a search engine (e.g., Google Scholar) as a major tool of searching the literature. [3][4][5][6][7] However, combining the simplicity, speed, and the accessibility of the "grey" literature using the Google Scholar 8 with the strengths of the PubMed is highly recommended and will retrieve highly sensitive and specific results. The "Net Generation" prefers using the Google Scholar rather than the PubMed. ...
Article
Full-text available
Literature review is a cascading process of searching, reading, analyzing, and summing up of the materials about a specific topic. However, searching the literature is like searching "a needle in a haystack", and hence has been called "Cinderella".(1) Therefore, skills and effective pathways of searching the literature are needed to achieve high sensitive and specific results.
Article
It is possible to eliminate death and serious injury from Canada’s roads. In other jurisdictions, the European Union, centres in the United States, and at least one automotive company aim to achieve comparable results as early as 2020. In Canada, though, citizens must turn their thinking on its head and make road safety a national priority. Since the motor vehicle first went into mass production, the driver has taken most of the blame for its failures. In a world where each person’s safety is dependent on a system in which millions of drivers must drive perfectly over billions of hours behind the wheel, failure on a massive scale has been the result. When we neglect the central role of the motor vehicle as a dangerous consumer product, the result is one of the largest human-made means for physically assaulting human beings. It is time for Canadians to embrace internationally recognized ways of thinking and enter an era in which the motor vehicle by-product of human carnage is relegated to history. No Accident examines problems related to road safety and makes recommendations for the way forward. Topics include types of drivers; human-related driving errors related to fatigue, speed, alcohol, and distraction and roads; pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit; road engineering; motor vehicle regulation; auto safety design; and collision-avoidance technologies such as radar and camera-based sensors on vehicles that prevent crashes. This multi-disciplinary study demystifies the world of road safety and provides a road map for the next twenty years.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Off-road vehicles with and without crash bars were tested with the EEVC-WG 10 proposed sub-systems test procedure for pedestrian protection in order to get a better understanding of the potential harm crash bars present to vulnerable road users. The tests with the child headform impactor revealed that HIC values in excess of 1000 (which is the proposed limit at 40 km/h) can already be attained at impact velocities as low as 20 km/h. With the upper legform impactor, the test requirements were not satisfied, the crash bars falling short by a factor 2 to 3. These results are compared with test on normal passenger cars. Findings from real accidents involving off-road vehicles with and without crash bars and vulnerable road users which had been obtained by the Accident Research Unit of Hanover Medical University are presented and discussed with respect to the results of the sub systems tests.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Pedestrian casualties represent a particularly heterogeneous population in terms of their biomechanical characteristics. This paper looks at some of the dominant accident variables. These are the pedestrian's age and stature, the car impact speed and some of the detailed geometrical and physical characteristics of the car exterior. The great importance of leg fractures and head injuries is illustrated and some of the consequences for design are discussed in terms of realistic and appropriate test procedures.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Trends are noticeable that the European car fleet is changing rapidly towards a higher diversity of vehicles on the roads. On the high end of the scale larger and heavier automobiles, such as Multi Purpose Vehicles (MPV's) and Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV's) take a larger share than before. This paper shows the results from a study done on SUV accidents. The crash involvement and behaviour of Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV) was analysed. The analyses were based on a review of Dutch national statistics and in-depth studies of SUV accidents in The Netherlands and of passenger cars in Europe (the EACS project). Also comparisons were made with actual numbers of the car fleet of the vehicles types, so that exposure rates can be included. Accidents of vehicles in the above-described categories will also be compared with each other. The national statistics and the in-depth analysis were compared and it was shown that the studies point in the same direction. It can be concluded that SUV's are significantly more aggressive against vulnerable road users. In this study no difference is found between heavy passenger cars and SUVs. SUVs are about as heavy as the average full-size passenger car. So the same mass difference occurs between passenger car classes (e.g. full-size and small cars). Although the bumper height is about 20% higher compared to passenger cars, this difference could not directly be related to an increase in injury severity in this study due to the lack of data.
Article
... 11.↵: Fredriksson R,; Häland Y,; Yang J. .Evaluation of a new pedestrian head injury protection system with a sensor in the bumper and lifting of the bonnet&apos;s rear edge. Paper No 131. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference ...