New York State to Ban Brush Guards

[Fourty-four]

Thats all fine and dandy, but there are no HARD numbers showing how much if any "crash energy" as you put it is transferred.

This point is moot until someone can show definitively that the brush guards have any detrimental effect. Since the politicians are trying to pass this as law, they will need to provide the crash test numbers showing how much the grill guards affected the outcome of the crash. As it stands, it is your word against mine.

I'm not passing myself off as a scientist, I'm just using my common sense so if anyone with an engineering background wants to chime in feel free.

Since when to politicians have to provide test numbers to pass anything into law? A bill can easily be passed into law without any such "proof"

Besides, I don't need "hard" numbers to prove my point. It's a simple concept that anyone with an engineering background should understand. The transfer of energy can easily be routed around a crumple zone by rigidly connecting a brush guard to the frame of a vehicle.

 

[Expat]

Since when to politicians have to provide test numbers to pass anything into law? A bill can easily be passed into law without any such "proof"

Do you agree this is right?

 

[Fourty-four]

Mark,

It seems that you missed the point completely. I'm not aruing for or against tint laws. I'm simply saying that you do NOT have to remove your tint to drive in a state that bans tint, such as a NY vehicle owner driving in NJ (illegal to tint the front side windows there).

If this bill is passed as law, it would most likely follow the same scenario. Therefore, nobody would be forced to remove their guards when driving in NY, unless they are on NY registered vehicles.

 

[Expat]

Besides, I don't need "hard" numbers to prove my point. It's a simple concept that anyone with an engineering background should understand. The transfer of energy can easily be routed around a crumple zone by rigidly connecting a brush guard to the frame of a vehicle.

But...given that this transfer of energy is a factual occurrance (I have no issue over that), in what way are the occupants significantly affected? That's where you need hard numbers.

Lets say for instance the energy transferrance was 0.5% (hypothetical). Is this significant enough to tie up people in law making and enforcement?

Without hard numbers you just guessing what the actual impact is. I'd rather see people involved in this issue spending their time clamping down (preventing/capturing/enforcing) child molestation cases. There are much bigger issues that banning a damn brush guard. This is like the people who got a grant to develop a womans surf board. $30,000 for this little project funded by the government....geez!

Big picture stuff my friend!

 

[Expat]

Mark,

It seems that you missed the point completely. I'm not aruing for or against tint laws. I'm simply saying that you do NOT have to remove your tint to drive in a state that bans tint, such as a NY vehicle owner driving in NJ (illegal to tint the front side windows there).

If this bill is passed as law, it would most likely follow the same scenario. Therefore, nobody would be forced to remove their guards when driving in NY, unless they are on NY registered vehicles.

No you missed my point...sorry if I worded it unclearly.

I know you are not in support of any tint ban laws. BUT...the anology is that banning brushguards is a safeguard, then by parrallel comparison, so too should tint be banned as it is proven to reduce the drivers view. So by extension, if you support banning brushguards (anywhere) you should also support removing tint from YOUR car/truck.

 

[Expat]

And...by supporting the ban on brush guards you are in effect supporting any law (that you stated in one of your posts) that does not have to show (a burden of proof) hard numbers.

If you support this position, you are truely wanting a communist government.

I have lived with a communist government regime for many years. Laws are haphazard, poorly enforced, unjust to minority groups etc. Trust me, you don't want to go down that path.

 

[Fourty-four]

Do you agree this is right?

Do I agree that it is correct or that it is the way things should be?

Yes, I do agree that it is correct that a law can be passed without proving hard numbers. History has shown that over and over again.

Should it be that way? Well, last time I checked, a lone politician can not pass a bill into law. I didn't make the rules, I just try to follow them (most of the time, anyway)

 

[Fourty-four]

But...given that this transfer of energy is a factual occurrance (I have no issue over that), in what way are the occupants significantly affected? That's where you need hard numbers.

Lets say for instance the energy transferrance was 0.5% (hypothetical). Is this significant enough to tie up people in law making and enforcement?

Without hard numbers you just guessing what the actual impact is. I'd rather see people involved in this issue spending their time clamping down (preventing/capturing/enforcing) child molestation cases. There are much bigger issues that banning a damn brush guard. This is like the people who got a grant to develop a womans surf board. $30,000 for this little project funded by the government....geez!

Big picture stuff my friend!

Any increase at all has the potential to cause injury. What if your were right at the limit of decelerative forces that crossed the line between being injured and escaping without injury? That theoretical line can easily be crossed with the introduction of any crumple zone reducing measures.

It's hard to argue against logic, common sense, and the basic laws of energy transfer. That said, the law may protect you whether or not you have a guard on your vehicle. If I had a head-on collisions with a grille guard equipped 4Runner, I would experience increased crash forces due to the reduction in the other vehicles crumple zone.

 

[Fourty-four]

No you missed my point...sorry if I worded it unclearly.

I know you are not in support of any tint ban laws. BUT...the anology is that banning brushguards is a safeguard, then by parrallel comparison, so too should tint be banned as it is proven to reduce the drivers view. So by extension, if you support banning brushguards (anywhere) you should also support removing tint from YOUR car/truck.

Apples and oranges. We are discussing the results that occur in an impact versus a potential impact caused by a reduction of vision.

By the way, I do not have my windshield tinted, just my side windows. That said, I never heard of anyone crashing into something while looking out of the side windows.

 

[Fourty-four]

And...by supporting the ban on brush guards you are in effect supporting any law (that you stated in one of your posts) that does not have to show (a burden of proof) hard numbers.

If you support this position, you are truely wanting a communist government.

I have lived with a communist government regime for many years. Laws are haphazard, poorly enforced, unjust to minority groups etc. Trust me, you don't want to go down that path.

100% wrong. If I disagreed with the ban, then I might want to see hard numbers to sway my opinion. But I agree with it, simply because I understand the simple logic of energy transfer. Therefore, no hard numbers are required for my support of the ban. That's not a communistic attitude at all.

 

[sharp4runr]

Since when to politicians have to provide test numbers to pass anything into law? A bill can easily be passed into law without any such "proof"

Besides, I don't need "hard" numbers to prove my point. It's a simple concept that anyone with an engineering background should understand. The transfer of energy can easily be routed around a crumple zone by rigidly connecting a brush guard to the frame of a vehicle.

Name one such bill passed into law without such proof? I can make wild claims without backing it up, but I don't like being called insane or an idiot.

The hard numbers I want to see is how this so called "energy transfer" affects the occupants of the vehicle being hit. You can't quantify this claim so again this point is moot. We can argue this until the cows come home, but without any proof, you're claim is WORTHLESS. If this is the only claim you are standing on then it is shaky at best so I'm done posting on it.

 

[Fourty-four]

Res. No. 103


..Title

Resolution urging the State Legislature to ban the use of grille-guards/bull bars on the front of all motor vehicles that operate in the city of New York.

..Body



By Council Member Vallone Jr.


Whereas, The grille-guard, also known as a bull bar, brush guard or roo bar, are metal bars installed on the front bumper of motor vehicles, originally designed to protect the vehicle from animal collisions and bumps and scratches normally associated with off-roading; and

Whereas, The original intention of grille-guards is not applicable in most metropolitan regions of the United States such as New York City, but rather are used to protect against minor bumps incurred within city limits or most often, simply are used as a cosmetic accessory; and

Whereas, Modern vehicle designs include a crumple zone at the front of the vehicle to cushion the impact and reduce the force pressed upon vehicle occupants; however, most grille-guard designs bridge the crumple zone with a rigid structure, exposing the occupants to a much greater risk of injury; and

Whereas, Although life-saving airbags are equipped with sensors that signal the airbag operation, grille-guards may obstruct the sensors and render the airbag useless in the event of an accident, further exposing the occupants to a higher risk of injury; and

Whereas, Grille-guards pose a greater threat to pedestrians and cyclists because in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist, the extra rigidity of grille-guards would cause greater direct injury, and since the point of impact tends to be higher, the victim bears the full brunt of the impact; and

Whereas, Grille-guards pose a greater threat to the drivers and passengers of other vehicles because in collisions with other cars, the force of impact tends to be higher on the struck vehicle, which may directly hit the chest or head of the occupants; and

Whereas, A 1998 study by Australia

 

[Fourty-four]

Name one such bill passed into law without such proof? I can make wild claims without backing it up, but I don't like being called insane or an idiot.

The hard numbers I want to see is how this so called "energy transfer" affects the occupants of the vehicle being hit. You can't quantify this claim so again this point is moot. We can argue this until the cows come home, but without any proof, you're claim is WORTHLESS. If this is the only claim you are standing on then it is shaky at best so I'm done posting on it.

Just one law? Okay, how about the law banning smoking in public places? Proponents maintain that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. Has this ever been proven? Nope. Logic dictates that it is more than likely, but it's not even possible to prove that someone who has cancer got the cancer from second-hand smoke. The bill was passed into law anyway, with any hard proof.

 

[Fourty-four]

The hard numbers I want to see is how this so called "energy transfer" affects the occupants of the vehicle being hit. You can't quantify this claim so again this point is moot. We can argue this until the cows come home, but without any proof, you're claim is WORTHLESS. If this is the only claim you are standing on then it is shaky at best so I'm done posting on it.

If you agree that it does have an effect on the energy transfer, then it doesn't matter how much of an effect it has. Consider this:

Lets say you were driving your brush guard-equipped 4Runner down the road and you lost control and stuck a large tree. The speed of your impact was just enough to cause you internal injuries. The decelerative forces you experienced were just barely high enough to cause internal injuries. If you were going just 1 mph slower, then you would have escaped the accident without suffering from internal injuries.

Now take the same scenario without the brush guard on your 4Runner. Again, same exact speed and same exact tree. The crumple zone would lessen the decelative forces on your body and you would escaped the accident without suffering any interal injuries.

If you don't agree with this simple scenario, then you obviously will not agree that a brush guard can change the decelerative forces of an impact. And that's just crazy to deny.

 

[JB.]

"This bill would prohibit the use of grill or brush guards as ornamentation ; however, this would not preclude the use of grill or brush guards...to the off-road activities of any otherwise legal vehicles."


Well, this sentence only adds to the ambiguity. Unless it's very sloppily worded, ornamentation is a pretty clearly defined word. It means for looks. I guess the last part means you're allowed to put one on to go off-roading? lol And you're also allowed to put in a different tranny and engine when you go, too.

 

[Expat]

By the way, I do not have my windshield tinted, just my side windows. That said, I never heard of anyone crashing into something while looking out of the side windows.

I did not say your windshield was tinted :twak:

Just because YOU haven't heard of this senario does that mean it doesn't happen? Clearly it does and has. I think you can even find a thread on this forum where someone openly admits that their dark tint on the side windows does reduce their visibility - primarily at night.

Placing anything on your windows that reduces visibility may (and does) lead to accidents (eg not seeing another car in your peripheral view.

I've never heard of anyone getting hurt by a brushguard being found to be responsible for decelerative/ forces - (but I'm sure it probably has happened.)

So just to be clear - just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So how about it - support a ban on tinting windows - you know it reduces peripheral view even without hard numbers - its just common sense, you don't need to be an engineer - and remember YOU are talking about "potential"
- brush guards have the potential, so does dark tinting!

Hey this is good fun. Its about time we had something to argue over

 

[Expat]

"This bill would prohibit the use of grill or brush guards as ornamentation ; however, this would not preclude the use of grill or brush guards...to the off-road activities of any otherwise legal vehicles."


Well, this sentence only adds to the ambiguity. Unless it's very sloppily worded, ornamentation is a pretty clearly defined word. It means for looks. I guess the last part means you're allowed to put one on to go off-roading? lol And you're also allowed to put in a different tranny and engine when you go, too.

I agree this is totally ambigious. So as long as someone says they off-road their car/truck then the ban does not affect them?

If I put a brush guard on my Honda Civic and drive it down dirt roads every once in a while, will I be exempt? Are they going to discriminate against me because I'm not 4WD (then what about the 2WD 4Runner) and what about my Honda Civic which actually does a great job offroad because its front wheel drive?

Can't you see all the clarification that will be needed in this law? What a waste of time.

I still maintain it's the damn driver not the machinery that causes the problems. Better to improve driver training, more policing road traffic conduct, better roads, etc...

 

[Fourty-four]

I did not say your windshield was tinted :twak:

Just because YOU haven't heard of this senario does that mean it doesn't happen? Clearly it does and has. I think you can even find a thread on this forum where someone openly admits that their dark tint on the side windows does reduce their visibility - primarily at night.

Placing anything on your windows that reduces visibility may (and does) lead to accidents (eg not seeing another car in your peripheral view.

I've never heard of anyone getting hurt by a brushguard being found to be responsible for decelerative/ forces - (but I'm sure it probably has happened.)

So just to be clear - just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So how about it - support a ban on tinting windows - you know it reduces peripheral view even without hard numbers - its just common sense, you don't need to be an engineer - and remember YOU are talking about "potential"
- brush guards have the potential, so does dark tinting!

Hey this is good fun. Its about time we had something to argue over

Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. Would you agree that 99.9% of accidents involve the driver looking through the windshield? The other .1% involve drivers who had no idea what they hit because they were not looking through the windshield. In fact, tinted windows may even help prevent accidents on a bright sunny day. I'm sure you don't want to argue that point, do you? I'm sure we've all been temporarily blinded by sunlight. I could easily make the argument that my tinted windows can be considered a safety measure.

On the other hand, there are numerous cases of people being injured in a crash involving a brush guard. Just read a few of the examples in the words I posted above. There are several instances where people have been killed by the brush guards on other vehicles. And I'm sure there are many other instances where brush guards contributed to the death (or injury) of the driver of the vehicle. Of course that is impossible to prove (much like second-hand smoke causing cancer), but it happens nontheless.

 

[JB.]

I still maintain it's the damn driver not the machinery that causes the problems. Better to improve driver training...

That's where the hypocrisy comes in. Driver qualification amounts to
who has enough pocket money for license/registration fees.

One piece of legislation could replace a thousand band-aid laws. Really tough, comprehensive driver qualification.

 

[Expat]

In fact, tinted windows may even help prevent accidents on a bright sunny day. I'm sure you don't want to argue that point, do you? I'm sure we've all been temporarily blinded by sunlight. I could easily make the argument that my tinted windows can be considered a safety measure.

LOL ...well some law makers are arguing with you about this....an excert...

However, Officer Royce, who lobbied for the bill, said he and his group are not only concerned for officers who make a traffic stop but also for driver safety. In heavy traffic, motorists sometimes need to look through the glass in other cars to see and gauge traffic. With a dark window tint, the driver cannot do that. Also, Royce said dark tints prevent drivers from seeing out as well as with clear glass, especially at night.

Similarly, Harrison, who sponsored the bill, agreed safety is important. "Visual contact with another driver is sometimes necessary to see and anticipate what the other driver may do at, for example, a stop sign," he said.