Hitting a 600 kg cow, a horse or even an antelope in the dark of night at a sedate 60 km/h is a frightening experience. Drivers and passengers have been killed. Fit a bullbar?

It is traditional, in many parts of East and Southern Africa, for transporters to fit “bullbars” onto the front of their trucks. As you know, this is also common practice in Australia, where they are referred to as “rooguards”, to fend off Kangaroos in the outback. However, there are some issues that need to be understood and put to use as input in our decisions:

1. Bullbars have been fitted to protect the front end of the truck against damage caused to the vehicle by a collision with an animal.  This happens when trucks are driven over long distances, in rural areas, at night.  Such transporters are adamant that fitting a bullbar makes economic and safety sense.  A collision with a large animal will destroy a very expensive front end of the truck and, because the headlamps are likely to be destroyed, will make the vehicle unsafe to drive.
2. However, bullbars are seen as a bad safety issue by authorities, as they are not pedestrian-friendly.  To an increasing extent, trucks are being designed and constructed to be pedestrian-friendly i.e. they have crumple zones to protect the pedestrian in the case of a collision.  Fitting a bullbar removes that protection for the pedestrian.
3. In some Southern African countries, the regulations allow an extra 300mm to the overall truck length limits i.e. if an interlink or a truck and trailer is fitted with a bullbar, its overall length limit is 22.3metres and not 22 metres.  SADC’s recommendations also include this provision.
4. The University of Dar es Salaam is carrying out a project on behalf of the EAC, to determine the dimensional limits for the EAC.  (Last year, FESARTA was involved in a similar project to determine the load limits).  When this project is completed and the limits agreed, the outcomes may well influence what is already in SADC’s document; since the three RECs work together on such matters.

Below is input from the Botswana Hauliers Association:

“We have fought this before, for our own fleets,just a few years ago, and ended up having to remove our bullbars – which are now not encouraged because of the negated benefit of manufacturer crumple zones, an added safety precaution for pedestrians.The use of bullbars puts one at a higher legal risk with respect to culpable homicide charges should a pedestrian be run over and killed.Toyota is now only prepared to fit a small central bullbar protecting the radiator on a 4×4 and not one that covers the crumple zones. It is understood that the legal and insurance fraternities are also in sympathy with this approach and it is therefore only a matter of time before it is challenged in the courts.All major fuel companies now disallow the fitment of bullbars,and this is a clear indication of the associated legal and financial risks.”

Where to from here?

As the road transport industry:

• Do we agree with the fitting of bullbars,
• If so, do we ask for an extra 300mm for them (as per SADC’s recommendations)
• Do we disagree and FESARTA proceeds to have their provision removed from regional recommendations?

Please submit your comments to Barney Curtis at fesarta@iafrica.com