OZ ATV :: The Australian ATV Forum

[JB83]

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/machinery-and-equipment/machinery/roll-bars-alone-not-the-answer/2550430.aspx.

Gotta say I strongly dissagree. How can you distribute your weight when your strapped in!
_________________
Yes i am a farmer, and NO that doesn't make me stupid, just MAD! KTM 505sx, the chicken splitter

[phil58]

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/machinery-and-equipment/machinery/roll-bars-alone-not-the-answer/2550430.aspx

Try this link.
_________________
Phil.....

[slightlydodgy]

We had a coroner here suggest this recently. As the industry (both sellers and users of quads) replied to ride a quad safely it requires active riding involving the shifting of the riders weight -sometimes constantly. The thought was also raised that if things go wrong on a quad you have the chance to simply bail and let the machine go if you are seatbelted in that option is gone and what scares me is the way quads self destruct if the get a decent roll on Best I stop now before I get momemtum on
_________________
Tremble with fear - I've had an idea

[Big Jb TRX450]

thats just stupid
_________________
04 TRX 450r
with a bit of this & a bit of that

[dangerman4]

im sure all the buricrats that come up with these rediculas ideas have never riden a quad in there life.

as the article says if u want saftey get a side by side.

surely adding a heavy steel roll bar above head height, only increase the chance of a roll over. centre of gravity etc.

[Dino]

This has been my response to editor regarding ROPs, FOPS, etc on quads.

I refer to this article by Neil Lyon.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/machinery-and-equipment/machinery/roll-bars-alone-not-the-answer/2550430.aspx

As an end user and operator of nearly 35 years, in both Government and private enterprise, I feel my insight may be somewhat more relevant.
A couple of things need to be understood about this debate and the ACD's. ( Anti Crush Device)
They are not a ROPS ( Roll Over Protection System.) at all. The Qld Government currently thinks they work the same as ROPS on a little Farm Tractor. They don't. "Somebody" in Govt. is seriously out of touch!
Little farm tractors use either ROPS or FOPS ( as in Fall Over Protection System. ) and are engineer designed to prevent the vehicle turning over much beyond 90 degrees.( Over backwards or onto the side. A ROPS is the stronger, designed to support the full weight of the machine, even inverted.

Neither will stop you falling out when things go bad. That's the job of a seatbelt, in that scenario.
Real world truth is that very few farmers actually wear seatbelts on tractors, let alone be operating them as designed, when something goes wrong. ( Ask Laurence Springborg. He can also tell what it's like to be pinned by a tractor for a substantial period of time) ROPS and FOPS do save lives most of the time. And that is because the operator is still on board during most of the incident, having time, due to low speeds and a steering wheel to hang onto/catch the legs.
There is also much to hinder a unexpected exit on a tractor.
If I had to operate a tractor, a ROPS would be fitted.

My excavator has one and it stays on, despite limiting access under low set structures. This was a major part of my business for 15 years.

Back to quads and tractors, a lot of that perception of safety is because the tractors rarely are doing more than 10km/h and the operator sits on a seat with a steering wheel.( Passive Control)

Most tractor tyres are large stiff walled things and are about the limit of suspension on them. The rear end is normally fixed( No suspension) and the front is another beam axle with a central pivot point. No shock absorbers are fitted. The steering geometry is normally well back from the axle centreline to increase turning ability and minimise bump steer. Toe in is not critical to handling. A substantial quantity of water is often fitted to the drive tyres. They ride rough and operators tend to slow down over bumps.

The correct term for the thing that such a hot topic is a Anti Crush Device. (ACD) It is not as well made as a ROPS or FOPS.
The ACD a bit of bent tube that bolts onto the towbar hitch, and sometimes the rear carry rack, which is mainly bolted through the plastic mudguards. They can twist the hitch and frame if the full weight of the bike comes on them.

Now a quad bike has a different operating style to any other machine. It is steered via handlebars and the operator shifting the weight about. Sort of like a motor-bike but different. ( Dynamic Control.)

A quad bike often travels at a quicker pace and on low pressure balloon tyres. Steering geometry is based very close to the front axle line. Toe in is critical to handling. The better ones have independent suspension on every corner, controlled by shock absorbers.
These shock absorbers can be adjusted to suit different riding styles and conditions.

A lot of the cheaper type quad bikes, often sought by farmers have a beam axle rear and a single mono shock controlling vertical movement, and are fitted with cheap tyres. These also are physically smaller than the "better" ones. That means that they are more likely to flip or roll than the bigger counterparts. This relates to centre of gravity and suspension and tyre movement and the movement of mass.

The perceived instability is due more to rider error and set up than anything else.( Primary Safety )
Note that most humans are out fitted with two eyes and a brain. Something doesn't register prior to the incident........
And that human error, is the primary cause of all accidents, both tractor and quads, related. This also includes maintenance, or lack thereof.

Recently a Professor of some qualifications stated that the ACD's should be compulsory, because farmers use quads and tractors as observation platforms! The Professor’s qualifications come from media articles.
Not based on corners reports, field observations and trials or any factual information, such as surveying the majority of users & manufacturers.

And is not personal safety the primary responsibility of the users? For certain a "expert" in media articles is not qualified to pass judgement.

I've used a quad bike as an adventure rider for nearly 5 years. We tend to push our bikes to the very limits, and despite our advancing years, are rarely the subject of a media article. We have much to offer to the correct use and training of such machines.

As to whether fitting a ACD is of benefit to quad users? ( Secondary safety.)
Because the speeds and the way a rider normally exits a quad, you have as much chance as being pinned by the ACD as not. 50/50 = no appreciable benefit.
The possibility of misuse by using the ACD as a head board to stack stuff higher, thereby raising the centre of gravity, is also very high. Safety disadvantage.
The added inconvenience of stepping over your seat instead of throwing your leg over( horse style) is a personal decision....

And what well-meaning @@#&%, wanted quad operators to wear seat belts and have a ACD fitted to quad bikes? Obviously traumatised by a paper cut, misquoted or having no worldly experience............
The permanent damage a generic ACD could do to a bike is another blight on maintenance. Unlike cars and machinery, resold items rarely get a safety check.

The only con is that it would be mainly easier to right a bike afterwards. Assuming you, or your passenger, didn't get pinned. And several of the two seater bikes have significant structure for the passenger, which serve as an anti-crush device. Speaking from experience again.

And if a ACD saves a life, that is good, but testing has not been exhaustive here and an emotional campaign by the various people who purport to manufacture them does not carry credibility with me.
OS computer testing and trials of ACD's in over a 1000 scenarios gave them a barely 50% pass rate, which means no appreciable gain.

The industry supports safety big time. I'm with them on training for the inexperienced, correct set up, and maintenance, the right sized or alternative machine for the job, and using quads as designed and instructed. Loading, including a passenger is very important.

Ron Zacka's comments about using an alternative machine, such as a side by side, are to be supported, where conditions warrant the use of seat belts and a falling over protective system. And put in context, most farmers have regular access tracks designed to permit safe access to their property, for a variety of equipment.

And this emotional debate has often compared tractors to quad bikes. It is hardly a logical nor reasonable to compare two completely different machines and try to apply the same standards.

The use of helmets and practical alternatives is another issue, wearing a seatbelt on a quad bike or motorbike is not practical, not alternative and hardly worth further discussion.

Would I use one(ACD) myself? No. I've better ways to carry my spot light, cargo and stuff.
Would I pay out on someone who uses one? No. It's their choice, and should not be any part of an out of touch government or "advisors" portfolio.

Pardon for my long reply, but it is an important question that deserves a honest answer, without bias.

Yours sincerely,
etc.
_________________
Remember. We elect politicians, but we have to deal with bureaucracy.
Notice that crazy in the bureaucrats.

Last edited by Dino on Mon May 14, 2012 11:34 am; edited 1 time in total

[slightlydodgy]

Because of the high rate of quad use on farms the Department of Labour has been poking around and one of the new things is that you can be charged for dangerous riding in the workplace and worse still the DOL inspector doesn't have to witness it - your pissed off neighbour can dob you in. I also have to question what qualifications a DOL inspector has to judge my riding ability especially in a farm environment `with different terrain types Anyway as a mate of mine put it how long before you're blatting of down the race when a govt inspector leaps out from behind a bush/haybarn and tells you that your race is ony class c and you can only do 5k/h
_________________
Tremble with fear - I've had an idea