Bull Bars (Prohibition) (Hansard, 14 January 1997)

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prohibition of the use on roads of motor vehicles fitted with bull bars; and for related purposes. This Bill is before the House today because of a defect in our democratic processes and because the will of the House was not enacted last March, when a Bill in a similar form was introduced. On that occasion, powerful and persuasive speeches were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the will of Parliament was expressed in the support that more than 250 hon. Members gave to that Bill. The issue, as it is about safety, should not be a party political matter, and most of the people in the United Kingdom support the cause.

Bull bars originally came from Australia, where they were used to protect vehicles from kangaroos and were known as "roo bars". They were introduced into the United Kingdom with the growth in the fashion for driving four-by-four vehicles. They were fitted on the front of such vehicles. They perform no useful purpose except for farmers, and for ram-raiders they are the favourite type of vehicle. Because of their shape and nature and because they are made of metal, the bars concentrate and multiply the force of a collision, often at the level of a child's head or vital organs. We know of a long, sad litany of casualties who have died because of this macho fashion. There is no sensible reason to clutter the front of a car in that way.

The greatest single improvement in road safety, which saved hundreds or possibly thousands of lives, was the move away from vehicles that were designed for aesthetic purposes and that were current for the first part of the century. Cars were designed to look marvellous and smart and had many sharp structures and badges. We realised that those were deadly in accidents at high speeds. They damaged not only those who were hit, but those sitting in the cars and the cars that were hit. The improvement led to cars of a different shape, which meant that if somebody was hit, they were deflected away from the front of the car and the crumple zone took most of the force. The force of the collision was soaked up by the vehicle, not by the person who was hit. All that was reversed by bull bars which, sadly, became very popular—about 500,000 of them are in use.

When the matter was raised in the House, there was a welcome reaction from hon. Members, and we know that our car parks in the House have long been bull bar-free zones. There was a welcome reaction from many people with four by fours who, realising the additional danger, took them off. There was a highly disreputable campaign by the bull bar manufacturing industry to persuade the owners of light vans to use them on the front of their vehicles. Those vans have a mid-engine and no bonnet in front. The campaign played on the fears that those vans were inherently dangerous. The vehicle manufacturers strongly deny that there is any special danger. Indeed, if they are dangerous, they should not be allowed on our roads.

The recent report by the Transport Road Laboratory shows that the fitting of such bull bars to those vans is likely, in many cases, to add to the danger to not only those who are hit and to other vehicles, but to those 134 occupying the van on which the bar is fitted. There is no safety to be gained from the bars. We are now seeing a trend towards their fitting on some saloon cars.

There have been tragic accidents as a result of the bars and I shall mention just two of them. An incident that I found very moving involved Helen Baggs from Melksham in Wiltshire. She was 10 on the last day of school and was excitedly rushing home with her sister, Elizabeth. She ran into the path of a bull-barred four by four and was hit. She did not die immediately, but lived for 10 days. The injury caused by the bull bar was at the level of her lungs. The bracket of the bar broke in the accident and it is clear that the child was injured because of the multiplication of the force caused by the bar. We know what happens when someone is hit by a bar; imagine that bar with the weight of a four by four behind it. The theory is that those bars will kill a child if it is hit on a vital area, even if the vehicle is travelling at only 12 mph.

Helen's mother has been campaigning with great dignity and restraint in a non-emotional way, but with great effectiveness. She is one of the prime campaigners against bull bars.

Today I received a letter about another case involving a 10-year-old child who was struck a glancing blow. As a result, he is permanently disabled and will be in a poor state of health for the rest of his life.

We have heard of new evidence from the TRL that has been widely misunderstood. The report said that no one can be sure how many people have been killed by bull bars. Evidence was collected in 1974, but it was ineffective, because, while one police authority reported 126 bull bar accidents, a neighbouring authority reported none. Strangely, that neighbouring authority had bull bars on its police cars. In some areas, such as Oxford, there were even bull bars on ambulances. They have now been removed. I understand that in Woking there is an ice cream van with bull bars.

The TRL said: Bull bars pose additional risks, particularly to pedestrians, but also to occupants of vehicles hit by them, and even in some cases to the occupants of the vehicles fitted with them. The TRL points out that European legislation is being passed at the moment.

Last time we discussed the measure, it was not passed, in spite of the will of the House. The Bill was not thrown out, but talked out in a way that does not reflect well on our democracy. The will of the House should have been heeded. One of the more plausible reasons given for not passing it was that it did not fit in with European legislation. The Bill has now been redrafted in collaboration with the European Union Transport Commissioner, to ensure that it fits in with European legislation. European rules will ban bull bars on new vehicles. It is up to us, as a national Parliament, to ensure that they are banned on existing vehicles.

According to the TRL report, the estimated cost—a minor factor—is £5.5 million. It says that enacting the Bill would save 11 per cent. of fatalities and 26 per cent. of seriously injured casualties to pedestrians hit by these cars. Enormous savings of life can be made. It is not the only safety measure that we need to enact—there are many—but it is important not to allow the spread of an inherently dangerous fashion accessory that has no useful purpose.

In conclusion, I shall read what the parents of a 10-year-old boy wrote in a letter that I received yesterday: 135 Fourteen months ago, our child was fit, healthy and sports-mad. He is now lucky to be alive and left with a permanent disability. He has no confidence, is unable to swim properly and will never play any racket sports again. This is just to mention a few of his problems. Isn't this and every child's life more important than a fashion accessory? Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Richard Spring, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. David Hanson.