Quad Bike Safety: Consultation Regulation Impact Statement

I would alter this to support option 5 if the additional design solutions where able to be incorporated into existing quad designs (The current requirement would exclude all quads available now) see my answer to Q8

As a manufacturer of aftermarket CPD product (fitted to quads that already in use), and the design changers relate to new quads, the short-term impact will be negligible. However, over the long-term as older quads are retired and new ones already have CPDs fitted, demand for my product will fall.
As a CPD manufacturer, I am qualified to offer an estimate on the cost of fitting a CPD to new quads as a standard component of the quad. The R&D cost may be significant, but like any development costs, theses cost can be built into the price. As a CPD designed to be built at the time of manufacturing, the manufacturing cost can be less than for CPDs designed to be fitted later. My experience with supplying Linhai with an integrated CPD into their quads and my experience in CPD deign and research, I would estimate the increased cost to an importer in Australia of a basic integrated CPD to new quads would be between $150 and $300. Depending on the % mark up of individual companies, the end consumer could pay an additional 100% - ($300- $600)

Not applicable

Firstly, noting that almost all quads imported into Australia already comply with the ANSI standard so there will be no changes in safer design from that and therefore 0 reductions in deaths.
Option 2 and 4
“Being pinned to the ground by the quad made up 70% of farm quad fatalities” according to the University of New South Wales TARS research report. Clearly rollover is the big issue and the “safety star rating system” and the “minimum performance criteria” are designed to reduce the rick of a quad rollover in the first place. However, a quad’s track and wheelbase are as small, even significant improvements in stability and handling won’t prevent most of the rollovers. That is evidenced by SXS with are significantly more stable, still have serious issues of rollover casing death and injury. Additionally, quads will never be made with the same track and wheelbase (stability) as a SXS because A) the quad would lose many of the features the customer is looking for and B) if you are going to make it that wide you may as well have 2 seats and it becomes a SXS anyway.
The probable result of option 2 and 4 reducing deaths and injury limited.That is option 2/4 effect in reducing deaths and injury can only be in reducing the frequency of rollover due to the increase in performance criteria both in handing and stability. However, because SXS rollover frequently too, and quads are likely to always be less stable than a SXS, the reduction in frequency of rollover due to option 2/4 is likely to be relatively low. Hypothetically 10 to 20%
Option 3
A tractor is basically a big quad bike. The operator sits in a straddle type seat configuration with a leg each side of the engine/transmission, low pressure balloon tyres, travel at about the same speed when used in a workplace and cases death in a rollover. The introduction of ROPS on tractors has demonstrated one of the most successful safety innovations of all time. In Australia ROPS were fitted to almost all second-hand tractors without fitting any seat belt (could be called a CPD) saw a reduction in fatalities from around 50 per year to almost zero.
It is worth noting that there was some resistance to fitting ROPS to tractors at the time. I recall when I was at Ag College we were taught that ROPS were more dangerous than not having one because it stopped you ‘jumping clear”. Other organisations also opposed ROPS including the Country Women’s Association CWA, according to FarmSafe Vic. barrister John Dawson, he recalled that tragically the head of the CWA in Victoria at the time was killed when she rolled a David Brown tractor that was not fitted with a ROPS. This lead to the CWA supporting the fitting of ROPS.
CPDs have been fitted to quads for well over 20 years including in New Zealand where at one time an estimated 10% of quads have been fitted with a CPD of some type including the NZ “T Bar” CPD and homemade devises. The Quadbar CPD has been in use for 10 years and with nearly 500 motorcycle stores and other retailers distributing about 2,500 units a year. Another more recent brand is the Lifeguard that manufactures less units but still significant numbers each year.
The ACCC is aware of the opposition of some quad manufacturers to CPDs like those who opposed ROPS on tractors, however they can’t, to my knowledge point to a single case where a CPD has failed to protect the rider from death in an overturn in 20+ years of use. This is not to say that a CPD is 100% effective in protecting the rider. I am aware of a young man tragically killed when the quad fitted with a Quadbar he was riding was stuck by car driven by criminal being pursued by police. Over the past 10 years I have never received a complaint regarding the Quadbar CPD casing an injury, however I regularly get reports on how the CPD has saved the rider. Most often it is a verbal report and sometimes a quick email of appreciation with no details like- “Your protection device saved me from hospital or a body bag. Thank you. Leigh” “18 February 2018 2:14 PM”. Far more detailed documented cases like the Tangalooma show a 90% reduction in injuries form fitting a Quadbar CPD.

It is most likely that option 5 would provide the best results in terms of injury prevention because of both the reduction in the frequency of rollover due to option 2/4 reducing the frequency of rollover by 10 to 20%, but more significantly due to the fitting of a CPS in option 3 that deals with what happens in the unfortunate event of a rollover when they happen. (and they will happen)

Additional documented /correspondence from uses including Tangalooma has been attached separately of cases of a Quadbar CPD is credited for saving the rider form death or at least less injury.

Quads and their owner’s manual are literally littered with warning labels (including words like injury and death) I am sceptical that any additional warnings would make the existing design safer.

There is a lack of evidence in the ACCC documentation to include the requirement (mandatory regulation) for SXS to be tested as part of a star rating for quads. I would suggest that the testing of SXS is voluntary. The advantage of this is that there would still be a comparison between quads and SXS without the regulatory burden and cost on SXS. (it is unnecessary to test every SXS to demonstrate the difference between the two) If the aim is to get consumers to consider a SXS over a quad, and the biggest hurdle has been 'cost' for consumers not buying a SXS over a quad, and the Vic and NSW governments around $1000 to make SXS more affordable, it would be really silly to increase the cost of a SXS. The cost of the star rating testing for low volume SXS could be as high as $500 - $1000 each.
I understand there are differing views between quad manufacturers and proponents of the current star rating system criteria on the current model of the safety star rating system. As stated in the ACCC document, the criteria for the ‘safety star rating system’ is under review and has not been agreed on at this point. As a result, I can’t comment for or against it.

I agree with the ACCC suggested safety and operational criteria with the following additions/ alterations.
1) “Additionally, OPDs should not:”
Add dot point
• Entangle the operator (this might also include- “Any openings in the structure should have at least one dimension 130mm or less”)

2) “A minimum OPD design standard could require:” These dot points might need clarification, I would suggest a group of qualified people could look at relevance and wording.

3) Requirements for “energy of 1.75 times the mass of the vehicle” noting that --The direction of load is not indicated. I have the following comments.
The research The Health and Safety Executive BB Harral, Found that Test of energy absorption requirements should be consistent with those also found in ISO 5700 (1.4 x vehicle mass for longitudinal loading followed by 1.75 x vehicle mass Lateral loading)
The Quadbar used ISO 5700 test of energy absorption, and full-scale test demonstrates that it is suitable. Additionally, the FCAI openly admit that the “strength” is acquit , see quote from their web site “….the strength of the device (is not the issue: in the cases examined by the industry research to date the ROPS/CPD was strong enough” http://atvsafety.com.au/information/faqs

4) Additional requirements/ wording suggestion.
Manufacturers have a duty of care in Testing, Construction and Information to the user. Manufacturers can use relevant parts of international standards (ISO5700 or ROVAH etc ) to demonstrate their compliance. If the Manufacturer has to alter of modify a test procedure for any reason, they would need to demonstrate the reasoning for any modification and demonstrate why their test is sound.
• Testing of energy absorption. The minimum Absorbed Energy requirements will be 1.4 x vehicle mass for longitudinal loading followed by 1.75 x vehicle mass Lateral loading
• Quality of workmanship, fabrication and welding requirements
• Minimum Information must include – Fitting or attachment and care, allowable modification, damaged CPD after a rollover, relevant warning labels, Identification Details.

There appears to be an overlap of almost everything in option 2 (safety star rating system) and option 4 (minimum performance criteria). I think this is an error. I believe the two criteria should be separate in their safety outcomes they are trying to achieve. That is, ‘minimum performance criteria’ should be set as a requirement, then a ‘safety star rating system’ can encourage manufacturers strive for a higher safety rating over and above the ‘minimum performance criteria’. An example would be the ‘minimum performance criteria’ for general-use model quad bikes to be able to have all wheels of the vehicle be able to rotate at different speeds. However, a ‘safety star rating system’ awards a point for this configuration on ‘start-up’ (none of the diffs locked when the engine starts) This ‘start-up’ configuration could be considerably more complicated and expensive and would be up to the discretion of the manufacturer to include in their product to gain points.
I was under the impression that the ACCC understood that the Australian quad market is very small by global standards and that it is impractical to have minimum performance criteria that would exclude all current designs. However, with the outlined criteria, all quads would not pass without significant modification.
My preference would be to set a) achievable requirements with b) uncomplicated testing and criteria. This could be built on and upgraded as new models are designed.
a) Achievable requirements soon.
• general-use model quad bikes to be able to have all wheels of the vehicle be able to rotate at different speeds (note that this almost certainly would improve handling as well)
• Lateral Stability (lateral roll): The Tilt Table Ratio (TTR) for Lateral Roll stability (TTRst) No Rider (ATD) shall be equal to or greater than 0.85 (note that all quads don’t meet this criteria at the moment, so improvement will have to be made however they are achievable improvements of current designs)
• A seat length of no more that 600mm on type one quads.

Achievable requirements in the future
Tilt Table Ratios (TTR) for stability in Forward (TTRpf) and Rearward (TTRpr) pitch and in Lateral Roll (TTRst) complying to improved minimum requirements

b) Uncomplicated testing- I have concerns that the proposed testing is prohibitively expensive, and I have additional concerns regarding the repeatability of the testing. One example (if there was a test as proposed that required a dummy), the use of a “50th Percentile Adult Male (PAM) Hybrid III (H3) Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (ATD)” would unnecessarily increase the testing cost significantly and its positioning on the quad could be prone to manipulation of the results. I would suggest alternatively a defined (simple size, weight, shape) ballast could be used.
Put simply, the current proposal for option 4 is way too much too quickly and the three dot points in a) above would be a reasonable and effective start. For above reason, I have not supported “option 4/5” in Question 1 of this submission.

I agree with the ACCC proposal as outlined.

I agree with the ACCC proposal as outlined.

Some quad manufactures (some represented by the FCAI) have oppose the use of CPDs. In support of their position they point some "questionable" research conducted by DRI.
A Monash University (Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering) Review found

"The FCAI‟s strong opposition to the fitment of CPDs in general and the Quad Bar in particular was found to be based on the research produced by Failure Analysis Associates and DRI. Their reasons for rejecting such devices cannot be supported given the major problems with the research methodologies identified by this review."
And
"The Dynamic Research Inc. (DRI) research in particular caused a substantial and unexplained shift in the nature of the injuries predicted, dramatically over-predicting head injuries and virtually eliminating chest injuries. This shift in the nature of injuries predicted by the simulations removed much of the potential for crush protection devices tested to reduce the simulated rider injuries;

I have attached some documentation supporting the evidence that the DRI testing should not be used to decide the performance of CPDs.