Quad Bike Safety: Issues Paper

Response 615394789

Back to Response listing

Make a submission

What is your name?

Name
Bethne Williams

What type of submission are you making?

Please select one item
(Required)
Uploading a submission
Ticked Completing individual questions

Questions 1-6

2) Would design changes to quad bikes be likely to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes in Australia?

2) Would design changes to quad bikes be likely to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes in Australia?
The adoption of roll over protective devices is likely to significantly reduce the number of injuries and fatalities associated with quad bikes as they prevent the full weight of the bike crushing the rider and are less likely to result in trapping the rider underneath. This is because the injury data clearly indicates the strong link between deaths and rollovers.
Following on from the proven learning's of adopting roll over protective devices to tractors, implementing roll over protection to quad bikes as a highly favoured tool of trade of farmers will save many lives.

3) If you answered ‘yes’ to question 2, what design changes do you consider would have this effect? Which design features, if any, should a safety standard mandate or prohibit? In particular the ACCC is interested in understanding design changes that are likely to reduce:

3) If you answered ‘yes’ to question 2, what design changes do you consider would have this effect? Which design features, if any, should a safety standard mandate or prohibit?
The adoption of roll over protective devices is likely to significantly reduce the number of injuries and fatalities associated with quad bikes as they prevent the full weight of the bike crushing the rider and are less likely to result in trapping the rider underneath. This is because the injury data clearly indicates the strong link between deaths and rollovers.

Following on from the proven learning's of adopting roll over protective devices to tractors, implementing roll over protection devices to quad bikes as a highly favoured tool of trade of farmers will save many lives.

In regard to injuries and fatalities caused to children, the roll over protection device may not be as effective in preventing these, particularly if the size of the child is small. Other strategies such as the placement of foot controls and speed controls on adult quad bikes to ensure a minimum height of operator would prevent small children from operating the quad bike, interlocking the seat so that a minimum weight is required before the bike can be started. A captured key system could be considered, to prevent unauthorised use by children.

Speed limiting child size quad bikes and interlocking the seat so that the bike stops if the child's weight leaves the seat should be considered. Interlocking the bike with a helmet, so that the bike and helmet must be detected in proximity to each other, for the bike to be able to be in to motion should be considered.

In regard to injuries and fatalities caused to pillion passengers, the roll over protection device could be designed so that it prevents the addition of a passenger, and reduce this risk.

4) If your view is that design features should be mandated or prohibited to increase quad bike safety, could the regulation be designed to encourage innovation rather than prescribing particular products or technical solutions (for example by ensuring fitting points or attachment mechanisms to allow the development of improved CPDs or ROPSs or by prescribing performance-based outcomes rather than technical designs)?

4) If your view is that design features should be mandated or prohibited to increase quad bike safety, could the regulation be designed to encourage innovation rather than prescribing particular products or technical solutions (for example by ensuring fitting points or attachment mechanisms to allow the development of improved CPDs or ROPSs or by prescribing performance-based outcomes rather than technical designs)?
Given the manufacturers are outside of Australia and service markets such as the large US market for recreational quad bike use (aka speed and risk taking), the manufacturers are highly unlikely to adopt safer designs without having to comply with prescriptive regulatory rules.

If manufacturers were going to be innovative in reducing injuries and fatalities to their customers, they would have already done so. If they choose to make improvements without a legislative compliance imperative, they could be admitting their product is unsafe and opening themselves up to litigation in other countries, particularly the US where death rates from quad bikes are much higher than Australia.

Once compliance is firmly established in the market, a revised regulatory paradigm could be considered that incorporates performance based outcomes and encourages innovation.

5) If any or all of these design changes were implemented in Australia, are you able to estimate the additional cost that would be imposed on Australian suppliers?

5) If any or all of these design changes were implemented in Australia, are you able to estimate the additional cost that would be imposed on Australian suppliers?
A simple ROPs retrofit item is around $500 at the moment. The additional cost on a new quad bike would be less than this.

6) To what extent does the US Standard satisfactorily address design features that ensure quad bikes are safe for use? Do you consider that Australia should adopt a mandatory safety standard similar to the US Standard? To what extent would this option impose additional costs on Australian suppliers or create barriers to trade?

6) To what extent does the US Standard satisfactorily address design features that ensure quad bikes are safe for use? Do you consider that Australia should adopt a mandatory safety standard similar to the US Standard? To what extent would this option impose additional costs on Australian suppliers or create barriers to trade?
Given the thousands of people that have lost their life on quad bikes in the US, I do not consider that the US standard is satisfactory. It is too reliant on meeting the needs of the recreational market customers.

Rather than being a barrier to trade, the life saving design improvement will present a competitive advantage to the manufacturer.

A farmer that is dead, is not a return customer.

Questions 7-12

7) Are consumers currently getting adequate information at the purchase point about quad bike use and limitations or safety information and equipment? Should there be additional warnings or instructions displayed at the point of purchase or provided with the sale of quad bikes?

7) Are consumers currently getting adequate information at the purchase point about quad bike use and limitations or safety information and equipment? Should there be additional warnings or instructions displayed at the point of purchase or provided with the sale of quad bikes?
People read the instructions and warnings after they have had an incident or a problem.
This is a low order administrative control and does not factor human behaviour. It is designed to prevent or limit litigation outcomes.

8) In relation to the option of a consumer safety rating system:

In relation to the option of a consumer safety rating system:
Consumers relate well to the energy star and water star ratings on white goods. They are simple and easy to understand at the point of purchase. Something similar should be used to indicate safety level.

9) If your view is that regulation is needed to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes in Australia, how should these be implemented? One proposed option is to prohibit or mandate particular design features; another is to increase consumer information, including through a consumer safety rating system; a third option is a combination of both:

9) If your view is that regulation is needed to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes in Australia, how should these be implemented? One proposed option is to prohibit or mandate particular design features; another is to increase consumer information, including through a consumer safety rating system; a third option is a combination of both:
Mandate the rollover protection devices on all quad bikes, retrofit existing, and install on all new bikes. Benefit is a significant reduction in lives lost and serious injuries versus an additional $500.

10) If the ACCC recommends a mandatory safety standard for quad bikes:

10) If the ACCC recommends a mandatory safety standard for quad bikes:
The mandatory safety standard should be different as suggested above in regards to interlock options. Mandate the rollover protection devices on all quad bikes, retrofit existing, and install on all new bikes.
The sooner it commences, the less people will die needlessly.
Side by Side vehicles should also have rollover protection devices, if they don't already have this. I have not seen any of these vehicles without rollover protection, so this is not likely to be a major cost imposition.

11) What is the life cycle of quad bikes in Australia? For example, on average how long do consumers use quad bikes before the vehicle is retired? How long might it take before the current stock of 380,000 quad bikes is replaced by new stock that satisfies requirements of a safety standard, if imposed?

11) What is the life cycle of quad bikes in Australia? For example, on average how long do consumers use quad bikes before the vehicle is retired? How long might it take before the current stock of 380,000 quad bikes is replaced by new stock that satisfies requirements of a safety standard, if imposed?
Agricultural use could be 10-15 years or more depending on the size of the farm or station. Retrofit existing bikes must be included in the regulation.

12) Please provide any other information you consider may be relevant to the ACCC’s consideration of these issues.

12) Please provide any other information you consider may be relevant to the ACCC’s consideration of these issues.
The anti rollover protection quad bike lobby sector in the US used the same media group that the tobacco industry used. They are powerful and not completely honest and factual in their messaging and lobbying of political and consumer groups and this will need to be counteracted to ensure honest and evidence based argument is presented to political and consumer groups.