Bullbars on vans? void insurance?

MR DAZ

Guys n Girls........

A question for you regarding bullbars on vans

My missus just crashed her car on friday and its basicly a write off, she lucky to alive apart from anything.......the thing is it was completely her fault as she didnt stop quick enough @ a T-Junction and ended up sliding over the white line into the path of an oncoming Hiace

Long and short of it was the hiace had a bullbar which wrote off her car leaving very little damage to the van.....

The van is a '95(old model) and was fairly rough looking....We were going to settle with out going through the insurance, but the guy is looking for €4500-5000 for his van.................SURELY this sounds like he's trying to screw us.....

So we're going to put it through the insurance, but will the fact that he had a bullbar on his van .......the wrap around bullbar...........could this void his insurance????

I did a quick check on buy and sell and 95 hiace vans are going for between

€1000 and €3000

Any thoughts?

Darren

uberwolf

two thoughts. One he is trying to screw you. Secondly this be better in motors?

MiCr0

Yep, i'd be inclined to agree.
To motors with you!

Seth Brundle

1. Glad she is alright!
2. The bull bars possibly did more damage to her car than if they weren't there. As these alter the structure and insurance risk of the vehicle they need to be declared to the insurance company. No declaring so can render the policy invalid - this is at the discretion of his company.
3. An insurance assessor will only offer the omsp for the vehicle at most. The prices in the buy and sell reflect these.
4. He seems like a chancer - will a whiplash claim follow?

MR DAZ

Jasus....I hope not...but'll I suppose we'll have to wait and see!

thanks for the replies

Jip

Does it matter if his insurance is void or not ? Your wife was at fault and her insurance company is the only one that should be involved I reckon.

uberwolf

if he had an illegal or unapproved modification to his vehichle which caused excessive damage - does it alter the blame womewhat? I'd argue yes. Her car is written of because of the bull bar.

seamus

Jip wrote:

Does it matter if his insurance is void or not ? Your wife was at fault and her insurance company is the only one that should be involved I reckon.

Afaik, driving uninsured alters the status of any accidents. It immediately causes you to be at fault, or removes your right to claim for your losses.

Afaik.

MR DAZ

Thanks Uberwolf thats the point I was getting at.....Ok she was in the wrong and "Admitted" it.... but c'mon €anyone who chances there arm for €5000 for a battered hiace deserves to be brought down a peg or two.....and this was the only way i could see about doing it.

Anyway its with the insurance company's now for them to sort.....main thing is no one was hurt!!!


The law is screwed up if you ask me...

uberwolf

MR DAZ wrote:

Anyway its with the insurance company's now for them to sort.....main thing is no one was hurt!!!

insurance companies will take the path of least resistance - pay out and up the premium. Just simpler and less risky for them. Don't count on them to dig or fight your corner

Fionn101

Mr Daz, did you mention on the phone that he/she had bullbars on their classy hiace and does this void their warranty ??

also let us know how it goes , just curious , no i don't drive a hiace

glad no one was hurt , you can always replace a car.

MR DAZ

I spoke to the insurance asseser and he said that it was a "GREY" area......and if the guy didnt put personal claim that we'd being doing alright.

unkel

seamus wrote:

Afaik, driving uninsured alters the status of any accidents. It immediately causes you to be at fault, or removes your right to claim for your losses

That's interesting. Can anybody back this up? It would be good for all of us to have a definite answer on that one

Seth Brundle

In theory he was insured. He broke the rules of his policy (presumably) by having the undeclared (presumably) bullbars and for this his company could declare his policy null and void. However, I actually believe that this won't happen in this case as I have never heard of it happen before.

BrianD3

OT, but I'm wondering what's the story with ****ing assholes fitting bullbars to their jeep and vans. Disgraceful practice IMO. The bars fitted to vans are often heavier and cruder than the more cosmetic chrome or plastic things fitted to a lot of jeeps. The original poster's missues is very lucky to be alive as even a low speed (~25 mph or less) side impact with a van can be devastating. Vans are aggressive enough in side impacts even without bullbars but if bullbars are fitted it makes matters even worse. Not to mention the damage bullbars do to cyclists and pedestrians. It's absolutely ridiculous how car makers are having to design vehicles to meet new EU pedestrian safety requirements but once someone buys the car they can retro fit bullbars afterwards making a mockery of the new regulations. There's no need whatsoever for bullbars their only puspose is so that the assholes who fit them don't damage *their* vehicles when they slam into somone's car in a car park and take off.

BrianD3

rander00

There's no need whatsoever for bullbars their only puspose is so that the assholes who fit them don't damage *their* vehicles when they slam into somone's car in a car park and take off

Errrrr,,,, the [abuse edited] drove into him.
He has the bar fitted to protect his van from arse-holes speeding and failing to stop at T junctions. And the bar did just that. "Protected him).

Even if he didnt have a bullbar ther`d have been a lot of damage. The bull bar didnt write it off.



They should just offer the lad with the van 3500E and stay away from insurance companies and court.
There is no wat his insurance will be deemed void. Thats a very very longshot.

MR DAZ

Rander00.....I was looking for some advice as this is what boards etc is about.....SO KEEP YOUR CHEAP COMMENTS TO YOURSELF...

If you have nothing sensible to add.

loyatemu

regardless of the rights and wrongs of this particular case, there is no valid reason for having bullbars on a road vehicle - I thought the EU were outlawing them

AFAIK the car manufacturers are not allowed to sell cars with bullbars on them - why is it not therefore illegal to retrofit them?

BrianD3

Errrrr,,,, the silly bitch drove into him.
He has the bar fitted to protect his van from arse-holes speeding and failing to stop at T junctions. And the bar did just that. "Protected him).

And what happens when he drives into someone with his bullbar and it's his fault. Tell you what - i'm going to fit my car with 6 big spikes in front. That way if someone in a bullbarred hiace hits me I'll be able to skewer him and his vehicle and protect myself and I won't give a **** because he shouldn't have hit me in the first place :rolleyes:

Bullbars are completely unnecessary and do no-one any good. Not only do they cause more damage to other road users, they can also cause more damage to the vehicle they're fitted to. Because they can negate the effectiveness of crumple zones and can transmit loads through the chassis/floorpan which would otherwise have been absorbed by the bumper.

BrianD3

unkel

loyatemu wrote:

AFAIK the car manufacturers are not allowed to sell cars with bullbars on them - why is it not therefore illegal to retrofit them?

Agree. That doesn't make sense

BrianD3 wrote:

Bullbars are completely unnecessary and do no-one any good. Not only do they cause more damage to other road users, they can also cause more damage to the vehicle they're fitted to. Because they can negate the effectiveness of crumple zones and can transmit loads through the chassis/floorpan which would otherwise have been absorbed by the bumper.

Good explanation there BrianD3. It is not just the bar itself that is a danger. Bullbars should not be allowed on vehicles that use public roads

rander00 wrote:

Errrrr,,,, the silly bitch drove into him

Very helpful that. Are you looking for another ban?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Guy:Incognito

uberwolf wrote:

if he had an illegal or unapproved modification to his vehichle which caused excessive damage - does it alter the blame womewhat? I'd argue yes. Her car is written of because of the bull bar.

Not meaning to sound smart, but her car was written off because she drove it out in front of a hi-ace.

mike65

unkel wrote:

Very helpful that. Are you looking for another ban?

Indeed, rander00 cool your jets and refrain from personal abuse.

Mike.

beer enigma

loyatemu wrote:

regardless of the rights and wrongs of this particular case, there is no valid reason for having bullbars on a road vehicle - I thought the EU were outlawing them

AFAIK the car manufacturers are not allowed to sell cars with bullbars on them - why is it not therefore illegal to retrofit them?

It seems to be one thing to outlaw them on new cars & another to enforce it on retrofit....

Jaguar are another point in case here - when they launched the 'S' class - the modern take on the 'Morse' Jag, they were only allowed to do so providing they didn't include the famous 'silver jaguar' statue on the front of the bonnet. They were told that it could be lethal in the event of a collision with a pedestrian.

If you look around the roads though, the amount of Range Rovers etc with flippin horses & god knows what stuck onto the bonnet fronts is alarming, but never seen one pulled.

uberwolf

Stekelly wrote:

Not meaning to sound smart, but her car was written off because she drove it out in front of a hi-ace.

I think a number of the other posts have alluded to what I meant. Her car was damaged because of undeliberate actions. - an accident. The extent of the damage was by no small amount increased by the deliberate and considered decision to add bullbars. It may not have been writen off had your man not decided to add the dangerous modification. Whats more to claim damages in excess of the resale value of the vehicle despite the protection for his van whihc by all accounts prevented damage to his van.

BrianD3

I think a number of the other posts have alluded to what I meant. Her car was damaged because of undeliberate actions. - an accident. The extent of the damage was by no small amount increased by the deliberate and considered decision to add bullbars. It may not have been writen off had your man not decided to add the dangerous modification. Whats more to claim damages in excess of the resale value of the vehicle despite the protection for his van whihc by all accounts prevented damage to his van

The bullbar undoubtedly increased the damage to MR DAZ's missus' car. However it may also have increased the damage to the van. I'm not entirely sure where these bullbars attach to but I'd guess it's the chassis rails or subframe. Either of these could easily be bent if an impact is transmitted into them through a solid bullbar. The result would be the vehicle being uneconomic to repair despite it having outwardly very little damage.

BrianD3

Victor

What about the damage to his very expensive bullbars! :eek:

rander00

Why cant they just accept that there at fault. They caused the crash,,, and cause she was driving too fast to stop at a junction wrote off an innocent mans van. And now their trying to get out of it by nitpicking on bullbars. Lol. Such mufftys.

How do they know what damage is done to his van. Amazing how their 100% sure their little car is wrote off but the other persons "has little damage". FFS.

I hope the lad in the van screws them completely for whinging to the insurance company about his bullbar.

Stephen

You're an idiot. They already accepted that they're at fault. Yer man is claiming far more than the replacement cost of his van against them, he should get screwed for that.

rander00

How do you know he is? They dont know its not "wrote off". There just assuming it is.
If there car is wrote off, i`d imagine the van is fairly fooked too, even if the damage isnt blatantly obvious.

Seth Brundle

The van is worth about 20 to 50% of what he is looking for based on prices taken from the buy & sell! He is trying to screw them and they are right to reduce their payout to a fleecing scumbag!

Squirrel

You can only get done after an accident for having a dangerous modification on your car, bit stupid that. In the case of the jag you could get sued for injuries. You should ask a guard what your chances were should you sue the hiace driver. You can be stung for less...

mike65

Just to add another wrinkle, I suspect that if the van owner modified his vehicle without any appropriate insurance cover and was involved in an accident then the victim of his modification can sue for damages.

As for Bull Bars, I have found a load of different dates for the introduction of a ban, the latest is 2005. http://irishcar.com/bullbars251102.htm,
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14877990?source=Evening%20Standard

And this from an EU proposal its a long read but the detail is in there!

Mike.

Tommy Vercetti

tbh offer him €3.5 and put it down to experience. If you start talking about courts, you can be sure that his neck is gonna start getting very painful. At the end of the day, your wife was at fault, but at least she wasn't hurt, and she'll have learned a valuable lesson.

Seth Brundle

If you offer them anything, ensure that there is a clause stating that this is the end of the affair and any further claims will not occur (e.g. whiplash, etc.)!

shagman

I think the wording should be " in complete and final settlement" . Anyway this tread has got me thinking .....maybe I'll remove those bullbars off the front of mine. Don't think it'll make all that much difference though at 3350kg with no crumple zones .....still saves me getting them rechromed as they're a bit rusty and might save the life of a biker. Oh and before you lot start no I didn't add them on and they are not an aftermarket add on, they're stock. From before the time of silly rules about "safety" and the like!!

unkel

shagman wrote:

at 3350kg with no crumple zones

:eek: What that?

Armoured LaRo Disco or similar monstrosity?

BrianD3

Armoured LaRo Disco or similar monstrosity

I believe it's some sort of Chevy truck he has. A proper Chevy, not one of those Daewoo Chevys

BrianD3

pollyantic

Why dont you just go through your insurance?
It wont cost you as much as you think.
Most people think going through their insurance company is a lot more expensive than it really is.
Call your insurance company, ask them how much will be added onto your policy for the next 5 years and work it out from there whether or not to go through them.

uberwolf

BrianD3 wrote:

The bullbar undoubtedly increased the damage to MR DAZ's missus' car. However it may also have increased the damage to the van. I'm not entirely sure where these bullbars attach to but I'd guess it's the chassis rails or subframe. Either of these could easily be bent if an impact is transmitted into them through a solid bullbar. The result would be the vehicle being uneconomic to repair despite it having outwardly very little damage.

BrianD3

if the modification were illegal - as it may very well be, they're not liable for the increased damage caused to his van by his actions.
Of course the spirit here is that she was liable for the accident, but after being caused more damage then it should because of the bull bars they are entitled to seek to pretect themselves. If your mans van is damaged because he modified it illegaly as I see it it's his tough break. I've no sympathy with him because he's trying to screw him

MR DAZ

Rander00........Can you not read???? Or are you just to lazy and you find it easier to throw abuse?

We have accepted that it was "our" fault and are prepared to pay for it...

Its going through the insurance now....

All I was looking for was some info to see what the story is with the bullbars.

The guy in the van deserves Compansation .....and he will get it.....hopefully no more no less.


So all these stupid comments about trying to wriggle out of it..........WE'RE NOT...


And if you must know......The guy in the van changed the amount he was looking for from € 5000 down to €3000 after he heard the insurance company we're dealing with it.

SO PLEASE TELL ME IF I'M WRONG..........BUT WHO'S SCREWING WHO?

Boggle

Its a lot of messing but I'm guessing that his insurance doesn't cover his bull bars(he probably didn't mention them). Offer to replace the van for him (fair price as she was at fault) and if he starts pissing you around looking for pers inj claims then what you can do is get the wife to sue him personally for any injuries deemed to be caused/worsened by the bullbars. ...Think he'll fancy defending himself in court? ...

eth0_

rander00 wrote:

Errrrr,,,, the [abuse edited] drove into him.
He has the bar fitted to protect his van from arse-holes speeding and failing to stop at T junctions. And the bar did just that. "Protected him).

Even if he didnt have a bullbar ther`d have been a lot of damage. The bull bar didnt write it off.

DOn't be such a moron. Bullbars are illegal in this country for VERY good reason. Because they KILL PEOPLE that otherwise would probably not be seriously injured when hit by a vehicle. I don't see how a bullbar could protect someone if a van or a lorry hit them head on. Surely it would add to the force ramming the engine into the drivers compartment!

Squirrel

MR DAZ wrote:

If you must know......The guy in the van changed the amount he was looking for from € 5000 down to €3000 after he heard the insurance company we're dealing with it.

SO PLEASE TELL ME IF I'M WRONG..........BUT WHO'S SCREWING WHO?

There's no doubt hes trying to screw you but he could have got the bull bars before any laws were proposed and he could have had them for a proper reason. Just pay him and forget about it. And hopefully your wife doesnt get any after effects

eth0_

Even if he had bull bars before the legislation came in, he should have had them removed, that is the law.

lomb

just pay him and b thankfull 3-5k is not alot. my mums been in accidents where the cars didnt look bad and the payouts including solictors/court fees were 100k + . 5000 isnt alot when u think about it.

CJhaughey

There is no legislation regarding retrofitted bullbars.
The existing EU legislation covers manufacturers fitting bullbars as standard to vehicles.
You have to be aware that not all people with bullbars drive in Dublin ,on many backroads in this country you will encounter animals on the road, These instances are what the Bullbar was designed for.
As a motorcyclist I totally agree that in many instances 'bars are are not necessary or even desirable but maybe all you city types should be looking for a compromise similar to the French.
They have banned 'bars in the city but not in the countryside.
In my case 'bars have saved me a lot of money through preventing damage caused by hitting a Deer, I mean who do I claim off if a deer destroys the front of my Jeep?
Please stop thinking in a purely urban sense and think like citizens of this Island.

BrianD3

No CJhaughey, bullbars are not necessary even in rural areas. Bullbars (or 'roo bars as they call them in Oz) *may* reduce damage if the vehicle hits a relatively tall, relatively light animal such as a deer or kangaroo. Hit a badger, fox, dog, sheep, goat, cat in a 4x4 and the animal will be be below the level of the bar, rendering it useless. Hit a tall heavy animnal such as a cow or horse and the bullbar will not prevent the vehicle getting wrecked and/or the animal coming up onto the bonnet and through the windscreen.

In any case, drivers should be expecting hazards such as animals on country roads and should drive at a speed which takes account of this. How is it than in ten years of driving (~200k miles, most of it on country roads) my roadkill tally is a couple of rabbits. I've lost count of the number of cows, deer, sheep, dogs that I've managed to avoid

I find that many of the people who fit bullbars are pig ignorant rednecks who will deliberately run over anything they see in the road. Same kind of people who shoot at road signs IME. I know this as I'm not a "city type" as CJhaughey puts it.

BrianD3

CrowdedHouse

BrianD3 wrote:

In any case, drivers should be expecting hazards such as animals on country roads and should drive at a speed which takes account of this. How is it than in ten years of driving (~200k miles, most of it on country roads) my roadkill tally is a couple of rabbits. I've lost count of the number of cows, deer, sheep, dogs that I've managed to avoid

I find that many of the people who fit bullbars are pig ignorant rednecks who will deliberately run over anything they see in the road. Same kind of people who shoot at road signs IME. I know this as I'm not a "city type" as CJhaughey puts it.

BrianD3

FAIR PLAY TO YA BRIAND3........very well said lad.......anyone with bullbars or as I prefer- 'I'm clumsy and dangerous driver bars' should be arrested and their vehicles crushed

Victor

CJhaughey wrote:

I mean who do I claim off if a deer destroys the front of my Jeep?

Your insurance company.

CJhaughey

BrianD3 wrote:

No CJhaughey, bullbars are not necessary even in rural areas.

Fair enough, Your opinion is always valuable.

BrianD3 wrote:

Bullbars (or 'roo bars as they call them in Oz) *may* reduce damage if the vehicle hits a relatively tall, relatively light animal such as a deer or kangaroo.

That is why I have the bars fitted, IME glass headlights are always are weaker than 2.5 inch pipe.

BrianD3 wrote:

Hit a badger, fox, dog, sheep, goat, cat in a 4x4 and the animal will be be below the level of the bar, rendering it useless. Hit a tall heavy animnal such as a cow or horse and the bullbar will not prevent the vehicle getting wrecked and/or the animal coming up onto the bonnet and through the windscreen.

True and who wants to look like a refugee from a Mad max movie anyway.No bar can prevent all conceivable accidents

BrianD3 wrote:

In any case, drivers should be expecting hazards such as animals on country roads and should drive at a speed which takes account of this.

True

BrianD3 wrote:

How is it than in ten years of driving (~200k miles, most of it on country roads) my roadkill tally is a couple of rabbits. I've lost count of the number of cows, deer, sheep, dogs that I've managed to avoid

Dunno maybe Luck? maybe you don't drive at night? maybe you are a rally driver? who knows

BrianD3 wrote:

I find that many of the people who fit bullbars are pig ignorant rednecks who will deliberately run over anything they see in the road. Same kind of people who shoot at road signs IME. I know this as I'm not a "city type" as CJhaughey puts it.
BrianD3

Lets not resort to name calling and generalisations shall we?
try and keep things civil.