Individual / Organisation name: Motor Trade Association of SA Inc (MTASA Inc)

What state/territory are you from? South Australia

Public Discussion Paper:

Review of Design and Engineering Controls for Improving Quad Bike Safety

Complete and submit this form by 5:00pm AEST 28 SEPTEMBER 2012 to

Response to questions identified in the Discussion Paper
1.  What design solutions and/or engineering controls could improve quad bike stability and safety?
Comment MTA SA has consulted with it’s employer business members in the Motor cycle and Farm machinery divisions who supply and sell quad bikes and / or utility vehicles on farms.
Many of these business owners have trained purchasers, conducted /or have been part of rider training programs, sold the product for many years, used it in recreational/leisure, farm and other work related applications.
They have accredited or other training supplied by the Manufacturer before being permitted to sell the product. Their role in selling is to demonstrate the product, its functions, assess any prior experience and knowledge of the purchaser and supply a DVD illustrating safe rider training.
Their response to the question is almost universal:-
Practically all design solutions and engineering controls suggested in the discussion paper have been considered by the major manufacturers. They receive feedback on their products in terms of performance, safety, handling, ride / suspension and, as with all vehicle manufacturers, make adjustments in their design and engineering of product so far as reasonably practical.
Driver safety is imperative, to the point where FCAI in conjunction with the majors (Can –am, Honda, Kawasaki, Kymco, Polaris, Suzuki and Yamaha):-
o  produce and distribute a DVD on ATV safety
o  provide supplementary brochures on Quad Bike safety
o  have contributed to the development of a brochure in conjunction with HOWSA (Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities), SWA and others, outlining its range of on farm /other applications, critical helmet and other PPE, relevance of suitable attachmentslinked to the design and configuration of the quad bike
o  produced brochures warning against fitting ROPS (roll over protective structures) and CPD (crush protection devices)
o  listed all the facts on their dedicated website www.atvsafety.com.au and included in a link to You tube, the Dynamic Reseach Inc findings on stability
The following comments are consistent with the Manufacturers/ distrbutors findings and come from Dealers who not only sell the product but , as stated above , have extensive training, knowledge and experience in use of the product and observation of others who use it correctly or misuse it :-
1.  Dealers say major manufacturers have continually designed quad bikes to lower the centre of gravity which ensures a reasonably high level of safety, provided it is used and driven in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions
2.  In general, most of the recommended engineering controls proposed for a bike may not achieve the desired outcome for the group of users who suffer fatalties or severe injuries
3.  The highest at risk groupsappear to be :- children/youngdrivers untrained/ unfamiliar with risks; those who have misused the quad through overloading with goods/persons/towing/poor or uneven terrain; those speeding without regard to personal safety/use/ terrain; those responsible for a lack of supervision of young drivers and a false sense of security in using a quad bike for purposes for which it was not designed
4.  The belief amongst experienced sellers of these products was the design and engineering changes were either already addressed in practical terms having regard to technology or use, so far as reasonably practical.
5.  Further engineering controls (structural) would give rise to a false sense of security or invite the high risk groups to load up the quad bike with items/persons that already breach the manufacturers safe use guidelines
6.  Typically those in the high risk group are most likely to:- ignore the purchase or wearing of Personal Protective Clothing and Head Gear and the enforced use by other users; ignore the need to train other users before allowing them to ride, ignore the terrain; permit an inappropriate driver or person to travel at high speeds over inappropriate terrain or passengers or loads (maximum speed may exceed 80kph)
In a general sense, most of the recommendations in the discussion paper may increase the risk of further injury as quad bikes are not designed like vehicles generally, they require a greater level of rider training as with riders of horses and motor cycles; similarly powerful versions of quad bikes are too accessible to children (owners negligence), easy to ride and lack of traffic control in private use enhances the risk of head on collisions.
2.  What engineering controls could improve operator protection in the event of a roll over?
Comment:- The question gave rise to a not unexpected response from those who have analysled the correct and incorrect use of quad bikes .
As to the suggested fitment of ROPS:-
1.  Feedback was this is impractical, it could contribute to death/maiming of riders who are not restrained/secure within the frame
2.  The centre of gravity would be affected by the fitment of a ROPS, raising the likelihood of abuse/misuse by the highest at risk groups
As to the suggested fitment of CPDs (crush protection devices) / footwell design :-
Again the belief was a serious risk if there was a fall and the occupant was contained within the frame giving rise to other risks of injury to the upper body arms and face. See also the Manufacturers’ link to You Tube above.
As to any form of additional control such as emergency alarms, the feedback was, in less cautious driving applications by some of the high risk groups, speed and sudden weight shift affecting the centre of gravity would, in many instances, be too late to arrest the incident.
A distance sensor, for example, may help avoid collision in limited circumstances where speed /lack of judgement /high risk driving is not an issue. There were suggestions by dealers, frustrated with misuse / bad driving habits, that some form of owner accountability and fines should be in place. This may prove to be impractical/not acheiveable in enforcement and detection terms on a private property.
However this point illustrated their concern that the high risk groups must be more responsible as suppliers continue to advocate safety in the show room or on delivery with site demonstration and provide PPE at point of sale.
As an overall comment , it seems to be the case that some engineering options are part solutions/ band aid efforts to address some work /non work applications whilst driving quad bikes – none seem to provide a clear plan which will reduce such accidents
As to how to address this problem, a number of Dealers made the the following comments:-
Critically analyse all the contributing factors to injury or fatality in terms of :- human factors (medical condition,experience, age, supervision demonstrated training or lack thereof; topography factors(terrain, road surface/track, surrounding risks); vehicle condition (maintenance service, especially tyres/brakes/lights); environment factors (weather, lighting, other influences ); compliance with existing manufacturing standards for design/ structure (modifications/changes influencing safety or structural integrity).
Then in consultation with the stakeholders, determine if there is a manageable solution based on the analysis and weighting to contributory factors. If not do you seek to regulate driving habits? If so how on private land? Do you introduce on the spot fines? For what? Who would be the Regulator? Do you have mandatory PPE available for all drivers and if so how do you address different size requirements in practical terms? Do you focus on mandatory head , eye and pants protection?
An analysis of seven recent quad bike fatalities reveals one victim suffered a heart attack whilst standing beside his quad – another female backed the quad into moving machinery, a third was a 10 year old staying on a friend’s farm driving a 500 cc quad with no training, supervision or personnel protection.
3.  What engineering options could minimise the capacity of children to start and/or operate quad bikes?
Comment - As to mechanical or electronic options aimed at minimising the capacity of children to start and/or operate quad bikes, the feed back was clear.
Previous experience has shown the at risk groups continually seek ways of decommissioning /overriding safety devices such as these and such persons will not be accountable for their actions. Fatalities with Tractors and Farm machinery continue despite improved guarding skirts and other protection devices.
It comes back to management of the equipment by the user and parent / owner.
4.  What engineering controls could minimise the capacity of a quad bike to carry passengers.
CommentThe feedback on this question was limited –
o  Some suggested the capacity to carry passengers could be limited by design;
o  However viewing the range of quad bike designs on the above listed website (and You Tube) gives rise to a risk of using attachments (carry alls, frames/other attachments) to transport humans and again uopset the centre of gravity
o  Similarly others suggested the capacity to fit an approved carrier for light loads (e.g. spray packs of less than 70 litres) – for which the particular quad is designed, gives risk to a risk of pillion passengers being carried inappropriately
o  The focus must be on the end user and implementation of any practical punitive measures that can make them accountable – there are many responsible drivers / users – radical changes will only limit the practical/ work /leisure use without targeting the high at risk groups
o  All agreed the centre of gravity on quad bikes was appropriate for the major bike manufacture and unless a bike had approval to carry a pillion passenger it was unsafe to do so.

Please note legal requirements, such as those imposed by the Freedom of Information Act 1982, may affect the confidentiality of your submission.

Page 4 of 4