I was working in Sydney, Australia 2 years ago and they are having a big heated debate over the bullbar issue down under. The big metropolitan areas want to ban them as they say that the bars kill too many pedestrians. I can't really figure out the logic though. I think if a car even without a bumper was going 30 mph, chances are that the person you hit will die. The thing that the opponents are saying is that the bullbar forces the person under the vehicle instead of over the hood. Anyways, I don't agree with the opposition because I could never find a real credible study if bullbars kill more than just a bumper. They always seemed to compare cars with trucks instead of trucks with bullbars vs trucks without bullbars. This way they could make it look worse for the trucks. The whole plastic issue came out as a compromise. The problem is that you need real bullbars when you get out of city limits and are in the outback. What are you supposed to do when you get back to the city, change your bumper from steel to plastic? The roadtrains (big trucks) deliver goods and drive across the continent to deliver them and the cities want to ban them from having bars. Obviously, they are fighting it since most of their transit time is spent in the outback where Roo stikes are a very real problem. Funny thing is that Australians make some really cool off-road gear and now they want to ban it. This fight I think will be dragged out over a long period of time. Someone from Australia correct me if I am wrong.