A discussion paper on the review of design and engineering controls for improving quad bike safety was released for public comment on 31 August 2012. Submissions closed on 28 September 2012.
Respondents were asked to comment on four questions.
1. What design solutions and/or engineering controls could improve quad bike stability and safety?
2. What engineering controls could improve operator protection in the event of a roll over?
3. What engineering options could minimise the capacity of children to start and/or operate quad bikes?
4. What engineering controls could minimise the capacity of a quad bike to carry passengers?
Sixty-one submissions were received. A summary of the submissions is at
Attachment A .
A forum was held on 19 October 2012 in Melbourne with fifty-five national and international participants including quad bike manufacturers, researchers, work health and safety professionals, industry peak bodies, engineers, manufacturers of safety devices, farmer organisations, unions, emergency services and government.
Four presentations were given representing each of the main stakeholders. There was also a video presentation by the US regulator Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) Commissioner Robert Adler.
Keynote presentations
Presentations given:

Perspective from work health and safety researchers : Associate Professor
Tony Lower, Director Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety

Perspective from manufacturers : Mr Cameron Cuthill Motorcycle Manager -
Consulting, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) and Mr Paul
Vitrano, Executive Vice President Speciality Vehicle Institute of America
(SVIA)

Perspective from workers : Dr Yossi Berger, National Occupational Health and
Safety Director Australian Workers' Union (AWU), and

Perspective from farmers: Mr Charles Armstrong, Chair of the Workplace
Relations Committee of the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF).
Page 2 of 21

Key points from Associate Professor Tony Lower:

Presented his findings on the number of quad bike fatalities indicating 49 percent of fatalities involve roll overs. It was also found the majority of fatalities occurred in the 45+ age range.

Information was provided on the development of a pitch stability standard but it was noted there was no lateral stability measure which is important to reduce roll overs.

Currently it is difficult to compare between different models of quad bikes in relation to their involvement in fatal incidents and market share.

It is not practical to solely rely on training as a method to protect quad bike riders. There is currently no evidence of training being effective in reducing the risk of injury and death.
Key points from Mr Cameron Cuthill and Mr Paul Vitrano:

Presented their views on the fitting of crush protection devices (CPDs) indicating there is no data or research demonstrating improved operator safety.

Indicated they do not support changing quad bike seat design to prevent carrying passengers as current seat size is necessary for active rider requirements.

Considered the forum is focussing on the fitting of CPDs rather than known administrative controls – fitting CPDs is more hazardous and a product should not be fitted to a vehicle it is not designed for. Data is required to convince manufacturers to replace one hazard with another perceived one.

CPSC studies have shown there is no correlation between lateral stability and roll over.

It is important to ensure the correct vehicle is used for the task being undertaken as certain stability controls are not appropriate for quad bikes. The vehicle owner should be in control and withhold the use of keys to prevent children using quad bikes without their knowledge.
Key points from Dr Yossi Berger:

Provided views from the union perspective and continued to reject the suggestion quad bikes are stable.

The focus should be on whether quad bikes are prone to roll over rather than the concept that misuse of the equipment was the cause of incidents.

In 2011 the AWU banned the use of quad bikes by Victorian members unless quad bikes were fitted with CPDs. It was suggested this approach be adopted nationally to address the unacceptable number of fatalities.
Page 3 of 21


D oes not accept ‘active riding’ is a viable safety strategy because riders need to be protected and questioned the data used by industry to suggest CPDs were hazardous. He also does not agree that action should be delayed on implementing engineering controls until all interested parties have agreed as it will only result in more unnecessary fatalities and injuries.

He considers it is the responsibility of importers, manufacturers and suppliers of quad bikes to provide inherent safety to reduce hazards that may eventuate from human behaviour
Key points from Mr Charles Armstrong:

Presented on the cost of fatalities and injuries in agricultural industries including quad bike incidents and suggested ways to improve

It was noted fatalities and injuries are estimated to cost $1.2 billion per year in the industry with quad bikes being the largest cause of fatalities.

He considers: o the forum should provide the catalyst for drastic action to improve quad bike safety and the NFF would support fast tracking the University of New
South Wales (UNSW) research if it assisted in making decisions to address the quad bike stability problems. o induction and training at the point of sale would reduce the incidence of quad bike fatalities but does not address the fundamental instability of the vehicles, and o the action to mandate roll over protective structures on tractors was very effective and incentives should apply for quad bikes if a similar approach is mandated.

He does not consider fitting CPD s would void manufacturers’ warranties.
Key points from Commissioner Adler:

Welcomed the Australian discussion paper and the work being completed to improve the safety of quad bikes.

He reinforced the relationship between the Australian Government and the
CPSC and recognises the challenge the US and Australia are facing given the high number of deaths from quad bike incidents.

Commission Adler stated ATVs are the most dangerous consumer item in
CPSC’s jurisdiction with more than 700 funerals expected in the coming year in the US. There has been 11,000 fatalities over 20 years with 1 in 4 fatalities a child under 16 and 1 in 5 fatalities a quad bike passenger. Warnings from manufacturers have not made a difference.

The CSPC will be monitoring Australian discussions to find common ground and sensible solutions.
Page 4 of 21

The afternoon sessions consisted of facilitated discussions by Ms Heather
Baker-Goldsmith. The discussion focused on the four questions in the discussion paper.
What design solutions and/or engineering controls could improve quad bike stability and safety?
Both the responses to the discussion paper and the views expressed at the forum highlighted the different views about quad bike stability with a wide cross section of participants in support of stability design or engineering solutions. Manufacturers opposed any need for such controls.
Support:
 Engineers, researchers, farmers’ representatives, unions, consumer product and work health and safety regulators support the development of active or passive stability control solutions for quad bikes. These groups cite poor stability as a major factor in quad bike roll over events.

Quad bike users state changes to the wheel base and height of quad bikes would assist stability by lowering the centre of gravity, similar to the design of quad bikes used for racing in difficult terrain.

Researchers and engineers suggest solutions like traction control which have become commonplace in motor vehicles, should be introduced for quad bikes now. They insist designing quad bikes to meet a specific mandatory lateral stability coefficient is an immediate solution and would address a large proportion of roll over events. A stability coefficient could be used in a design standard or safety rating system for quad bikes in a similar way the Australian
New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) has achieved safety standards for motor vehicles.
Oppose:

Quad bike manufacturers and industry representatives oppose further design or engineering improvements like incorporating stability controls or coefficients. They insist quad bikes do not present an unacceptable risk to the operator when used properly and therefore no design improvement is needed.

Manufacturers reject stability as a contributing factor to fatalities claiming the
CPSC is not pursuing stability as an issue in the US. It should be noted this refers to CPSC rulemaking processes conducted in 1991. As recently as
February this year Commissioner Adler identified lateral stability - along with speed, and children on adult sized ATVs – as areas of special interest for the
CPSC.
Page 5 of 21


The manufacturers strongly argue if a quad bike is not the best vehicle for the task then an alternative vehicles should be used to ensure operator safety.
The practicality of this notion is rejected by researchers.

Manufacturers argue making ad hoc design changes could have an impact on the overall design of quad bikes and introduce new hazards or make quad bikes less safe than they already are.
 The ‘active’ riding element of quad bike use - meaning the operator shifts their body weight to enhance the performance capabilities of the machine - was considered by manufacturers and some users to make passive stability systems ineffective in preventing roll over events. The quad bike rider needs to scan ahead and around in an effort to choose the most appropriate path and speed. Manufacturers believe passive displays would tend to be outside of the driver’s normal visual scan and could be an unsafe distraction. Relying on instruments and sensors rather than making rapid decisions in response to unpredictable changes in terrain could result in a safety hazard.
What engineering controls could improve operator protection in the event of a roll over?
The subject of engineering controls to protect operators of quad bikes was the most contentious topic in both public comment and the forum discussion.
Support:

Unions, researchers, engineers, emergency service personnel claim there is ample, reliable evidence to support the usefulness of CPDs. A technical standard or specification should be developed to inform the manufacture and fitting and to ensure structural integrity of such devices.

Compared with the injury rate of all quad bikes, injuries over the past two years were reduced through the fitting of one proprietary CPD to more than
1800 quad bikes. According to engineers there is data to indicate there had been no reports of fatalities in quad bikes with CPDs fitted. Similarly there are an estimated 8000 quad bikes in New Zealand with CPDs fitted and the fatality and injury rate with those machines is much less that the average for all quad bikes. This information was in stark contrast to the position adopted by manufacturers that more injuries would occur if CPDs were used.

Engineers also argue if the stability issue cannot be resolved then the focus of attention should be directed to protecting the operator in the event of a roll over. This was the approach taken in deciding to mandate roll over protection for tractors rather than attempting to improve the stability of tractors.
Engineers have described quad bikes as being inherently unstable in their current design.

AWU representatives advised they would take steps to ensure CPDs were fitted to any quad bike operated by members of their union. This is now the
Page 6 of 21

case in Victoria and since the measure was introduced there have been no fatalities or serious injuries to riders. The ACTU Executive has passed a motion that this approach should be rolled out nationally by all unions.

Researchers view there is sufficient reliable evidence indicating more benefits in fitting CPDs than there are limitations. Doing nothing is no longer an option.

Work health and safety and consumer product regulators agree there is a need for development of a technical standard for operator protective devices such as the CPD for quad bikes.
Oppose:

Manufacturers and industry oppose CPDs for quad bikes citing research demonstrating CPDs provide no net benefit and are more likely to increase the potential for injury.

Manufacturers will not fit accessories that fall outside their specifications. This includes CPDs like the Quad Bar.
What engineering options could minimise the capacity of children to start and/or operate quad bikes?

While there is consensus that operation of adult sized quad bikes is beyond the physical capabilities of children and children should be prevented from using adult quad bikes this is where the agreement stops.

Manufacturers support children using quad bikes of an appropriate size.
Researchers, unions and other participants strongly oppose the use of quad bikes of any size by children. AgHealth data indicates five children have died in Australia riding small size quad bikes. All were wearing helmets at the time.

There is no agreement about how to prevent children from using adult quad bikes. Manufacturers consider withholding the key from children the single most effective deterrent and sufficient to prevent operation by children.
However this is rejected by others on the basis that while removing the key is ideal, human error should be considered and a backup mechanism in place to make it difficult for children to start a quad bike.

Researchers and engineers support engineering solutions like multiple operations set beyond the physical limitations of children (ergonomic controls), weight sensors on seats that cannot be by-passed, coded starting systems and key-safes. None of these controls are considered by manufacturers as having any merit.
What engineering controls could minimise the capacity of a quad bike to carry passengers?

All forum participants agree passengers should not be carried on quad bikes that are not designed for that purpose. Data shows passengers are involved in a significant number of fatalities over the past decade.
Page 7 of 21


Manufacturers maintain they warn against carrying passengers on quad bikes not designed for that purpose.

Researchers, engineers, unions and users consider there has been no attempt to limit the potential for carrying passengers through modifications to the quad bike seat.

Manufacturers claim the active riding requirements of quad bikes do not allow seat modifications and that such changes are unnecessary.

Supporters of improvements in seat design indicate no evidence has been forthcoming that may demonstrate any negative impact on active riding through a modified seat design.

The focus of the discussion and forum was on engineering and design solutions to improve quad bike safety in Australia. Lower order administrative controls have failed to reduce quad bike related injury and fatalities both within Australia and internationally.

Based on comments raised in the discussion paper and at the forum it is unlikely a consensus will be reached on engineering and design solutions to improve quad bike safety with manufacturers and industry in strong opposition to higher order controls.

Manufacturers and industry are adamant engineering or design solutions are not necessary to improve the safety of quad bikes and do not support the controls raised in the discussion paper. They continue to support lower order controls of training, improved rider behaviour and helmet use as the way to reduce the number of quad bike fatalities and injuries. This contrasts with the view of other participants who agree there is a place for engineering and design solutions to improve the quad bike safety.

The use and fitment of CPDs to quad bikes was the most contentious issue with manufacturers insisting their data demonstrates CPDs make quad bikes more dangerous to users. They indicated they would continue to oppose any fitting or retrofitting of such devices.

All other participants, particularly health and safety researchers, engineers and unions agree there is data available to support the use of CPDs. These groups reject the data being used by manufacturers stating it is flawed or inadequate for the purpose of assessing the safety benefits of CPD. They believe it is inappropriate to assess quad bike safety with methodology that uses passive crash test dummy simulations and is based on analysis tools meant for two wheel motorcycles.

Based on comments made at the forum even with the availability of additional peer reviewed data, it is unlikely agreement will be achieved on the safety
Page 8 of 21

benefits of CPDs. However additional data would allow the development of a technical safety standard for use in work health and safety and consumer protection regulations if necessary.

Based on discussions the focus for quad bike users at work should concentrate on identifying whether quad bikes can be eliminated from their work operations or substituted with a safer piece of equipment. This still fails to address the issue of children operating quad bikes.

Agreement could also not be reached on the issue of stability for quad bikes.
Manufacturers insist lateral stability is not a significant factor contributing to fatalities and injuries from quad bikes. This is in contrast to researchers, unions, engineers and other stakeholders who all identified lateral stability as a major factor especially in roll over events. Further data on stability would allow a design standard to be developed for quad bikes for use in work health and safety and consumer safety regulations if necessary.

Over the next 12 months WorkCover NSW is sponsoring research by the
UNSW. UNSW Quad Bike Project Reference Group will meet on 17-18
December 2012. Researchers, unions, health and safety experts, engineers consider this process will provide regulators with information about engineering or design solutions for quad bikes. However this research will not provide a technical standard for stability. Some stakeholders consider action is needed now rather than waiting for the research to be completed.

With the exception of manufacturers all stakeholders oppose children using quad bikes of any size. Manufacturers support the ongoing use of smaller machines for children. In Australia there have already been five fatalities of children who were using a smaller size quad bike. Given the likelihood of manufacturers voluntarily introducing design or engineering solutions to prevent children using quad bikes being extremely low, ongoing education of parents and workplaces to control access to quad bikes is needed, as well as very powerful and dramatic advertising. This is likely to be the only way to slow down more children dying on these machines.

Manufacturers agreed passengers should not be carried on quad bikes that are not designed for that purpose but did not support engineering or design solutions to address the issue. Industry considers modifying the seats to limit space to a single operator would compromise the ability of the rider to operate the vehicle effectively and safely. It is unlikely manufacturers will voluntarily change the seat design to one preventing the carriage of passengers on the basis that active riding is an essential component of quad bike use.
Researchers, unions, engineers and other participants supported changes to quad bike design so seats could not accommodate passengers and rejected the notion there was a need for such a large seat for active riding.
Page 9 of 21

ATTACHMENT A
Summary of quad bike discussion paper viewpoints received on design and engineering controls for improving quad bike safety
Discussion paper questions
1. What design solutions and/or engineering controls could improve quad bike stability and safety?
Comments in support of design and engineering controls
Comments opposing design and engineering controls
Suggested controls:

passive stability warning systems

speed limiting systems
– all agricultural quad bikes should be manufactured to operate at a lower speed

increased wheel base and width of wheel track to make bike more stable

redesign the quad bike chassis to lower the centre of gravity and improve lateral stability

mandate a minimum track width for quad bikes over 160kg net of at least 1100mm

new quad bikes to have a minimum lateral and longitudinal stability of 0.9 and
1.0 respectively

suspension system linked to a control unit that enables active stability control
Comments:

design changes are already at the limit of developments

stability warning devices are not feasible

additional engineering controls are unsuitable for quad bikes due to their nature, the environment and the work undertaken

quad bikes are tried and tested
(e.g. by police, marine, councils) and so must be already within accepted safety standards

to further lower the centre of gravity or provide longer wheel bases would negate the use of quad bikes for travelling over rough terrain

adding ROPS to existing manufactured quad bikes risks altering and upsetting the low design centre of gravity
 crush protection devices (CPD’s)
Further comments
Comments:

a priority is the development of a wellfounded database of injuries and deaths to use in analysis of quad bikes in crash situations

to answer this question fully requires detailed investigation of many overturning cases

reliable credible data is needed to determine any actions

complete the research before decisions are made

research is needed and must be scientifically based, peer reviewed and provide a convincing case for design changes regarding crashworthiness and stability
Page 10 of 21

Discussion paper questions
Comments in support of design and engineering controls

limit the engine size

cut-out devices when angle of operation is excessive

dash light warning for slopes

audible stability warnings – first and second level warning tones allowing the operator to be warned but still able to work within the sound limits

introduce a system that progressively increases the turning circle of the bike with increasing speed

the design of spray units, toolboxes, and other devices made so as to minimise adverse effects on the stability and safety of quad bikes

design feature that prevents start up of quad bikes that are inappropriately loaded or where centre of gravity has changed making the vehicle unstable

limit the use of bull bars and other features to carry specific loads or protect the vehicle which all add to the likelihood of
Comments opposing design and engineering controls
(or ROPS or FOPs) may give a false sense of security and encourage inappropriate use of equipment (e.g. stacking extra items) altering the centre of gravity and risking rollover
 fitting CPD’s (or ROPS or
FOPs)may affect judgment with consequent injury

there is no evidence that supports the proposition that lateral stability is a correct measure of safety or any connection between rollovers in quad bikes and lateral stability measures

active stability controls systems such as electronic stability controls are unsuitable as they increase tyre traction and reduce wheel spin leading to a decrease in required mobility and in roll stability

passive sensors like inclinometers would contribute little value
– being slow to react, and unsuitable for responding to the complexity of motion, vibration, sudden bumps etc.
Further comments

research into quad bike fatalities and injuries needs to identify both the factors essential or contributing to personal damaging occurrences involving quad bikes, and the mechanisms of damage to tissue and function of those injured

given the impact of engineering controls, consider a Regulatory
Impact Statement

development of quad bike
Australian Design Rule that specifies a Kst of at least 1.0 (lateral stability requirement)

development of testing protocols for dynamic and static stability

the development of a national standard similar to
NCAP

ensure all quad bikes sold in Australia are built to
ANSI ATV standards
Page 11 of 21

Discussion paper questions
2. What engineering controls could improve operator protection in the event of a roll
Comments in support of design and engineering controls a serious injury through higher point loads to the body

consider what should be removed from quad bikes as well as what to add to them

inherent operator independent systems that ensure maximum possible stability

change the throttle design to that similar to a conventional motor bike as the thumb throttle control is clumsy and sometimes contributes to accidents
Support for:

making design changes and retrofit

trialling of a three dimensional accelerometer set before rollover or rear flip over threshold to activate engine cut out
Suggested controls:

roll bars/roll cage

mandated CPDs

fit crush protection devices
Comments opposing design and engineering controls

It would be potentially dangerous to fit inclinometers - dynamically, their readings can be severely distorted by bumps and rough terrain, rendering them useless or dangerously misleading rapid and repetitive changes to the terrain will constantly trigger the device

audible warning devices may be triggered by bumpy ground or too late for the rider to react and visual warnings may distract the rider from correctly operating the quad bike

concern that increased stability could result in quad bikes being used in more extreme environments

introducing engine cut-out devices for when the angle of operation is excessive could cause rollovers through loss of power needed to correct the situation
Further comments

engineering controls should be considered but not at unreasonable expense of operational utility

the collective wisdom about this is likely to be distorted as it was for tractors. Sound research will give a better base for continued action for improving quad bike safety.
Comments:

does not support CPDs

use of ROPs raises the concern of a body protruding from the
Comments:

develop a technical standard for the fitment of
CPDs to quad bikes
Page 12 of 21

Discussion paper questions over?
Comments in support of design and engineering controls retrospectively and at point of manufacture to reduce the likelihood of death or injury in the event of rollover

full overhead frame

optimised footwell design - should not allow the legs to be run over by the wheels.

roll alarms

airbags
– a post crash inflatable to lift the quad bike such that breathing is possible, even if trapped under the inflatable

automatic shut off function when driver falls from quad bike or it rolls over

location device for post rollover

emergency alarm with automated message sent by wireless network

a device specifically designed to reduce the likelihood of death or injury to quad bike users involved in rollover events
Comments:

the balance of best available
Comments opposing design and engineering controls protection area especially where used in isolation

retrofitting may compromise the design integrity and safety of the quad bike

concern about expertise available to complete retrofits

if a rollover occurs, it is crucial that the rider is not restricted by additional hardware/equipment on the quad bike

reliable research indicates the fitment of ROPS/CPDs may increase the risk of injury to riders in particular, if a rider is obstructed by the ROPS/CPD in the event of a roll over and thrown up against the ROPS/CPD device

no ATVs have been designed to accept the fitment of ROPs/CPDs

ROPs are impractical and the centre of gravity would be affected, increasing the risk of accident

ROPs could contribute to maiming and deaths

there is no correlation between
Further comments

regarding installation of
CPDs consideration should be given to the effects of this on operation in emergencies such as search and rescue in dense bush

the debate is meeting similar resistance to that about mandating roll bars on tractors, which have resulted in significantly fewer deaths

commission an expert panel to review the application of the ISO
5700 standard to quad bikes or produce a technical standard/s to provide design, performance and test requirements for a quad
CPD

research should include comprehensive consideration into the potential unintended consequences of CPDs

research should take
Page 13 of 21

Discussion paper questions
Comments in support of design and engineering controls evidence is CPDs will produce a significant reduction in deaths from rollovers

the introduction of CPDs is the most important single initiative that could be taken.

Simulation outcomes have shown that the typical outcome for CDPs and ROPs is that the tumbling dynamic of the quad bike is changed and the rider is ejected and separated from the bike and that CPDs and ROPs reduce the likelihood of impact or crush injuries in rollovers

from an operators perspective fitment of a CPD would have limited impact on the use of a quad bike

A ROP could have more benefit than just crush protection but will have more effect on the operation of the quad bike

A ROP and ride restraint would provide the most benefit but would have more effect on the operation of the quad bike

CPDs should be designed to be
Comments opposing design and engineering controls rollover incidents and lateral stability measures

it is likely that agricultural users will utilise any rollover bar to secure even larger loads resulting in an elevated centre of gravity and creating a potentially dangerous imbalance

seat belts could trap a rider
Further comments
 account of current voluntary and mandatory standards which have been implemented internationally

there needs to be an independent assessment of CPDs in terms of their capacity to provide protection and whether there design allows them to be retro fitted to existing bikes without compromise to the operation of the bike
further accident simulation research is needed
Page 14 of 21

Discussion paper questions
3. What engineering options could minimise the capacity of children to start and/or operate
Comments in support of design and engineering controls
Comments opposing design and engineering controls effective in rollovers and rearward tip overs

not restrict access or egress from the quad bike

have minimal impact on stability through low weight

be high enough to be effective but not so high as to add significantly to the risk of the device catching on overhead branches

not interfere with riders visibility

minimise chance of the rider impacting the device in a rollover and be of a size and shape that minimises the chance of it pinning a rider.
Incorporating CPDs as part of the quad bike structure at the rear could fulfil these requirements
Suggested controls:

fitment of a throttle device or brake lock device that renders the quad bike immobile unless it is activated

a pedal based device that has
Comments:

design change is not supported as, for example, children will add a second child to circumvent a weight sensor

existing controls (key based-
Further comments
Page 15 of 21

Discussion paper questions quad bikes?
Comments in support of design and engineering controls to be compressed by use of a person’s weight to allow starting would prevent young children starting adult quad bikes

child proof locks and complex key starts

high resistance handbrake lever requiring adult force to disengage denying children the ability to start or move the quad bike

a park brake lever that is too wide for a small hand to operate.

ability for a speed limit to be set
(by an adult and not tampered with)

foot pedal gears instead of electronic push button

design to include the need to operate multiple points of the vehicle at the same time to start it

seat weight sensors and mandated weight requirements

keypad sequence
Comments opposing design and engineering controls ignition) should be more than adequate to prevent children from starting and operating quad bikes

countermeasures could create significant new hazards e.g. making the quad more difficult to operate and affecting adult safety and usage

some parents may mistakenly equate a child’s ability to bypass the countermeasure with his or her ability to operate the quad bike

there is the potential for parents to place too much reliance on the countermeasure, rather than controlling access to the vehicle’s keys, monitoring usage, and properly instructing children not to operate quad bikes

weight sensors may discriminate against small adults.

counterproductive - the ability of children to operate complex technology is often far greater than the ability of adults
Further comments
Page 16 of 21

Discussion paper questions
4. What engineering controls could minimise the capacity of a quad bike to carry passengers?
Comments in support of design and engineering controls

a hand grip device that needs compression to cause contacts to engage while the starter key is turned (with the force needed requiring the strength of those
16 years or older)
Comments opposing design and engineering controls
Suggested controls:

design the structure of the ROP to ensure quad bike can only carry one person

design out the ability to seat an extra person

moulded single seat

modifications to limit the carrying of passengers on racks
(change shape of racks)

replace smooth pipe carry racks with serrated flat iron racks

create only one available position for the operator’s legs and feet within the body work to make carrying a pillion passenger more difficult

load sensing that recognises two separate loads and disables the quad from starting, but with an override for emergency
Comments:

it is necessary for some quad bikes to carry passengers, for example Emergency Services

reducing the carrying capacity of a quad bike is problematic as it is often necessary to carry equipment or a passenger to a job site, or in an emergency

long saddle seats on quad bikes are designed for the rider to shift weight backwards and forwards dependent on the slope of the terrain. If seats were shortened it would limit the rider’s ability to move their weight and maintain stability
Further comments
Page 17 of 21

Discussion paper questions
Comments in support of design and engineering controls situations but which then only allows for a top speed of e.g.
20km/h

overload sensors such as used successfully in construction industry for elevating work platforms

design front mud guards so they are unable to support the weight of an average person or child
Comments opposing design and engineering controls
Further comments
Page 18 of 21

Tally of responses to Discussion Paper questions about engineering controls
Submissions Prevent Roll Over
(stability)
YES NO No
Comment
3
Roll Over Protection
YES NO
Agricultural
Organisations [10]
User Groups [6]
Industry
Representatives and
Manufacturers [9]
Professionals and
Employee
Representatives [3]
Regulators and
Insurers [4]
Researchers [6]
Individuals/
Organisations [23]
7
5
1
3
3
5
10
0
1
7
0
0
1
4
0
1
0
1
0
9
9
3
2
2
4
6
13
Yes = support for engineering controls/design solutions
No = no support for engineering controls/design solutions
1
4
7
1
0
0
5
No
Comment
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Prevent Child Operation via Engineering
Controls
Restrict/
Prevent Passengers
YES NO
7
2
0
2
3
5
5
1
3
7
1
0
0
8
No
Comment
2
1
2
0
1
1
10
YES NO
5
0
1
3
3
5
6
1
5
6
0
0
0
7
No
Comment
4
1
2
0
1
1
11
Page 19 of 21

crush protection devices or roll bars modification of seats and racks to prevent passengers/improve… start-up device to limit operation by children seat sensors including measuring overall weight ergonomic limitations to start-up procedure to restrict children stability warning devices/indicators speed limiting device critical angle/incline detectors lowering centre of gravity active speed controls including ignition cut-out extending wheel base/track brake/gear interlock restricting engine size multi-task start procedure removable throttle component improvements to foot well design to prevent entrapment air bag
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
5
5
5
6
9
10
10
12
15
19
20 25 30
31
35
Page 20 of 21

No crush protection device necessary
Change to centre of gravity and/or wheel-base/track reduces utility of the machine
The rider should not be restricted by additional hardware/equipment so the rider can separate from the machine in a controlled way
CPD may promote attachments/loads that will cause instability
7
7
7
Concern for unpredicted problems/consequences 6
CPD may prevent roll away of quad bike in event of roll over
Concerns re retrofitting – including voiding of manufacturer’s warranty and insurances
0 1 2 3
3
4 5 6
6
7 8
8
9
Page 21 of 21