Parliamentary Questions

I refer to updated guidelines for the manufacture and installation of vehicle front protection systems (bullbars) in the State. These updates were published in a circular to industry from the Department of Transport in September 2017. This circular to industry claims to provide an appropriate balance between the protection of vehicle occupants from animal strike and the safety of pedestrians. However, specific reference to and consideration of vehicles predominantly operated in rural and remote areas, where the chance of large animal strikes is significant, appears to have been removed from the latest iteration of industry guidelines. The previous circular to industry on bullbar guidelines (May 2015), specifically referenced ‘country vehicles that travel extensively on country roads may need a higher level of protection against a collision with an animal such as a kangaroo or an emu. In this case the more traditional bullbar design may be desirable’, and so I ask if the Minister will indicate:

(a) if allowances for vehicles predominantly operating in rural and remote areas requiring a more traditional bullbar have been completely removed from the industry guidelines released in September 2017;

(b) if the safety risks to country people being stranded, injured of killed as a result of an animal strike has been considered equally to pedestrian safety in metropolitan areas in the preparation of the new guidelines;

(c) how many defect notices have been issued on Western Australian registered vehicles in the past three years as a result of the fitment of a more traditional bullbar; and

(d) the technical criteria used by the department for deeming a bullbar to be non-compliant and a full list of reasons for non-compliance listed in defect notices in the past three years?