Submission in Response to the ACCC Issues Paper on Quad Bike Safety 1

Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 1

Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety This submission comes from the Public University of Navarra – Spain (for more details, please refer to annex IV of this document). It cannot be questioned that Australia is leading quad bike safety research worldwide. It is tangible the big effort that has been made in the past years related to the safety and usage of quad bikes, especially focused on agricultural & farming applications. We have been following the published information with high interest because a similar debate is happening in some of the member states of the European Union and neighboring countries. In Spain, the usage of quad bikes for agricultural tasks is rapidly increasing and fears about rollover safety are increasing at the same pace.

The Rollover Protective Structure (ROPS) concept aims to limit rollover to 90º maximum, avoid the continuous rolling condition of the machine and provide a safety space between the ROPS and the ground when the rollover angle exceeds 90º. To keep the operator in this space, a restraint system is normally provided. The application of the ROPS concept on quad bikes can have some drawbacks such as an increased center of gravity and entanglement risk when used in low clearance situations. A restraint operator system can also have some effect on the active riding concept.

The concept of CPD (as we have understood it) aims to provide an intermediate solution between having no rollover protection and a ROPS. This is in fact a very interesting concept for “light” machinery where ROPS functions could have drawbacks. With a CPD, the rider is unrestrained and the quad bike could eventually roll but the driver would not get crushed (asphyxiated) if the quad bike was to rest on top of him in during a rollover event. These are examples of innovative solutions aiming to provide rollover protection on specific types of machinery.

With this submission, we would also like to share information regarding quad bike regulations and research in Europe on quad bikes and quad bike safety systems. These safety systems aim to improve the critical situation related to agricultural machinery rollovers in Spain and other Mediterranean countries where, existing ROPS solutions such as fixed and foldable frames are either removed or kept folded all of the time, with a result of the operator being killed when a rollover occurs. These systems can be applied to quad bikes in an interesting way.

1) Can you provide additional data or information on costings of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes?

Unfortunately no official data is available regarding quad bike accidents in Spain. Some data can be extracted from the media but in an unofficial way.

2) Would design changes to quad bikes be likely to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes in Australia?

Definitely. Quad bikes are one of the most versatile vehicles that can be found in the market. There is a growing list of applications: from sports to leisure, farming, ranching, cultivating, mowing, outdoor riding, hunting, trekking, extreme off-road, forestry…. In addition, the aftermarket industry is vastly growing with all kind of implements. But generally speaking, only 2 types of quad bikes cover this whole range of

1 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 2

applications: sports and utility. Specific requirements should be introduced depending on the intended use of the machine.

3) If you answered ‘yes’ to question 2, what design changes do you consider would have this effect? Which design features, if any, should a safety standard mandate or prohibit? In particular the ACCC is interested in understanding design changes that are likely to reduce:

a) injuries and fatalities caused as a result of quad bike rollover

b) injuries and fatalities caused to children

c) injuries and fatalities caused to riders being carried on quad bikes not designed to carry passengers

a) In our opinion, 3 potential measures to tackle quad bike rollover injuries: Design (improving stability index with a modified track width and CoG), active safety (such as stability alarms, driving assistance systems,…) and passive safety (such as rollover protective systems, ecall,…). A generic standard should tackle the assessment of stability in all reasonable configurations (towing implements, carrying sprayers, carrying cargo on rack,…) and provision of rollover protection as a control measure.

b) In our opinion children under certain age should be banned from riding quad bikes. Riding experience should be acquired progressively by authorizing and providing small displacement models in first hand or limiting speed and power in bigger displacement engines. Directive 2006/126/EC was introduced by the European commission to harmonize road vehicles driving licenses between member States.

2 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 3

EUROPEAN QUAD BIKE LEGISLATION / REQUIREMENTS Helmet Road Engine size Speed Seat Minimum Vehicle inspection (4) required TYPE Directive Technical restrictions Permit type legal restrictions restictions restrictions age (4)

MACHINE 2006/42 (CE marking, No ------(Plant) machinery directive)

LIGHT AM: Exam not < 4 yrs old: exempt 168/2013/EC <425kg >16 yrs old CUADRICYCLE Yes < 50 cc <45 km/h 2 max. mandatory 4-10 yrs old: every 2 years Yes (1) Light cuadricycle Rear differential (2) (L6e category) (Spain yes) >10 yrs old: annually 168/2013/EC <450 kg (passengers) < 4 yrs old: exempt B: Training or > 18 yrs old L7e-A Heavy on-road Yes ≤15 kW <600 kg (goods) None 2 max. 4-10 yrs old: every 2 years Yes (1) exam required (3) quad bike Rear differential >10 yrs old: annually <450 kg (passengers) <600 kg (goods) 168/2013/EC Ground clearance > 180 < 4 yrs old: exempt B: Training or > 18 yrs old L7e-B1 Heavy all Yes None mm <90 km/h 2 max. 4-10 yrs old: every 2 years Yes (1) exam required (3) terrain quad bike wheelbase to ground >10 yrs old: annually CUADRICYCLE clearance ratio ≤ 6 (L7e category) Rear differential <450 kg (passengers) <600 kg (goods) 168/2013/EC Ground clearance > 180 3 non - < 4 yrs old: exempt B: Training or > 18 yrs old L7e-B2 Side by side Yes ≤15 kW mm None straddle 4-10 yrs old: every 2 years No exam required (3) buggy wheelbase to ground max. >10 yrs old: annually clearance ratio ≤ 8 Rear differential

<450 kg (passengers) <600 kg (goods) 168/2013/EC Enclosed driving and 4 non - < 4 yrs old: exempt B: Training or > 18 yrs old L7e-C Heavy quadri- Yes ≤15 kW passenger compartment <90 km/h straddle 4-10 yrs old: every 2 years No exam required (3) mobile accessible via maximum max. >10 yrs old: annually three sides Rear differential

Yes (1). <600 kg <40 km/h (T3a) Exemptio If m>400 kg ROPS is < 4 yrs old: exempt TRACTOR <60 km/h (T3b) B: Training or > 18 yrs old n of 167/2013/EC Yes None mandatory Normally 1 4-10 yrs old: every 2 years (T3 category) None If fitted exam required (3) fitting Operator presence >10 yrs old: annually with ABS ROPS sensor <400kg (1) Unless they are provided with a protective structure. In this case a restraint system should be provided (2) Member states can choose >14 up to >18 yrs old (3) Member states can choose >17 yrs old (4) Spanish legislation c) Leaving aside models with 2 seats, we cannot think of design changes to avoid this. This is normally prohibited by the manufacturer and legislation should also point in the same way. Side by sides are more suited for carrying passengers than 2 seat quad bikes.

4) If your view is that design features should be mandated or prohibited to increase quad bike safety, could the regulation be designed to encourage innovation rather than prescribing particular products or technical solutions (for example by ensuring fitting points or attachment mechanisms to allow the development of improved CPDs or ROPSs or by prescribing performance-based outcomes rather than technical designs)?

Generally speaking, regulation could prescribe performance – based outcomes relying on existing standards (national or international, such as agricultural machinery safety requirements, assessment of stability,…) to allow industry, aftermarket manufacturers or engineering services find the best solution for a specific application (for example if a risk of rollover is identified).

5) If any or all of these design changes were implemented in Australia, are you able to estimate the additional cost that would be imposed on Australian suppliers?

3 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 4

Regarding rollover, structural design modifications would require a big investment for quad bike manufacturers as they would have to rethink their product conception, development, validation and manufacturing. Design changes in quad bike geometry would increase stability, reducing the exposure to a rollover situation. The versatility of quad bikes would challenge the optimum solution.

The cost impact of active safety could vary from low (stability alarm) to medium – high (electronic assistance). We cannot provide information about the effectiveness of active controls in off-road / unpaved conditions. Active safety would increase the controllability of the hazardous event but would not reduce the severity of a rollover.

Passive safety such as rollover protection is the only measure that can reduce the severity. The cost of these solutions in mass production is low-medium and they can be easily retrofitted to existing quad bikes.

6) To what extent does the US Standard satisfactorily address design features that ensure quad bikes are safe for use? Do you consider that Australia should adopt a mandatory safety standard similar to the US Standard? To what extent would this option impose additional costs on Australian suppliers or create barriers to trade?

The ANSI standard (or a very similar edition) has been adopted as a European Standard (EN15997). This standard does not assess the lateral stability of quad bikes. It is not clear if active riding was considered a risk reduction measure during the risk assessment of this standard to effectively skip the lateral stability assessment. Older farmers tend to use ATVs because of mobility issues and they can obviously not apply this technique, and if they do, in a limited way ( http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/safety-device-for-quads- under-hsa-consideration/ ). Ageing population is a concern and agriculture is a sector in which people normally continue with the activity after retirement ( https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish- news/farming-most-hazardous-job-in-ireland-conference-hears-1.3295885 ). In Spain the situation is similar: 35% of fatalities in agriculture sector are above 65 years of age. Additional requirements should be put in place. As a starting point, and similar to other quad bike characteristics such as mass, track width, seat height, ground clearance, etc., the location of the center of gravity of the quad bike would definitely help to determine the stability factor. If implements are to be added to the quad bike, the new center of gravity and stability factor can be calculated (ISO 16231) reassessing the rollover risk of the new situation.

In the other hand, standard EN-ISO 4254-1 (general safety requirements of agricultural machinery) assesses lateral and longitudinal stability and require countermeasures if the stability index does not reach a certain objective. More details regarding the stability assessment standards for agricultural machinery can be found in annex 1

There is a growing concern regarding quad bike rollover in Europe. Ireland has raised to the EU commission a number of questions related to the installation and retrofitting of CPD’s in quad bikes. Questions and answers from the commission can be found in annex 3. In summary, the EU does not impede the use of CPD’s and provides the following information: It is required the CE marking of the product (being a safety component the manufacturer should follow the auto certification process according to the Machinery directive), on a voluntary basis, vehicle owners can retrofit their vehicles with these products and the Commission will monitor this niche market and will consider adapting relevant regulatory requirements, if needed, on the basis of supporting data.

4 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 5

7) Are consumers currently getting adequate information at the purchase point about quad bike use and limitations or safety information and equipment? Should there be additional warnings or instructions displayed at the point of purchase or provided with the sale of quad bikes?

We cannot provide information to this question.

9) If your view is that regulation is needed to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by quad bikes in Australia, how should these be implemented? One proposed option is to prohibit or mandate particular design features; another is to increase consumer information, including through a consumer safety rating system; a third option is a combination of both : a) What are the comparative benefits and costs of these approaches?

There are different regulations in Europe that every manufacturer or importer of quad bikes has to meet. Regulations are different depending on the intended use of the quad bike. Details of this regulation can be found in annex 1. Aftermarket components and parts must be CE marked to be commercialized in the European market. The manufacturer or importer of the component must comply with the requirements of the applicable EU directives that affect the product. In the case of CPD’s, for example, classified as safety components, the machinery directive would apply.

As described in the answer to question nº2, the intended use of the quad bike is very important. According to this intended use, a risk assessment would provide the hazardous events for the intended task and a “high level” specification to reduce hazards. This “high level” specification could then rely on existing standards (national or international) to provide conformity. Then it is the manufacturer (OEM of aftermarket) task to assess conformity to these standards. Any risk assessment of quad bike use given the existing data must accept that rollover risk is high.

A consumer safety rating system is a very good idea. Maybe some tests would have to be defined based on “high level” specifications. Then, the manufacturer of the machine or aftermarket component would be able to reproduce the test.

10) If the ACCC recommends a mandatory safety standard for quad bikes: a) Should the standard apply differently to quad bikes used for different purposes, for example agriculture, sports, recreation, tourism and commercial hire?

The intended use is very important. Probably some requirements would be similar for different quad bikes but probably many others would be specific. b) Should the standard apply differently to quad bikes designed for use by children?

See answer to question nº3 c) Should the standard apply to SSVs as well as quad bikes, and if so how should the vehicles be defined?

SSV’s are different vehicles with different intended use and different risk assessments. At some extent (especially in agriculture) they can be interchanged and SSVs used – so any rating system should include both quad bikes and SSVs so end users can make an objective decision based on safety merits.

5 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 6

d) When should the standard commence?

- e) Should the standard include a transitional provision? f) Should the standard have an expiry date?

Maybe it can be reviewed every “X” years to determine whether to update or withdrawal if it’s not in application or interest. g) Should the standard apply to both new and second hand vehicles, or be limited to new quad bikes sold after the transitional date?

From my experience standards normally apply to new products after the transitional date has expired. Other question is that in some circumstances the authorities would require to existing vehicles the application of the standard fully or partially.

11) What is the life cycle of quad bikes in Australia? For example, on average how long do consumers use quad bikes before the vehicle is retired? How long might it take before the current stock of 380,000 quad bikes is replaced by new stock that satisfies requirements of a safety standard, if imposed?

We cannot provide any information to this question.

12) Please provide any other information you consider may be relevant to the ACCC’s consideration of these issues.

The Israeli Defense Forces officially adopted the Honda FourTrax 300 fitted with a roll bar as its standard issue ATV ( http://www.isayeret.com/content/vehicles/ground/atv/article.shtml ). This was later quickly passed to civil application. Since the early 1990’s, Israel has mandated the fitment of rollbars on all quad bikes. Israel has its own regulation including administrative, dimensional, testing and installation requirements.

Other examples from the military field is the US army ( http://articles.sae.org/10291/ ) who’s ATV’s include additional features such as rollbar, Electronic Power Steering (EPS), anti kick-back steering, active descent control (ADC) and Electronic Breaking System (EBS) ( https://military.polaris.com/en-us/combat/sportsman- mv-850/ )

6 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 7

Sweden is another country with a joint strategy on quad bike safety. More information can be found in the following link: https://www.trafikverket.se/contentassets/2155fdbb83f445adb2c2789407134370/strategi_fyrhjuling_eng.p df

Additional Information about the EU regulation and classification of quad bikes is provided in annex as well as information regarding quad bike active and passive safety systems.

7 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 8

ANNEX 1 - EU regulation and standards There are 3 possibilities to introduce a quad bike in the European Market. The following categories are similar to all State members of the EU.

1) Machine (plant) : in application of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC (MD) – CE marking a. The CE marking of a product provides presumption of conformity to the health and safety requirements of the Machinery directive. This is an auto certification process performed by the manufacturer after which, he may issue the Declaration of Conformity. There are 2 possibilities to provide conformity to the MD requirements: i. Application of the standard EN15997:2011 All terrain vehicles (ATVs - Quads) - Safety requirements and test methods. This European Standard does not deal with requirements relating to use on public roads ii. Application of standard EN 4254-1: Agricultural machinery -- Safety -- Part 1: General requirements b. The quad bike cannot be used in public road c. The quad bike does not require registration / plate 2) Quadricycle : In application of the Regulation 168/2013 a. This Regulation shall apply to all two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles that are intended to travel on public roads. b. This regulation does not apply to vehicles primarily intended for off-road use and designed to travel on unpaved surfaces. c. The quad bike can be used in public road d. The quad bike requires registration / plate e. The driver needs a driver license and insurance

3) Agricultural tractor : In application of the Regulation 167/2013 a. This Regulation establishes the administrative and technical requirements for the type- approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles. b. Quad bikes are classified within the regulation as ‘category T3’ vehicles: It comprises wheeled tractors with an unladen mass, in running order, of not more than 600 kg i. T3a: Maximum design speed ≤ 40 km/h ii. T3b: Maximum design speed < 60 km/h. In this case, vehicles meet an equivalent level of functional safety with regard to brake performance and, where appropriate, antilock braking systems as motor vehicles and their trailers. BRP is the first manufacturer to offer ATV’s equipped with ABS (http://news.brp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=254477&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2315376 ) c. The regulation establishes environmental, functional safety and operational safety requirements (rollover protection structures, falling object protection, noise, system controls,…) d. In regards of rollover protection structures, the EU regulation applies the OECD testing codes for tractors. The OECD testing codes only require ROPS when the mass is > 400 kg , so many quad bikes are normally exempt.

8 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 9

e. Testing code 6 for narrow track tractors (track width < 1150 mm) includes a lateral stability test (>38º) and a non-continuous rolling test. f. The quad bike can be used in public road g. The quad bike requires registration / plate h. The driver needs a driver license and insurance

MACHINE 2006/42 (CE marking, No ------(Plant) machinery directive)

Vehicle Cathegory Regulation Standards Sub - standards / comments

EN 15997:2011 European standard adopted from ANSI / SVIA standard (US) or Agricultural Machinery EN ISO 16231, Assessment of stability machine directive Part 1: Principles EN ISO 4254-1 Part 2: Determination of static stability and test procedures QUAD BIKES

Regulation Cuadricylcles See directive Not applicable to off-road quad bikes 168/2013

Regulation Tractors See directive No rollover protection required (m<400 kg) 167/2013

9 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 10

AGRICULTURAL QUAD BIKES

TRACTORS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Regulation 167/2013 Machinery Directive 2006/42/CE

EN -ISO 4254 -1 EN 15997 Safety requirements Safety requirements

European standard adopted from EN -ISO 16231 -1&2 ANSI / SVIA standard (US) Stability - No requirement of lateral 1. Perform risk assessment stability 2. If need to reduce rollover or tip over risk, - Requirement of longitudinal take protective measures such as: stability Design modification so the Static Overturn Angle > Required Static Stability Angle - Install an Automatic Protective Device, Self Protective Device or ROPS

OECD testing EN -ISO 3471 NONE codes

ANNEX 2 - Quad bike safety systems research

Rollover prevention system dedicated to ATVs on natural ground – Cemagref, France “An algorithm dedicated to light ATVs, which estimates and anticipates the rollover, is proposed. It is based on the on-line estimation of the Lateral Load Transfer (LLT), allowing the evaluation of dynamic instabilities. The LLT is computed thanks to a dynamical model split into two 2D projections. Relying on this representation and a low cost perception system, an observer is proposed to estimate on-line the terrain properties (grip conditions and slope), then allowing to deduce accurately the risk of instability. Associated to a predictive control algorithm, based on the extrapolation of rider’s action, the risk can be anticipated, enabling to warn the pilot and to consider the implementation of active actions.”

• https://hal-clermont-univ.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00765926/document

• https://www.terre-net.fr/materiel-agricole/tracteur-quad/article/finis-les-accidents-de- retournement-en-quad-207-99998.html

• https://vimeo.com/125580402

The articles above claim that the active safety system could be available for less than 100€. With the commercial name of “Powerboost it is not yet confirmed it is available for sale.

10 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 11

Automatic rollover protection device – “Air-ROPS”, Spain A passive rollover safety system is being developed in Spain to provide crush protection for agricultural machinery and utility agricultural quad bikes.

Background In the automotive industry, automatic rollover protection systems have been used in convertible versions since the 1980’s. Necessary deployment time < 300 ms (Baumann y Wunsche, 1990)

Fixed / foldable rollover safety systems disadvantages

• Raised center of gravity

• Due to the bulk volume of the system entanglement risk is increased

• Not provide roll over protection but only crush protection

• The vehicle can lay on top of the rider in case of rollover

• Damage to vehicle is not limited because continuous roll is not avoided

Automatic rollover safety systems advantages

• Low center of gravity – automatic protection systems can maintain the center of gravity of the quad bike low without affecting lateral or longitudinal stability

• Low clearance – The system is very compact, does not interfere with the operator and the surroundings and remains collapsed until the rollover is really happening

11 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 12

• Provides full rollover protection – Unlike CPD’s automatic systems can limit the overturn angle <90º and also prevents the quad bike of continuous roll

• The vehicle will not lay on top of the rider. It can provide a safety space between the structure and the quad bike

• Damage to vehicle is limited. It prevents the quad bike from continuous roll limiting repair costs.

• Deployment time : < 150 ms allows activating the safety system when the rollover is actually happening.

• Active safety: The system is equipped of an electronic control unit that monitors the quad bike tipping angle providing warning signals when a potential rollover risk is detected.

• A National Standard regarding the deployment principles and assessment of automatically deployed rollover protective structures has been published in Spain. The standard UNE 68112:2016 is available (http://www.aenor.es/aenor/normas/normas/fichanorma.asp?tipo=N&codigo=N0056991#.WjD4OV XiZ68 ).

Video Footage: https://youtu.be/BGyCOagmE6g

12 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 13

ANNEX 3 – Questions to the European Commission and given answers regarding the use of CPD’s on quad bikes

Questions http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2017-002797&language=EN

1. Do safety devices, such as quad bars and quad guards, currently in use in some parts of Australia and New Zealand, which are designed to protect the quad bike operator in the event of an overturn, require CE marking before being placed on the market within the EU?

2. If so, is the onerous process of CE marking safety devices for quad bikes causing a delay in the use of these potentially beneficial safety devices in Europe, and can the Commission clarify which, if any, safety devices for quad bikes have obtained a CE marking?

3. If these are proven to be beneficial, does the Commission plan to introduce an obligation on manufacturers of quad bikes to have safety devices installed and possibly retrofitted on such vehicles?

Answers http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2017-002797&language=EN

The CE marking may be affixed only to products to which its affixing is provided for by specific Union harmonisation legislation(1).

Two or three-wheel motor vehicles, not intended to travel on public roads and not intended for competitions, are subject to mandatory essential health and safety requirements under the Machinery Directive(2) for the risks of rolling over.

The Machinery Directive prescribes CE marking requirements for roll over protective structures, classified as safety components. It is the manufacturers' responsibility to CE mark such products through a self-

13 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 14

certification procedure. This is a non-onerous process ensuring a high level of safety. The Commission does not trace CE marked safety components placed on the EU market.

When two or three-wheel vehicles are used on public roads, they fall under the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013(3) and its delegated act — Regulation (EU) No 3/2014(4) — which set out the requirements for roll over protection for category L7e-B2 (the side-by-side buggy).

The Commission does not at present have scientific data that would indicate a need to expand these requirements to all vehicle categories similar to category L7e-B2 for on-road use. The Commission will monitor this niche market and will consider adapting relevant regulatory requirements, if needed, on the basis of supporting data.

On a voluntary basis, vehicle owners can retrofit their vehicles with these products. However, retrofitting falls under the competence of the Member State in which the vehicle is registered.

Vehicles that are to be approved as agricultural or forestry vehicles have to comply with the requirements set out in Regulation (EU) No 167/2013(5), including as regards roll over protection.

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/ce-marking.

(2) Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery.

(3) Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles.

(4) HYPERLINK ‘http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0003&from=EN” Commission delegated regulation (EU) No 3/2014 of 24 October 2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle functional safety requirements for the approval of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles.

(5) Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles. ANNEX 4 Air-ROPS research team

Air-ROPS Spain has been developed from the results of an initial research performed in Tudela Campus, belonging to the Public University of Navarra.

The research team developed a prototype, named E2D-ROPS, which is an automatically deployed safety arch, expandable in both height and width, aimed to be mounted on small tractors. The research outcome has been published in Biosystems Engineering Journal. The article was awarded among the best 3 of the 300 articles published in the period 2012-2013.

The research was continued in order to adapt the safety arch to any narrow tractor model, small agricultural vehicle or quad bike. In addition, the safety provided by the Air-ROPS was evaluated by means of standardized tests and real tests, and by using a 3D computer model. This research was also published

14 Submission in response to the ACCC issues paper on quad bike safety 15

in Biosystems Engineering Journal.

The members of the research team are the following:

• José Ignacio Arana Navarro, Phd. Agricultural Engineering

• José Ramón Alfaro López, Phd. Industrial Engineering

• Tomás Ballesteros Egues, Phd. Industrial Engineering

• Amaya Pérez de Ezcurdia, Phd. Industrial Engineering