The attraction of webbing
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WE WOULD like to pursue further the point raised by Mr P. J. Edmonds in CM (June 30) regarding webbing side guards and their "essential rigidity".
In an attempt to obtain clarification on the suitability of webbing as a material for use in side guards an approach has been made to the Department of Transport. They have stated that nothing is absolutely rigid and certainly not something which can deflect up to 150mm. To avoid a contradiction in terms they have used the words "essentially rigid". Webbing, of course, would not normally be a rigid material, but if it so tensioned as to meet the requirements for an essentially rigid side guard, they believe it would be legal under the regulations as stated.
We have already carried out our own tests which establish that the relevant criteria can be met and within the last few weeks we have commissioned the National Engineering Laboratories to conduct a full series of experiments to confirm our view that webbing side guards are a safe and viable alternative to existing designs.
We also believe that webbing side guards are safer than metal ones since in the event of a pedestrian impact with a side guard there is an innate springiness in webbing which will tend to throw the person away from the vehicle and towards safety, which would not be the case with metal ones.
In fact, webbing has several important advantages over metal in this respect. It is lighter and more flexible, thereby retaining access to underbody equipment, and unlike metal which stays bent after an impact, webbing will return to its normal position, therefore reducing repairs and time off the road. J LOUGHRAN Managing Director, Ancra International We are always pleased to receive letters from readers but we do reserve the right to edit them.
Address your correspondence to The Editor, Commercial Motor, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5AS