PDA

View Full Version : Safety Barrier (WRSB) Presentation - 5th of May



R6_kid
5th May 2009, 11:31
I will be doing my presentation for Scigen 101 this afternoon between 3-4pm. I am discussing the pro's and con's of Wire Rope Safety Barriers with regards to motorcyclists (yes that means you).

If you would like to attend it will be happening in HSB 688 (6th Floor Common Room), please be there on time if you do come. You can leave at any time as long as no one is doing their presentation (i.e be polite).

ManDownUnder
5th May 2009, 11:36
Good man - but for those of us not knowing... What is Scigen?

PirateJafa
5th May 2009, 11:40
Good man - but for those of us not knowing... What is Scigen?
http://www.geog.auckland.ac.nz/courses/scigen101/the_course/course.htm

I must admit that I did laugh at it myself.

"'Communicating for a Knoweldge Society' - (previously known as Science Communication)"

Squiggles
5th May 2009, 11:43
Ill try to make it, do i get to ask stupid questions? :D

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 11:45
Just me I guess but all the fuss was about the effects it had on a certain rider but surely the barrier is suppose to be for vehicles...not people...and at the end of the day the cause was rider error (said in a nice way)...and how many times has this happpened since...

MSTRS
5th May 2009, 11:48
Just me I guess but all the fuss was about the effects it had on a certain rider but surely the barrier is suppose to be for vehicles...not people...and at the end of the day the cause was rider error (said in a nice way)...and how many times has this happpened since...

It will have the same effect on any rider hitting it. And logic decrees that whether or not Daniel was an anomoly, more bikes + more cheesecutters = more opportunity for slice'n'dice. Give it time....
And before you respond with (I know not what) yes, I know that hitting things kills bikers. The cheesecutter is just a particularly nasty way to go.

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 11:52
we are people on vehicles... the barriers should be safe for all road users, no matter the vehicle. and, for the record, trucks are also vehicles, yet the barriers dont stop them do they? ive never heard a report of a concrete barrier killing anyone that comes off/hits them. one death caused by hitting any type of barrier is one too many. they are there to protect, not to maim. there is a reason they have been banned/altered overseas.
i think youll also find that rider error was NOT the only cause of that accident. dont believe everything the media and police tell you... myself, ive spoken to zapf about it, and i will trust his version over the cops or media any day of the week.

r6... wish i could make it. instead, ill send my good luck wishes your way.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 11:58
It will have the same effect on any rider hitting it. And logic decrees that whether or not Daniel was an anomoly, more bikes + more cheesecutters = more opportunity for slice'n'dice. Give it time....
And before you respond with (I know not what) yes, I know that hitting things kills bikers. The cheesecutter is just a particularly nasty way to go.

Okay, has anyone in the "time" since Daniel was killed been killed by the barrier...sorry not trying to be irritating but I just don't assume that things will worsen...

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 11:59
Good man - but for those of us not knowing... What is Scigen?

Like 'jafa said, it is basically about communicating scientific or technical information to non-scientific/technical folk.


Ill try to make it, do i get to ask stupid questions? :D
Heh, it's a presentation not a question session!



Just me I guess but all the fuss was about the effects it had on a certain rider but surely the barrier is suppose to be for vehicles...not people...and at the end of the day the cause was rider error (said in a nice way)...and how many times has this happpened since...
Here's a small exerpt for you:

It was found that the existing guardrail is not designed to protect motorcyclists from being ejected and cannot even redirect or retain motorcycles like other vehicles. Also, the fallen motorcyclists are not protected against hitting the exposed guardrail posts or even rollover to hit more hazardous fixed objects. (A.B. Ibitoye, 2005)

Approximately 60% of fatal motorcycle collisions with crash barriers involve the rider sliding into the barrier (Quincey et al, 1988).

Collisions with crash barriers result in twice the severity and five times more fatal injuries than all other types of motorcycle crash. (Schnull, 1992)

Calculated injuries from the simulations suggest that serious injury would result regardless of speed and impact angle. (in reference to WRSB) - Research conducted by DEKRA in Germany in 2005.

Interestingly my case is actually FOR the WRSB, but that suitable consideration should be given to ALL road users - and that existing solutions exist to not only make them safe for motorcyclist, but also make them do their designed job of 'restraining errant vehicles'.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:01
Like 'jafa said, it is basically about communicating scientific or technical information to non-scientific/technical folk.


Heh, it's a presentation not a question session!



Here's a small exerpt for you:

It was found that the existing guardrail is not designed to protect motorcyclists from being ejected and cannot even redirect or retain motorcycles like other vehicles. Also, the fallen motorcyclists are not protected against hitting the exposed guardrail posts or even rollover to hit more hazardous fixed objects. (A.B. Ibitoye, 2005)

Approximately 60% of fatal motorcycle collisions with crash barriers involve the rider sliding into the barrier (Quincey et al, 1988).

Collisions with crash barriers result in twice the severity and five times more fatal injuries than all other types of motorcycle crash. (Schnull, 1992)

Calculated injuries from the simulations suggest that serious injury would result regardless of speed and impact angle. (in reference to WRSB) - Research conducted by DEKRA in Germany in 2005.

Interestingly my case is actually FOR the WRSB, but that suitable consideration should be given to ALL road users - and that existing solutions exist to not only make them safe for motorcyclist, but also make them do their designed job of 'restraining errant vehicles'.

Fair enough but as far as the barriers here are concerned the stats have yet to be written I guess....less traffic..is that a factor....

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 12:02
Okay, has anyone in the "time" since Daniel was killed been killed by the barrier...sorry not trying to be irritating but I just don't assume that things will worsen...

Not in NZ but there deaths every year in other countries relating to WRSB's and also with riders being at or below the speed limit - and as the use of WRSB's are increasing, and there are increasingly more motorcyclists on the roads, the numbers are increasing too.

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 12:05
Fair enough but as far as the barriers here are concerned the stats have yet to be written I guess....less traffic..is that a factor....

So your position is do nothing until X people die because of them?

A paper was released by LTSA/LTNZ (whatever the fuck they are calling themselves at the moment) stating that the cost of ONE death on the road in NZ has a cost to society in excess of $3mil. - so if for every $3mil spent saved one live we'd still be making progess.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:06
Not in NZ but there deaths every year in other countries relating to WRSB's and also with riders being at or below the speed limit - and as the use of WRSB's are increasing, and there are increasingly more motorcyclists on the roads, the numbers are increasing too.

I guess horse for courses though...most other counties have more motorways, more traffic, more accidents / more bikes and higher speed limts / speeds...I mean in UK 90mph in fast lane is common place...in NZ I would say 75mph is the norm.

It may be that in NZ the WRSB's are suitable...I mean in NZ we often say how we know best..

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 12:09
Okay, has anyone in the "time" since Daniel was killed been killed by the barrier...sorry not trying to be irritating but I just don't assume that things will worsen...

id rather we didnt give them the chance to worsen before we did something. plus, at even 70k, you will lose a limb if you have the misfortune to come off and connect with one. these barriers are not suitable for any country.

lets switch things around and pretend the person killed was a child of yours. would you be happy to sit back and assume things wont get worse, after seeing your child in more than one piece?
not only traumatic for family and friends, but also for the emergency workers who had to pick daniel up and the mortician to try and put him back together for the funeral. im fairly sure that those people would happily go a lifetime without having to see that again.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:10
So your position is do nothing until X people die because of them?

A paper was released by LTSA/LTNZ (whatever the fuck they are calling themselves at the moment) stating that the cost of ONE death on the road in NZ has a cost to society in excess of $3mil. - so if for every $3mil spent saved one live we'd still be making progess.

In some ways yes...I am just not a knee jerker....$3 million..how is that worked out...is that "actual" extra costs or just the cost of what is involved which is different...the people involved are paid a salary which is the same what ever happens....

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 12:11
i bet youd be wishing theyd done something if you ever get rear ended for no fault of your own and shunted into one.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:15
id rather we didnt give them the chance to worsen before we did something. plus, at even 70k, you will lose a limb if you have the misfortune to come off and connect with one. these barriers are not suitable for any country.

lets switch things around and pretend the person killed was a child of yours. would you be happy to sit back and assume things wont get worse, after seeing your child in more than one piece?

Yes...that's life...I would be more interested in greiving...

not only traumatic for family and friends, but also for the emergency workers who had to pick daniel up and the mortician to try and put him back together for the funeral. im fairly sure that those people would happily go a lifetime without having to see that again.

Death is traumatic...the services are trained to do that...sounds harsh but I think we forget the realities of like...if you want to be a mortician then you accept you will deal with trauma...so why feel sympathy for them...




......................

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:16
i bet youd be wishing theyd done something if you ever get rear ended for no fault of your own and shunted into one.

Probably an unlikely outcome die to angles and lower speed....

MSTRS
5th May 2009, 12:18
It may be that in NZ the WRSB's are suitable...I mean in NZ we often say how we know best..

No more suitable here, than anywhere else. Human bodies get chopped up by these things at just about any speed.
And if something that you 'know best' impacts negatively on someone else, they are not going to be happy. The powers-that-be just do not factor motorcyclists into any of their barrier equations. As dead motorcyclists all over NZ can attest to.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:21
No more suitable here, than anywhere else. Human bodies get chopped up by these things at just about any speed.
And if something that you 'know best' impacts negatively on someone else, they are not going to be happy. The powers-that-be just do not factor motorcyclists into any of their barrier equations. As dead motorcyclists all over NZ can attest to.

So how many dead bikers are due to bad roading structure...that could be alive now...??

Even with Dan how doe we know he did not die from hitting the road before the barrier...

MSTRS
5th May 2009, 12:24
So how many dead bikers are due to bad roading structure...that could be alive now...??
.
Yeah, it's not Utopia...


Even with Dan how doe we know he did not die from hitting the road before the barrier...If you'd bothered to follow his 'story', you'd know his only (other) injury was a broken elbow

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 12:24
In some ways yes...I am just not a knee jerker....$3 million..how is that worked out...is that "actual" extra costs or just the cost of what is involved which is different...the people involved are paid a salary which is the same what ever happens....

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1328112&postcount=2


Probably an unlikely outcome due to angles and lower speed....

Refer to an earlier post where it was stated that serious injury was likely regardless of impact speed or angle.

Even still, you are missing the point. They are meant to be 'safety barriers', and the law governing their installation states that they must be 'safe for all road users' - they are not safe for all road users, and therefore something is fundamentally wrong with them. Fatality or not, they should be made to comply with the guidelines by which they are meant to be governed.

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 12:36
ffs, what are you on man?? yes, some people do choose to do the grizzly jobs in life, but that doesnt mean that cases dont affect them. so yes, i will feel sympathy for them and the things they have seen. hell, im about as heartless as they come, but even i couldnt handle a job like that for too long.

of course you would be grieving, but it would be horrible having your last memory of your child being so traumatic. but, most people would also be trying to keep that death from being in vain. if dans death leads to these barriers being either removed or made safe which would then prevent others from dying because of them, then im certain those who love him will be satisfied. the fact that he died at all is rediculous... some safety barrier.

i suggest you go and read the threads related to this, and maybe speak to his parents for the full story.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:41
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1328112&postcount=2

Still does not answer my question.

Refer to an earlier post where it was stated that serious injury was likely regardless of impact speed or angle.

Even still, you are missing the point. They are meant to be 'safety barriers', and the law governing their installation states that they must be 'safe for all road users' - they are not safe for all road users, and therefore something is fundamentally wrong with them. Fatality or not, they should be made to comply with the guidelines by which they are meant to be governed.

I think that it is not easy to protect bikers. We are more vunerable...I mean on that basis maybe we should advocate for higher barriers on bends so we don't go over them when we lose it...bikers = approx 40,000 of all road users...most cars have safety built in...we don't...

Therefore surely we have to be goverened by stats = likelihood...




...............................

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:47
ffs, what are you on man?? yes, some people do choose to do the grizzly jobs in life, but that doesnt mean that cases dont affect them. so yes, i will feel sympathy for them and the things they have seen. hell, im about as heartless as they come, but even i couldnt handle a job like that for too long.

I am on life reality / perspective...not a cotton wool society

of course you would be grieving, but it would be horrible having your last memory of your child being so traumatic. but, most people would also be trying to keep that death from being in vain. if dans death leads to these barriers being either removed or made safe which would then prevent others from dying because of them, then im certain those who love him will be satisfied. the fact that he died at all is rediculous... some safety barrier.

Grief is grief...I agree if the barrier is killing others ie a danger then his death will have highlighted a safety issue...no one knows what would have happened if there was no cheescutter ot a concrete barrier..what would people say if he hit a concrete barrier and died...oh I am glad it was not a cheese cutter and he was sliced in half?

i suggest you go and read the threads related to this, and maybe speak to his parents for the full story.

I have to a point but see no reason talking to parents...life goes on still...



..............................

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 12:50
Yeah, it's not Utopia...
If you'd bothered to follow his 'story', you'd know his only (other) injury was a broken elbow

I know that 1st hand...

Fair enough but see a recent post which covers this.

I know I sound harsh....I am just pit life in perspective which makes me accept things more...

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 12:55
if there was no barrier, or a concrete barrier, chances are, dan would have been very sore for a few days, but he would have been alive. he wouldnt have been scattered across a motorway right in front of one of his friends. sickening enough to see someone come off, never mind witness their death at the same time.

a death caused by a "safety" barrier is not acceptable, no matter what drug you are on. im not interested in cotton wooling society, but i AM interested in preventing needless deaths. if you spoke to his parents, youd learn what the media and cops didnt bother to report... i know what happened, but am not at liberty to share it around.

i suggest you go and grow a heart, and then come back.

OnCam
5th May 2009, 13:06
haha awesome paper scigen101, good luck with presentation, wire barriers are evil for bikers

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 13:12
I think that it is not easy to protect bikers. We are more vunerable...I mean on that basis maybe we should advocate for higher barriers on bends so we don't go over them when we lose it...bikers = approx 40,000 of all road users...most cars have safety built in...we don't...

I am well aware of this and it is a point I raise in the presentation. But should safety barriers be installed for the benefit of one group of road users at the expense of other groups?

I think we all know that there is a degree of risk involved with motorcycling, as there is with any motorvehicle. We also know that (in general) the safest place to do high speeds is on a closed race circuit.

The guidelines for safety barrier use state that it must be safe for all road users, and that it must not present a greater risk than the object which it protects from collision - in many cases WRSB do not do this. We all wear helmets, and most of us wear full leathers, boots and gloves - this is the best we have, and when designing the barriers we should be taken into consideration with the assumption that we are already doing the best we can to protect ourselves.

It's not about turning safety barriers into cotton wool and making the road a safe playground for the hoons and hooligans. It's about making something that is meant to be inherently safe for all those who may or may not come in contact with it, actually do it's intended job.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 13:13
if there was no barrier, or a concrete barrier, chances are, dan would have been very sore for a few days, but he would have been alive. he wouldnt have been scattered across a motorway right in front of one of his friends. sickening enough to see someone come off, never mind witness their death at the same time.

a death caused by a "safety" barrier is not acceptable, no matter what drug you are on. im not interested in cotton wooling society, but i AM interested in preventing needless deaths. if you spoke to his parents, youd learn what the media and cops didnt bother to report... i know what happened, but am not at liberty to share it around.

i suggest you go and grow a heart, and then come back.

Having a different outlook on life to you does not mean I don't have a heart dude...you don't know me or my personal circumstances that may just make me look at the different angles of life

I knew Dan from rides so was very sad and had RIP on my screen...I attended Loose Bruces (who I knew) memorial..yep I care...but like I said..I just look at life things differently that's all.

No offence taken

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 13:22
you can take or leave offence... i really dont care. :bash:
in all honesty, my opinion of what kind of person you are have been completely reversed in this thread. you come across as heartless, as though dans death was acceptable because it was "just one." as if it would better to have 100 die from cheese cutters, because then there would 100 families in mourning. yeh, sure, thats a better option. :wacko:


not.

MSTRS
5th May 2009, 13:27
Settle peoples.
The issue of cheesecutters is an emotional one for some, a matter of economics for others, and actuarially-acceptable statistics for others still.
For those of us at the sharp end :sick: it certainly is an important issue. R6 - I'm pleased that you are able to lecture and demonstrate why to a bunch of people who would never think about it otherwise. Slow spread of publicity and changing of peoples' opinions is a good thing - in view of the fact that TANZ will not change without it.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 13:59
I am well aware of this and it is a point I raise in the presentation. But should safety barriers be installed for the benefit of one group of road users at the expense of other groups?

I agree but not easy. I guess the issue of safety is about "to others" since the barriers are really meant to seperate collisions from spilling onto the opposite carriageway as opposed to just preventing injury / fatalities and we have to deal with HGV's as well from going across the barrier.

I think we all know that there is a degree of risk involved with motorcycling, as there is with any motorvehicle. We also know that (in general) the safest place to do high speeds is on a closed race circuit.

The guidelines for safety barrier use state that it must be safe for all road users, and that it must not present a greater risk than the object which it protects from collision - in many cases WRSB do not do this. We all wear helmets, and most of us wear full leathers, boots and gloves - this is the best we have, and when designing the barriers we should be taken into consideration with the assumption that we are already doing the best we can to protect ourselves.

As above...I don't think the primary reason for motorway barriers is about "injury".



It's not about turning safety barriers into cotton wool and making the road a safe playground for the hoons and hooligans. It's about making something that is meant to be inherently safe for all those who may or may not come in contact with it, actually do it's intended job.

Was not referring to "cotton wool" in that context. Like I said what is the primary job of a barrier.




...................

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 14:04
you can take or leave offence... i really dont care. :bash:
in all honesty, my opinion of what kind of person you are have been completely reversed in this thread. you come across as heartless, as though dans death was acceptable because it was "just one." as if it would better to have 100 die from cheese cutters, because then there would 100 families in mourning. yeh, sure, thats a better option. :wacko:


not.

That's fine although shame you have altered your view from one issue but I have to accept that.

But did I actually say that Dan's death was acceptable...you are taking me out of context...I am not saying lets wait for 100 more deaths....I think if there were just a few more like Dan's then I would review my opinion but so far and thankfully (having a heart) Dan's death has been one off...that is my perspective.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 14:04
Settle peoples.
The issue of cheesecutters is an emotional one for some, a matter of economics for others, and actuarially-acceptable statistics for others still.
For those of us at the sharp end :sick: it certainly is an important issue. R6 - I'm pleased that you are able to lecture and demonstrate why to a bunch of people who would never think about it otherwise. Slow spread of publicity and changing of peoples' opinions is a good thing - in view of the fact that TANZ will not change without it.

I agree.................

Maha
5th May 2009, 14:20
Having a different outlook on life to you does not mean I don't have a heart dude...you don't know me or my personal circumstances that may just make me look at the different angles of life



This particular issue always has the two sides colliding (scuze the pun) ;)
I know you and I also know that you are not taking an angry stance or ignorant view on the subject matter.

But........Myself and thousands (yes thousands) would rather come in contact with anything else but a WRB. The chance of survival increase (slightly) but the WRB's will take your life should it get in the way if you have an off.

I would hate to loose a friend like you due to these barriers..at least with the concrete barriers, you get the chance to slide, you may still die due to the impact angle, but the word 'chance' is better than 'no chance'.

So shut up and do some work...:hug:

PirateJafa
5th May 2009, 14:20
I agree but not easy. I guess the issue of safety is about "to others" since the barriers are really meant to seperate collisions from spilling onto the opposite carriageway as opposed to just preventing injury / fatalities and we have to deal with HGV's as well from going across the barrier.

You do know how these barriers are "supposed" to work, don't you?

When a vehicle hits them, they continue moving up to several metres onto the other side of the barrier before the cable tension pulls them back onto their correct side of the road.

That is why the barrier manufacturers say there should be several metres of clear grass/median on each side of the barrier.

Take a stretch of WRSB like those on our country's main road, SH1 between Auckland and Hamilton. The WRSB is installed 30cm from traffic - on BOTH sides of the road.

So if a vehicle traavelling the other direction to you hits the barrier, they will travel right into YOUR LANE before being returned to their side of the road.

Of course, this is no problem, because you can always escape off to the road shoulder... oh wait you can't.

Tough luck mate, it's a pity you're decapitated now, but I'm sure that if a dozen more suckers like you get minced THEN I might start to care.

'Course, you and your dependents might feel differently. Well, you won't, because you'll be dead - but they might.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 14:22
This particular issue always has the two sides colliding (scuze the pun) ;)
I know you and I also know that you are not taking an angry stance or ignorant view on the subject matter.

But........Myself and thousands (yes thousands) would rather come in contact with anything else but a WRB. The chance of survival increase (slightly) but the WRB's will take your life should it get in the way if you have an off.

I would hate to loose a friend like you due to these barriers..at least with the concrete barriers, you get the chance to slide, you may still die due to the impact angle, but the word 'chance' is better than 'no chance'.

So shut up and do some work...:hug:

Okay Marky...............

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 14:26
You do know how these barriers are "supposed" to work, don't you?

When a vehicle hits them, they continue moving up to several metres onto the other side of the barrier before the cable tension pulls them back onto their correct side of the road.

That is why the barrier manufacturers say there should be several metres of clear grass/median on each side of the barrier.

Take a stretch of WRSB like those on our country's main road, SH1 between Auckland and Hamilton. The WRSB is installed 30cm from traffic - on BOTH sides of the road.

So if a vehicle traavelling the other direction to you hits the barrier, they will travel right into YOUR LANE before being returned to their side of the road.

Of course, this is no problem, because you can always escape off to the road shoulder... oh wait you can't.

Tough luck mate, it's a pity you're decapitated now, but I'm sure that if a dozen more suckers like you get minced THEN I might start to care.

'Course, you and your dependents might feel differently. Well, you won't, because you'll be dead - but they might.

I will ignore the emotional side of your post. Sorry.

If that is the case then the problem would be the installation and not the barrier itself.

Kinda makes sense what the barrier is suppose to do..does it slow velocity better than concrete barriers is my next question.

GSXR Trace
5th May 2009, 15:22
damn wish i had read this before now (as i have an hours break from 3-4)... how did it go?

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 15:40
the barrier is suppose to be for vehicles...not people...


Realistically, if we are trying to keep the road toll down wouldn't it make sense to save the lives of people and not worry too much about the vehicles?

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 15:46
If that is the case then the problem would be the installation and not the barrier itself.

Kinda makes sense what the barrier is suppose to do..does it slow velocity better than concrete barriers is my next question.

What do you mean "If that is the case"?
How can you argue a position when you don't bloody know the basic information?
You're a bad as DB.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 15:58
Realistically, if we are trying to keep the road toll down wouldn't it make sense to save the lives of people and not worry too much about the vehicles?

Agree but the barriers are suppose to stop cars that have people in them...guess same for bikes but the issue we are debating.

If you want to save lives we should start with educating people on how to drive safely with barriers as a last resort...rather than expect barriers to protect bad drivers...putting better barriers up is not going to solve the root of the cause.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 15:59
What do you mean "If that is the case"?
How can you argue a position when you don't bloody know the basic information?
You're a bad as DB.

Are you being pedantic....

I have just agreed that if the verge is not correct then that needs to be solved...did I miss something?

DB = Dangerous Bastard? Don't know him so cannot comment;)

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 16:05
Are you being pedantic....

I have just agreed that if the verge is not correct then that needs to be solved...did I miss something?

DB = Dangerous Bastard? Don't know him so cannot comment;)

Expecting someone to know the subject they are arguing about is not being pedantic. I consider it fundemental.

I know you agreed "if", however you shouldn't need the "if" if you know the basic information.

Yes DB, he is another of your ilk who are happy to argue without knowing basic facts - look him up, you 2 should get on well.

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 16:10
If you want to save lives we should start with educating people on how to drive safely with barriers as a last resort...rather than expect barriers to protect bad drivers...putting better barriers up is not going to solve the root of the cause.

Agreed, take a look at the BRONZ web site - education, not regulation saves lives. However, these vehicles you wish to save are driven by humans, humans make mistakes, they always have, they always will. NO amount of education will ever change that.

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 16:57
damn wish i had read this before now (as i have an hours break from 3-4)... how did it go?

Went fairly well - extremely well if you consider I hadn't actually practiced it first! Was the best on the day compared to Do Men and Women think Differently, Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Violence in Society, and What About the Polar Bears?


If that is the case then the problem would be the installation and not the barrier itself.
This is correct, but if the installation is incorrect in this way then it is not actually doing it's job.



Kinda makes sense what the barrier is suppose to do..does it slow velocity better than concrete barriers is my next question

They are better at safely decreasing momentum - look up impulse. A smaller force over a longer time, vs larger force over a shorter time. WRSB being the first, concrete being the latter.

WRSB are actually very good at fulfilling their intended purpose - stopping smalll-medium sized vehicles in 'cross over' situations - they are also good for verge/cliff situations.

Basically all that is needed is large, flat longitudinal surface area to prevent bodies (aka Motorcyclists sans motorcycle) coming in contact with the posts or wires. Adding a cap of a similar nature with a smooth circumference will further enhance the safety of the WRSB. Not only does it increase the safety of the barriers, it also adds to their structural integrity - it makes them do their original job BETTER, safer, and also makes it easier to clean up in the event that a collision occurs as debris from the barrier is captured by the shielding.

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 16:59
Do Men and Women think Differently


Fark, how long did you say you had for your talk?

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 17:02
8 minutes - that one was done by a lovely asian girl. Needless to say which brain was doing the most work - lets just say WINJA would have been happy.

SixPackBack
5th May 2009, 17:12
8 minutes - that one was done by a lovely asian girl. Needless to say which brain was doing the most work - lets just say WINJA would have been happy.

$10 sez you didn't root her.

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 17:18
Basically all that is needed is large, flat longitudinal surface area to prevent bodies (aka Motorcyclists sans motorcycle) coming in contact with the posts or wires. Adding a cap of a similar nature with a smooth circumference will further enhance the safety of the WRSB. Not only does it increase the safety of the barriers, it also adds to their structural integrity - it makes them do their original job BETTER, safer, and also makes it easier to clean up in the event that a collision occurs as debris from the barrier is captured by the shielding.

never mind the fact that every time they get hit by anything, someone [or several someones] needs to be sent out to replace the broken posts and then adjust the tension. ive never known concrete to need that amount of work after every single collision.

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 17:30
never mind the fact that every time they get hit by anything, someone [or several someones] needs to be sent out to replace the broken posts and then adjust the tension. ive never known concrete to need that amount of work after every single collision.

This is the same for any other road side structure. While you are correct, concrete barrier generally doesn't need as much repair/maintenance, it also is not very forgiving - infact it makes the vehicle/person absorb all of the energy. They aren't so bad for glancing blows, but I wouldn't go calling them the safer option.

From what I have read and seen, a correctly installed & modified WRSB system is the best way of stopping vehicles leaving their lane.

SPB - when can I collect?

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 17:37
SPB - when can I collect?

When the deed is done and we have the photos.

The Stranger
5th May 2009, 17:37
They aren't so bad for glancing blows, but I wouldn't go calling them the safer option.


But isn't this the situation with median barriers?

sunhuntin
5th May 2009, 17:43
if concrete is no better, how can motorbike racers hit them and generally stagger away no worse for wear? racers generally go LOTS over 100k.

Mom
5th May 2009, 18:01
Agree but the barriers are suppose to stop cars that have people in them...guess same for bikes but the issue we are debating.

If you want to save lives we should start with educating people on how to drive safely with barriers as a last resort...rather than expect barriers to protect bad drivers...putting better barriers up is not going to solve the root of the cause.

Transit NZ are empowered to make NZ roads safe for ALL road users. If what you state here is true, then why should Transit install them? They are only designed for cars with people in them? I am not so sure that is true somehow. Cost will have been a big factor in deciding what kind of barrier is installed and where. They dont stop trucks from crossing over them, they kill and main motorcyclists (and yes I hear your argument that we seem to have had one death here as a reult of them, but documentary evidence from overseas proves this fact), they are not installed as they should be, with good safety catch zones either side of them. These things are a menace.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 18:37
Expecting someone to know the subject they are arguing about is not being pedantic. I consider it fundemental.

I know you agreed "if", however you shouldn't need the "if" if you know the basic information.

Yes DB, he is another of your ilk who are happy to argue without knowing basic facts - look him up, you 2 should get on well.

I was referring to the grammatical aspect.

What are the basic facts...to me the issue is not complicated.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 18:44
Went fairly well - extremely well if you consider I hadn't actually practiced it first! Was the best on the day compared to Do Men and Women think Differently, Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Violence in Society, and What About the Polar Bears?


This is correct, but if the installation is incorrect in this way then it is not actually doing it's job.



They are better at safely decreasing momentum - look up impulse. A smaller force over a longer time, vs larger force over a shorter time. WRSB being the first, concrete being the latter.

WRSB are actually very good at fulfilling their intended purpose - stopping smalll-medium sized vehicles in 'cross over' situations - they are also good for verge/cliff situations.

Basically all that is needed is large, flat longitudinal surface area to prevent bodies (aka Motorcyclists sans motorcycle) coming in contact with the posts or wires. Adding a cap of a similar nature with a smooth circumference will further enhance the safety of the WRSB. Not only does it increase the safety of the barriers, it also adds to their structural integrity - it makes them do their original job BETTER, safer, and also makes it easier to clean up in the event that a collision occurs as debris from the barrier is captured by the shielding.

Thanks for explaining in an intelligent way...I am happy to argue in ignorance and find out..the whole point of debate of course.

So basically, the barrier works well but needs tweeking.

Grahameeboy
5th May 2009, 18:48
Transit NZ are empowered to make NZ roads safe for ALL road users. If what you state here is true, then why should Transit install them? They are only designed for cars with people in them? I am not so sure that is true somehow. Cost will have been a big factor in deciding what kind of barrier is installed and where. They dont stop trucks from crossing over them, they kill and main motorcyclists (and yes I hear your argument that we seem to have had one death here as a reult of them, but documentary evidence from overseas proves this fact), they are not installed as they should be, with good safety catch zones either side of them. These things are a menace.

R6 has explained a bit more and I agree that the barriers need tweeking.

My comment has an element of truth I guess..if drivers were safe they would not have so many accidents and would not need barriers..I know that is a simplictic view, however, at the same time, I feel that we are sometimes the author's of our own misfortune...

Would be interesting to test having no barriers and do the stats..may be interesting eh..I mean where the Cheese Cutters are situated, there were no concrete barriers were there, just the iron ones...what were the stats before the Cheese Cutters were installed.

Oh and thanks for being nice to me Mom..:hug:

MSTRS
5th May 2009, 18:53
What are the basic facts...to me the issue is not complicated.

The issue is not complicated...
The basic fact is that if you are on a motorcycle and for whatever reason hit a cheesecutter, you will suffer horrendous injuries, amputation of limbs or worse, and/or die. It's that simple.

Real_Wolf
5th May 2009, 19:35
Did you touch on the fact that cheesecutter is so much cheaper than the better options, and as such thats why its done in alot of places

Mom
5th May 2009, 19:40
R6 has explained a bit more and I agree that the barriers need tweeking.

My comment has an element of truth I guess..if drivers were safe they would not have so many accidents and would not need barriers..I know that is a simplictic view, however, at the same time, I feel that we are sometimes the author's of our own misfortune...

Would be interesting to test having no barriers and do the stats..may be interesting eh..I mean where the Cheese Cutters are situated, there were no concrete barriers were there, just the iron ones...what were the stats before the Cheese Cutters were installed.

Oh and thanks for being nice to me Mom..:hug:

You are welcome :yes:

As far as what barriers were there before the cheesecutter the answer often is none! These dangerous and un-safe barriers are popping up all over the place. They are not replacing other barrier types as much as being used instead of other, safer alternatives.

Look, I am the last person to condone un-safe and dangerous riding as you will be aware, but these barriers add an element of risk to MY own riding that I dont want to accept.

All I can say here is, if I am riding on an open road, happily minding my own business, taking into consideration all the things that we needs to as bikers, the last thing I need is to face oncoming traffic and see a vehicle cross the centre line. Normally I would be scrubbing off speed and looking for plan b to avoid a collision with oncoming dickhead in my space. If plan b is taken away from me with the installation of a WRunSB to my left I am left with 2 chances. None and fuck all!

These non-safety barriers are installed in the most stupid places ( I have named one, for the pendants that will say they are also installed other, safer places).

Back to my original post here, Transit are charged with keeping the roads safe for ALL road users.

R6_kid
5th May 2009, 22:08
Did you touch on the fact that cheesecutter is so much cheaper than the better options, and as such thats why its done in alot of places

Partially, but the truth of the matter is that they do their job better and safer (for car occupants) than armco or concrete, cost saving is a bonus at the end of the day. Further to this they are unobtrusive during installation, are easily repaired, and can (generally) be taken down temporarily if needed.

When you look at it from a small to medium vehicle point of view they are pretty bloody awesome.

HOWEVER - I noted that all of the tests were done by freewheeling vehicles with no forces actiong on them during impact other than from the barrier itself - as with bikes during braking, the front of the vehicle tends to dive - so for sports cars and other vehicles with a slanting frontal design (i.e most cars) and a low height from the ground w.r.t to the top of the bonnet, I would assume that many cars would actually get caught below the wires rather than simply reflected as is shown in the tests.

Again, providing a protective shield/sheathing would almost eliminate this sort of effect and would not only make the barriers safer for motorcyclists, but for car occupants aswell.

See this document (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roads/rts/rts-11.pdf) - it states the guidelines for safety barrier installation - and after having a quick read through it you will see that nearly all roadside barriers will probably need modification in order to comply with the guidelines.

At a mininmum this would involve a system such as (or similar to) Mototub being installed on Armco/W-barrier, and a protective sheathing such as the Santedge Lifeguard system for the WRSB's (see pic attached)

Grey Weasel
6th May 2009, 07:23
Not that I am a lawyer or anything (done 1st year Law only) but surely given the above thread there is a good case to be made for negligent homicide or reckless endangerment or similar to be directed at the installers of such dangerous equipment in such an unsafe manner.

Nothing like a giant civil action against everyone involved all the way up to the relevent Minister to wake people up.

Show 'em a few clips of WWII movies where cheesecutter wire is commonly used to slay bike messengers - its common enough I have seen several versions :( Like a landmine for bikes, let the non-riders think of it like that.

sunhuntin
6th May 2009, 07:52
These non-safety barriers are installed in the most stupid places ( I have named one, for the pendants that will say they are also installed other, safer places).

Back to my original post here, Transit are charged with keeping the roads safe for ALL road users.

yep, like the one ive mentioned several times that was being erected on the left next to a lake down south. the lake was quite shallow near the road, and wouldnt have posed much danger to tourists too busy gawking rather than going around the corner. and also the 4 individual ones put on the invercargill/bluff road... a stretch of 20k, give or take. and its mostly straight! sheesh, talk about overkill.

Grahameeboy
6th May 2009, 10:48
The issue is not complicated...
The basic fact is that if you are on a motorcycle and for whatever reason hit a cheesecutter, you will suffer horrendous injuries, amputation of limbs or worse, and/or die. It's that simple.

So really the normall hazards of riding a motor bike?

I was actually referring to the barrier usage issue...but that has now been covered.

Grahameeboy
6th May 2009, 10:53
Partially, but the truth of the matter is that they do their job better and safer (for car occupants) than armco or concrete, cost saving is a bonus at the end of the day. Further to this they are unobtrusive during installation, are easily repaired, and can (generally) be taken down temporarily if needed.

When you look at it from a small to medium vehicle point of view they are pretty bloody awesome.

HOWEVER - I noted that all of the tests were done by freewheeling vehicles with no forces actiong on them during impact other than from the barrier itself - as with bikes during braking, the front of the vehicle tends to dive - so for sports cars and other vehicles with a slanting frontal design (i.e most cars) and a low height from the ground w.r.t to the top of the bonnet, I would assume that many cars would actually get caught below the wires rather than simply reflected as is shown in the tests.

Again, providing a protective shield/sheathing would almost eliminate this sort of effect and would not only make the barriers safer for motorcyclists, but for car occupants aswell.

See this document (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roads/rts/rts-11.pdf) - it states the guidelines for safety barrier installation - and after having a quick read through it you will see that nearly all roadside barriers will probably need modification in order to comply with the guidelines.

At a mininmum this would involve a system such as (or similar to) Mototub being installed on Armco/W-barrier, and a protective sheathing such as the Santedge Lifeguard system for the WRSB's (see pic attached)

I guess the intentions are good then just a lack of funds which will always be an issue here in NZ although having said that they are spending large on roads a the mo...

MSTRS
6th May 2009, 10:57
I guess the intentions are good then just a lack of funds which will always be an issue here in NZ although having said that they are spending large on roads a the mo...

Got nothing to do with that. About to spend $500,000 on rumble strips here in the Bay. Better than fkn cheesecutters, for us, tho.

Grahameeboy
6th May 2009, 11:02
Got nothing to do with that. About to spend $500,000 on rumble strips here in the Bay. Better than fkn cheesecutters, for us, tho.

Think my e-mail covers this.

Must admit when I hear that $400,000 is being spent to re-sand Torpedo Bay in Devonport when you have Cheltenham neaby and no parking they do have money to waste.

motorbyclist
6th May 2009, 11:42
let the non-riders think of it like that.

alas, i find most non-riders don't care until they see this:

<img src="http://cheesecutter.co.nz/images/CheeseCutterFalcon.jpg">

though, the ford falcon is hardly a common vehicle in this country - heck it's even an unusual shape! this would affect such a small percentage of road users it surely isn't an issue!
Yeah right.



I would assume that many cars would actually get caught below the wires rather than simply reflected as is shown in the tests.

yep!

sunhuntin
6th May 2009, 12:32
Got nothing to do with that. About to spend $500,000 on rumble strips here in the Bay. Better than fkn cheesecutters, for us, tho.

weve already got rumble strips here... i know they cover from just south of wangas to most of the way to welly. i think they are great. dad hates them cos he cant keep off the left hand ones, lol. must admit, they are horrid when youve got a headache. but even thats better than a cheese cutter, specially cos they allow you to cross over them to the verge safely.

Metalor
11th May 2009, 22:55
Partially, but the truth of the matter is that they do their job better and safer (for car occupants) than armco or concrete, cost saving is a bonus at the end of the day. Further to this they are unobtrusive during installation, are easily repaired, and can (generally) be taken down temporarily if needed.

When you look at it from a small to medium vehicle point of view they are pretty bloody awesome.

HOWEVER - I noted that all of the tests were done by freewheeling vehicles with no forces actiong on them during impact other than from the barrier itself - as with bikes during braking, the front of the vehicle tends to dive - so for sports cars and other vehicles with a slanting frontal design (i.e most cars) and a low height from the ground w.r.t to the top of the bonnet, I would assume that many cars would actually get caught below the wires rather than simply reflected as is shown in the tests.

Again, providing a protective shield/sheathing would almost eliminate this sort of effect and would not only make the barriers safer for motorcyclists, but for car occupants aswell.

See this document (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roads/rts/rts-11.pdf) - it states the guidelines for safety barrier installation - and after having a quick read through it you will see that nearly all roadside barriers will probably need modification in order to comply with the guidelines.

At a mininmum this would involve a system such as (or similar to) Mototub being installed on Armco/W-barrier, and a protective sheathing such as the Santedge Lifeguard system for the WRSB's (see pic attached)

Hah! I was reading through the thread and thought to myself a plastic cover to go over the top might help, possibly like the same plastic they make those temp barriers that lock together out of. They'd be cheap and fairly easy to install (I would imagine). Good to see someone has alrady thought of it :P

Sorry to hear someone came off on the wrong side of these things. I've been reading through the thread, cringing at your posts... I'm not good with yuck stuff.

monkeymcbean
11th May 2009, 23:35
You are welcome :yes:

As far as what barriers were there before the cheesecutter the answer often is none! These dangerous and un-safe barriers are popping up all over the place. They are not replacing other barrier types as much as being used instead of other, safer alternatives.

Look, I am the last person to condone un-safe and dangerous riding as you will be aware, but these barriers add an element of risk to MY own riding that I dont want to accept.

All I can say here is, if I am riding on an open road, happily minding my own business, taking into consideration all the things that we needs to as bikers, the last thing I need is to face oncoming traffic and see a vehicle cross the centre line. Normally I would be scrubbing off speed and looking for plan b to avoid a collision with oncoming dickhead in my space. If plan b is taken away from me with the installation of a WRunSB to my left I am left with 2 chances. None and fuck all!

These non-safety barriers are installed in the most stupid places ( I have named one, for the pendants that will say they are also installed other, safer places).

Back to my original post here, Transit are charged with keeping the roads safe for ALL road users.

I totally agree here, i think originally wire rope barriers was originally designed intended to only be used and installed 6 metres back from the road edge, or did i make that up?
Talk about overkill, man they are babying drivers, theres nothing like a good rumble tumble down a hill if ones not driving carefully, if your not killed then crikey youll pay more attention next time.
But yes, it takes the options away if your a motorcyclist and you need to make a quick exit to the side of the road or you go down sliding, im never very relaxed riding, when they line the edge of road.