Fair call for a barrier but cheese grater?

[sAsLEX]

When is the LTSA* going to realise these are a hazard and finally, like the EU are thinking of doing, ban the haphazard use of this "technology".

http://stuff.co.nz/4086104a10.html

* whatever Andy Dickhead is calling his organisation these days

[riffer]

Meh.

I've never heard of a local motorcyclist hitting one of these cheese cutters.

I hated them at first, but I've learned to live with them.

I ride this road daily. It's a worry. You have an elevated road with a river on one side and an empty space of grass before a hill on the other. The big problem is that there's no natural outside boundaries for the road, therefore no real way of knowing the edge (well it gives that impression). Couple that with a cost-cutting measure with Moonshine Bridge that causes the bridge to become a chicane which requires a drop of speed for most motorists of at least 20 km/hr, badly designed and engineered passing lanes, and - most ludicrous of all - the turnoff the Riverstone Terraces which requires motorists to stop and turn in front of traffic 50 metres on from the end of a 1km long passing lane (WTF???), and something has to be done.

There's always been a culture of excessive speed in the Upper Hutt valley, coupled with alcohol consumption before driving and general poor driving ability.

While I still hate the cheesecutters, I'm prepared to put up with them if it means there's no more head-ons on this road. But we also need to implement some other solutions:

1. Road goes right to the edge of the raised road. We need to define the edge.
2. We need to look at the Riverstone Terraces turnoff. Its dangerous
3. Ditch the passing lane before Riverstone Terraces turnoff. Firstly, it makes the turnoff dangerous. Secondly, it encourages racing to get to the end of the passing lane, which has the aforementioned turnoff right at the end, and then the chicane which is Moonshine Bridge 50 metres later.

[Babelfish]

Since when did the road powers-that-be give a large flying toss about motorbikes??? Makes perfect sense to me that they'd stick something as mean looking as the cheese graters onto the road. Then again, I wouldnt like to slam into a barrier either.

On the way up to Auckland over q's b'day I saw about 6 holes in the cheese graters on the Hamilton expressway where some dopey loons gone a bit fret bentos. All the "sticks" give way with the wire remaining, so if you head towards on, simply slide the bike in front of you to take the sticks out, slide under the big thick wire, back onto your feet on the other side, spring vault over the on coming car and flick flack to the opposite side of the road for a 10-10-10-10 from the judges. :drool:

[Hitcher]

Cheesegrater is cheap and easy to install. LTNZ cares not a shit for motorcyclists. HTFU.

[Drum]

So you would rather crash into a wooden and metal 'w-section' barrier? Or perhaps a concrete barrier is more to your liking?

The point is that the wire rope barrier is preferable to having a head on with a car. Like Riffer says, there is no history (in this country at least) of bikers hitting these barriers.

Remember that biker (RIP) killed just north of the Silverstream turnoff last year? I wonder what he would think about the merits of the wire rope barrier?

[avgas]

When is the LTSA* going to realise these are a hazard and finally, like the EU are thinking of doing, ban the haphazard use of this "technology".

http://stuff.co.nz/4086104a10.html

* whatever Andy Dickhead is calling his organisation these days
Ever gone through the local farmers fence?

[peasea]

Cheesegrater is cheap and easy to install. LTNZ cares not a shit for motorcyclists. HTFU.


You'd be right there, I wonder how many of the goons who make the big decisions have ever ridden a motorcycle? Some years ago, as secreatary of the American Classic Car Club I wrote submissions regarding LHD rules etc. Three of the five on the board fiddling with the regulations admitted that they didn't even drive! WTF?

Surely some barrier is better than none; a cheesecutter will offer at least a modicom of protection against wayward dorks and while I don't like the idea of hitting any barrier I'm not going to stay home for the rest of my life, just in case. Better the LTNZ does something rather than nothing but I've ridden that road many a time, I don't see any problem with it; the problem is to do with some of the people who use it.

[MisterD]

At least, by and large, hitting the barrier or not is under your own control. There's f-all you can control about a car on the wrong side of the road.

[Devil]

Or perhaps a concrete barrier is more to your liking?


Studies have shown that motorcyclists involved in a collision with a concrete barrier as opposed to a wire rope barrier, are less likely to die.

[riffer]

So don't hit the bloody barrier.

Sorry, you're not convincing me Devil. Hitting ANYTHING on a bike is not good.

I'll take my chances with the cheese cutters if they'll keep the cages on THEIR side of the road.

Pesea and Drum are right on the money. :yes:

And as for avgas, he's getting bling for that one.

[scumdog]

So you would rather crash into a wooden and metal 'w-section' barrier? Or perhaps a concrete barrier is more to your liking?

The point is that the wire rope barrier is preferable to having a head on with a car. Like Riffer says, there is no history (in this country at least) of bikers hitting these barriers.

Remember that biker (RIP) killed just north of the Silverstream turnoff last year? I wonder what he would think about the merits of the wire rope barrier?

So, so true, this site is full of "Chicken Littles" (The sky is falling, the sky is falling) types. Sure, they look ugly and dangerous - but so is a crocodile, treat both with a fair amount of respect and you shouldn't get hurt.
Screw up and they'll both eat you.

(OK, so sometimes an innocent person get 'bit' at times - but that's life)

[Devil]

So don't hit the bloody barrier.

I'm sure we'll all get the choice should it come to it.

If a road deserves a barrier, i'm in the camp that it should be done properly with all things considered. Not a half-assed solution which is oh-so-common in NZ.

My position is that there should be no need for a barrier in the first place, if people put the act of driving further up their priority list ahead of playing with the radio, smacking the kids, yakking to their passenger, drinking or taking drugs.

[KoroJ]

Just for the record (and to do a 'Hitcher')

A Cheese grater has holes and a cheese slice has just one wire.

A better analogy here would be an egg slicer. (they have lots of wires).

They keep the cages off each other and stop us from overtaking or sliding through the traffic.

Just remember...If you ride like an egg, you'll get sliced.

[James Deuce]

So you would rather crash into a wooden and metal 'w-section' barrier? Or perhaps a concrete barrier is more to your liking?

The point is that the wire rope barrier is preferable to having a head on with a car. Like Riffer says, there is no history (in this country at least) of bikers hitting these barriers.

Remember that biker (RIP) killed just north of the Silverstream turnoff last year? I wonder what he would think about the merits of the wire rope barrier?

I 'd rather hit concrete. I've done it a couple of times and it is one impact that winds you and may break some small bones if you are unlucky. At the angle I hit the concrete I gently kissed it and slid along it. You CANNOT slide along a cheese grater. You will get tangled up in it and slowed down MUCH quicker, breaking limbs or maybe even loosing them.

There are many, many reported incidents of cars and trucks mounting and going over the top of the cheese grater barrier and into incoming traffic in overseas studies. So much so that there has been a cover developed for them that stops the posts from pulling vehicles over the barrier. An Australian motorcyclist was beheaded by debris from just such an accident at Christmas time. If you hit a concrete barrier in a car you bounce back into traffic traveling in the same direction as you, thereby reducing the effects of inertia.

We won't talk about the time I got flicked over the concrete barrier and into oncoming traffic.

But yes, I would prefer concrete thanks.

A much better idea for River Rd would be to build up the embankment and put the Southbound lanes on the other side of the river, and North of Moonshine Rd make sure there is a 10 m central reservation until you get to the last Bridge before Caltex Rimutaka.

[Grahameeboy]

Yep Jim2 I think I would rather hit concrete than get tangled in wire....

[Drum]

And the cost of a concrete barrier versus a wire rope barrier? It's about 5 fold.

Transit will happily install concrete barriers everywhere if you want to pay for them.

[James Deuce]

We already do pay for them. Conservative estimates of funding collected for the purpose of general roading are well within the requirements of developing a modern roading system in NZ, including transmission Gully and the Eastern Corridor in Auckland.

Except it doesn't go to roading, does it? It goes to Social Welfare.

There's always a justification for killing motorcyclists, and it usually comes down to cost. Just because it hasn't happened here (not that we'd know, because I doubt a crash investigation for a motorcycle "accident" that involved a fatality and a wire rope barrier would involve any other conclusion than, "Speed may have been a factor") doesn't mean someone we know won't get ripped to bits by a wire barrier or hit by a vehicle vaulting over an improperly installed one.

[Pancakes]

Lets play a game; (all bullshit figures but you get the idea).

I'm the LTSA, we need to stop things crossing the centreline, 98% of traffic is saloons and stationwagons 1200-1600kg's. Good, thats the ones we need to stop. We have a million $'s and need to cover 100,000km's. Concrete barriers cost $20/m, all the money gets used up and we only cover 50,000km's. If the parts we don't do have a fatal head-on on them we come under fire. Wire barriers are $5/m, we get a bonus for coming in underbudget.

See, easy desicion really,

Where are bikes? In the 2% "other" section on the stats. Ride safe and stay off the radar, while we are a minority we aren't worth the effort to legislate against either.

[clint640]

I can see the argument for putting these things down the centre of some roads, though it is a cheap solution that I don't like at all...

But WTF is with these wire barriers springing up on the outside of corners & suchlike all over the lower Sth Is? Again, if it's a huge sheer drop we're being protected from I can see the (cheap & dangerous) logic but lots of them are only stopping you from rolling down a scrubby bank. If I owned property next to a major road & put up a structure like that right on the edge I bet there'd be a demand for it's removal & a threat of a huge fine within hours.

Cheers
Clint

[swbarnett]

(OK, so sometimes an innocent person get 'bit' at times - but that's life)

So what you're saying is that we should all toughen up and look after ourselves?
What's the difference between wire barriers and speeding? Ticketing speeding gives the Government revenue and installing rope barriers saves them money. It's all about money in the end.

[swbarnett]

At least two European countries have banned wire-rope barriers and Belgium has committed to removing a certain length every year (got the exact details at home somewhere).

You probably know already about the biker that was decapitated by wire-rope barriers north of Sydney after running over a ladder that fell of the top of a ute.

The problem that I have with wire rope barriers is that they are installed with disregard of the manufacturers instructions that state they should be installed 6m from the edge of the traffic flow. On SH1 around Rangariri (north of Huntly) they are just thrown on the white line dividing two opposing lanes.

I also don't like the idea of any barrier that creates a narrow corridor. In the same area mentioned above there are barriers either side of the lane meaning there is nowhere to go if you need to escape (maybe you blow a tyre with a truck tailgating...).

[scumdog]

I also don't like the idea of any barrier that creates a narrow corridor. In the same area mentioned above there are barriers either side of the lane meaning there is nowhere to go if you need to escape (maybe you blow a tyre with a truck tailgating...).

So instead you like the chance of running across into the opposing traffic?
You're a better rider than me sunshine if you can react and ride quick enough to cope with a blow-out while being tailgated.

[swbarnett]

So instead you like the chance of running across into the opposing traffic?

I don't mind the central barrier as long as there's space for it, it's the one on the left I don't like.


You're a better rider than me sunshine if you can react and ride quick enough to cope with a blow-out while being tailgated.

Fair call, a "blow-out" would be way too fast. If you get a puncture though I'd at least like room to pull left and get out of the way.

[Reckless]

So you would rather crash into a wooden and metal 'w-section' barrier? Or perhaps a concrete barrier is more to your liking?

The point is that the wire rope barrier is preferable to having a head on with a car. Like Riffer says, there is no history (in this country at least) of bikers hitting these barriers.

Remember that biker (RIP) killed just north of the Silverstream turnoff last year? I wonder what he would think about the merits of the wire rope barrier?

There is no history of bikers gettin killed by these because they immediatly scare the shit out of us and we become very wary. The one outa Huntly is very close to you and looks like it will do serious serious damage. If they put one down that motorway bypass in Upper Hutt you will be travelliing nicely and quietly behind the car in front thats for sure. I think its the fear factor that makes them work even for cages.



We already do pay for them. Conservative estimates of funding collected for the purpose of general roading are well within the requirements of developing a modern roading system in NZ, including transmission Gully and the Eastern Corridor in Auckland.

Except it doesn't go to roading, does it? It goes to Social Welfare.

There's always a justification for killing motorcyclists, and it usually comes down to cost. Just because it hasn't happened here (not that we'd know, because I doubt a crash investigation for a motorcycle "accident" that involved a fatality and a wire rope barrier would involve any other conclusion than, "Speed may have been a factor") doesn't mean someone we know won't get ripped to bits by a wire barrier or hit by a vehicle vaulting over an improperly installed one.


Point one Jim Agreed. Even the AA has been saying that for years now. Auckland and Wellington are gonna have to pay extra on their petrol for those projects that should been done years ago when the costs where 1/2 what they are now.
Point 2: Don't the LTSA have some formula that is "lives vs dollars". They don't spend money on roading black spots until it starts to cost more in medical/lives than fixing the road. Great way to decide which roads have to be fixed. Although that road along Parparumu instead of Transmission gully is costing lives although not enough as it still doesn'y qualify.

[sAsLEX]

I don't mind the central barrier as long as there's space for it, it's the one on the left I don't like.




And as pointed out above often the one on the left is to protect the grass on the side from people praking there. It removes the ability for people to stop in an emergency/engine trouble and cuts off an escape route. Silly. I mean most roads ie 98% of them in NZ have no barrier on the left but for some reason when they place a barrier in the centre to stop head-ons they feel inclined to add one on the left as well!?

[peasea]

And as pointed out above often the one on the left is to protect the grass on the side from people praking there. It removes the ability for people to stop in an emergency/engine trouble and cuts off an escape route. Silly. I mean most roads ie 98% of them in NZ have no barrier on the left but for some reason when they place a barrier in the centre to stop head-ons they feel inclined to add one on the left as well!?

I was discussing this with a bloke from Works the other day; it's a spacial, psychological thing and it was an interesting conversation. If people 'think' they have less room, they tend to slow down. He mentioned the concrete barriers that are put into place on motorways when road works are going on and they have those boards tacked on top. It's not so much for the rubber-neckers (although it reduces that too) it's to create the illusion of having less space; a kind of 'tunnelling' or 'funnelling' effect. People get off the gas even though the actual amount of road they have hasn't changed.

Put a wire barrier in the centre, people keep motoring along, put a second one on the left, people instinctively slow down. Weird but true.

[Reckless]

I can see the logic in that peasea. But for me its thinking some cager is gonna do something stupid when I'm nipping past him and I'm gonna get my head caught in those criss crossing wires, while the other parts of me are wrapped around those posts. They give me the shits quite frankly. I suppose if they read this they'll put more up now!!

[swbarnett]

If people 'think' they have less room, they tend to slow down.

Great! Yet more perceived safety at the cost of actual safety!

[scumdog]

I was discussing this with a bloke from Works the other day; it's a spacial, psychological thing and it was an interesting conversation. If people 'think' they have less room, they tend to slow down. He mentioned the concrete barriers that are put into place on motorways when road works are going on and they have those boards tacked on top. It's not so much for the rubber-neckers (although it reduces that too) it's to create the illusion of having less space; a kind of 'tunnelling' or 'funnelling' effect. People get off the gas even though the actual amount of road they have hasn't changed.

Put a wire barrier in the centre, people keep motoring along, put a second one on the left, people instinctively slow down. Weird but true.

True dat.

Hence why people do 85kph on the open road - then do 115kph when they get to passing lanes.

Wider road - perceived to be safer ergo 'lets speed up':yes:

[Hitcher]

Hence why people do 85kph on the open road - then do 115kph when they get to passing lanes.

Death to them. And may they burn for all eternity in a very hot fiery pit.

[Reckless]

Death to them. And may they burn for all eternity in a very hot fiery pit.


Amen! the're the ones that do 50k when they get to a corner aswell.

[candor]

European bikers talked Govts into springing for "cellbond composite" energy absorber padding or else mototub buffers which get rid of the grater risk.
Last I heard all "stake holders" were happy with that.

Here Govts arms should be able to be twisted especially given how they are pushing people to leave the car at home for the environment. With ACC like it is bikers deserve it.

The latest plan for road funding with the merger of transit / LTNZ is for road taxes to actually go to roading. But it will be decentralised and priorities decided by regional bodies (via regional councils I think). So says report on why LTNZ/Transit is being reconfigured.

These bodies will get funding dependent on the population / local tax take.
So this should further disadvantage low population areas even if their roads are busy with tourists or other visitors.

This should also destroy any hope of a first class National Highway system between all main centres. And will take blame off Govt for the road toll, since the responsibility buck for safer roads will be divided between many many different bodies.

I guess this means that if safe cheesegraters are wanted (via claddings) there will be no one organisation to deal with over this in the near future - instead many who will be harder to put on the spot.

We're being decentralised and divided into a bunch of principalities. No wonder this conference I'm off to is called "one nation - ten cultures".

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?DocID=5917 The most mind numbing report EVER tells all about it

[Drum]

..........We're being decentralised and divided into a bunch of principalities. ....

I haven't read the report yet, but I will when I get a chance.

On the face of it this seems like a giant leap backwards.

[mdooher]

And the cost of a concrete barrier versus a wire rope barrier? It's about 5 fold.

Transit will happily install concrete barriers everywhere if you want to pay for them.

Actually the main reason the UK has decided to stop installing the wire rope barriers and to replace the ones that have been installed with concrete ones is that over their lifetime concrete is far cheaper.

Interestingly despite some saying they wouldn’t mind hitting a wire rope barrier on their bike they clearly have never hit one. One study showed an 85% chance of a limb amputation or decapitation. As long as you hit the concrete at a shallow angle you just slide along it assuming you are wearing the right gear and you haven’t angered the gods lately.

I posted the links to these studies and the press releases showing the European countries that have banned this stuff a while ago. Apparently “New Zealand conditions” are different than Europe….probably means we have unskilled managers with no balls to tell the bean counters to fuck off and leave the design of roading with engineers.

Good roads cost money. Cheap fixes cost lives.

[Drum]

Actually the main reason the UK has decided to stop installing the wire rope barriers and to replace the ones that have been installed with concrete ones is that over their lifetime concrete is far cheaper.

All I can say is that the study has also been done here and that is not the case. The life cycle cost for the wire ropes is cheaper here.

I don't think anyone wants to ride into a wire rope barrier. But given the unsavoury choice between hitting a wire rope barrier and a head on with a car, I know which I would prefer.

Here is the simple fact: There is not enough money available (for whatever reason) to install concrete barriers along our undivided highways. It is either the cheaper wire rope variety, or nothing.

Is this ideal? No. Is it reality? Yes.

You want to change the way the system works so that more money is available to install better barrier systems? Go ahead, we will all be happy.

[swbarnett]

But given the unsavoury choice between hitting a wire rope barrier and a head on with a car, I know which I would prefer.

From what I can gather the survival chances are better in a head on collision than a gentle slide into a wire rope barrier.


There is not enough money available (for whatever reason) to install concrete barriers along our undivided highways.

If all the petrol levy was put into roads as intended we'd probably have plenty.


It is either the cheaper wire rope variety, or nothing.

If this is the case then they could at least install them properly. The manufacturer stipulates a clearance of 6m (could be 6ft - bad memory) between the traffic lane and the barrier. Here there is most often no clearance when they are placed in the centre of the road.

[Drum]

"From what I can gather the survival chances are better in a head on collision than a gentle slide into a wire rope barrier".

I haven't seen any data that backs up that assumption, but I know which I would prefer.

"If all the petrol levy was put into roads as intended we'd probably have plenty".

Quite likely. Again, I say if you want to change the system go ahead. We will all be happy.

"If this is the case then they could at least install them properly. The manufacturer stipulates a clearance of 6m (could be 6ft - bad memory) between the traffic lane and the barrier. Here there is most often no clearance when they are placed in the centre of the road".

The 6m figure is not correct, but you are correct in the observation that they are seldom installed correctly. This is also done for budgetary reasons and is, in my opinion, unforgiveable.

[swbarnett]

"From what I can gather the survival chances are better in a head on collision than a gentle slide into a wire rope barrier".

I haven't seen any data that backs up that assumption, but I know which I would prefer.

Agreed, this is not based on any data. Just a personal thing that I'd rather hit something solid that I've got a fair chance of flying over than get tangled up in a wire net.


The 6m figure is not correct

Does anyone have the correct figure? I forget where I saw this.

[Drum]

Table 7.1 of Transits State Highway Geometric Design Manual specifies minimum offsets from the traffic lane depending on speed (see attached). This distance is 2m at 100 km/h. However, minimum deflection of 3m should be assumed for a wire rope barrier, because at a 2m offset the car would extend 1m into the opposing lane.

So a minimum of 3m from the edge line should be allowed. If the barrier is located on a central median then you need 3m either side, or the 6m figure that you had arrived at. Sadly, they are seldom installed to these standards.

[jafar]

Table 7.1 of Transits State Highway Geometric Design Manual specifies minimum offsets from the traffic lane depending on speed (see attached). This distance is 2m at 100 km/h. However, minimum deflection of 3m should be assumed for a wire rope barrier, because at a 2m offset the car would extend 1m into the opposing lane.

So a minimum of 3m from the edge line should be allowed. If the barrier is located on a central median then you need 3m either side, or the 6m figure that you had arrived at. Sadly, they are seldom installed to these standards.

If the TRANSIT manual states a minimum & TRANSIT installs these barriers incorrectly then wouldn't TRANSIT or their installation contractor be liable for prosecution when these barriers fail to do what they should do ??

The simple facts seem to be that these cheese slicers are designed for cars only, a runaway truck will simply run over them & into oncoming traffic.

Motorcyclist's are regarded as temporary citizens anyway, so their ability to survive a close encounter with this type of barrier doesn't matter.

Far better to spend the money on cheese slicers than decent barriers (concrete). This free's up even more money for gov't sponsored "hip-hop" tours to the states for delinquent arsewipes .:Punk:

[Drum]

"If the TRANSIT manual states a minimum & TRANSIT installs these barriers incorrectly then wouldn't TRANSIT or their installation contractor be liable for prosecution when these barriers fail to do what they should do ??"

Probably. Hasn't been tested to my knowledge.

The simple facts seem to be that these cheese slicers are designed for cars only, a runaway truck will simply run over them & into oncoming traffic.

Yep, seen it happen.

Motorcyclist's are regarded as temporary citizens anyway, so their ability to survive a close encounter with this type of barrier doesn't matter.

More like we're not considered at all.

Far better to spend the money on cheese slicers than decent barriers (concrete). This free's up even more money for gov't sponsored "hip-hop" tours to the states for delinquent arsewipes

The next election ain't too far away mate.

[Pancakes]

All I can say is that the study has also been done here and that is not the case. The life cycle cost for the wire ropes is cheaper here.

I don't think anyone wants to ride into a wire rope barrier. But given the unsavoury choice between hitting a wire rope barrier and a head on with a car, I know which I would prefer.

Here is the simple fact: There is not enough money available (for whatever reason) to install concrete barriers along our undivided highways. It is either the cheaper wire rope variety, or nothing.

Is this ideal? No. Is it reality? Yes.

You want to change the way the system works so that more money is available to install better barrier systems? Go ahead, we will all be happy.

Lots of good valid comments from you Drum, rep zooming thru the interweb for you:yes:. Simon Barnett? you ride a GN now? Shiver-me-timbers! I would rather hit nothing at all if we get to pick! I've clipped a wing-mirror or two to scold the odd errant driver while I'm splitting and going the same way with maybe a 40kph speed differential and the wing mirrors give way and it can still really hurt your hand! I've never put my bike down but have crashed my bicycles (road bikes and BMX in the forrest and jumping) and not going that fast when I actually came off and it hurts fricken bad, had cracked skull, pelvis, ankles, vertibrae. If you do leap so the oncoming car hits your bike and you go over your gonna get wasted even if the next car doesn't roll right over you. If we hit anything it's gonna hurt, for a shallow angle slide the concrete would be better but NZ is rulled by accountants, the real shame is they're not even very good ones!

SWB, you should go under a wire rope fast and see if you can't get that wicked crew-cut back!!

[swbarnett]

Simon Barnett?

No, Stephen (no relation that I know of).


I would rather hit nothing at all if we get to pick!

Indeed.


If we hit anything it's gonna hurt

Agreed. Perhaps irrationaly I get the impression from the experiences of others that the injuries from an impact with a solid object are more repairable than the maiming and decapitation you will likely get from the wire ropes barriers. Also, if you head-on in to a car there's a chance you'll fly over it but you won't go over the wire rope barrier if you slide into it.

[sunhuntin]

americans are plagued by these wire ropes as well... call em frog in a blender! i thought the usa was meant to be ahead of everybody, not behind.

[kiwi cowboy]

True dat.

Hence why people do 85kph on the open road - then do 115kph when they get to passing lanes.

Wider road - perceived to be safer ergo 'lets speed up':yes:

an ant that farrrrrrrrrrrrkn frustratin:Punk:

[scumdog]

No, Stephen (no relation that I know of).



Indeed.



Agreed. Perhaps irrationaly I get the impression from the experiences of others that the injuries from an impact with a solid object are more repairable than the maiming and decapitation you will likely get from the wire ropes barriers. Also, if you head-on in to a car there's a chance you'll fly over it but you won't go over the wire rope barrier if you slide into it.

Soooo, after all the above discussion, how many NZ motorcyclists HAVE been kille/maimed by these 'cheese-grater' barrier??

As say opposed to those killed by cars crossing the centre of the road????

[NordieBoy]

Soooo, after all the above discussion, how many NZ motorcyclists HAVE been kille/maimed by these 'cheese-grater' barrier??

As say opposed to those killed by cars crossing the centre of the road????

Are there any stats on how many bikes have hit them at all?

[Hitcher]

Soooo, after all the above discussion, how many NZ motorcyclists HAVE been killed/maimed by these 'cheese-grater' barrier??

As say opposed to those killed by cars crossing the centre of the road????

Aww fuck. That's all we need. A voice of sense and reason to destroy our bigotted and inane ramblings. But that's not the point!

[jafar]

Soooo, after all the above discussion, how many NZ motorcyclists HAVE been kille/maimed by these 'cheese-grater' barrier??

As say opposed to those killed by cars crossing the centre of the road????

I don't know the stats or even if there are any but ..... there are far more cars comming @ you in a day than there are cheese graters to ride past , so the point is lost.
Just one rider being sliced up on these things would be one to many.

[Drum]

........so the point is lost...........

Or is it? You are talking about exposure to a head on versus a barrier strike and that is in fact the entire point.

[swbarnett]

I don't know the stats or even if there are any but ..... there are far more cars comming @ you in a day than there are cheese graters to ride past , so the point is lost.
Just one rider being sliced up on these things would be one to many.

And how many of those cars are coming at you on your side of the road? i.e. What, really IS the risk of a head-on anyway? Is it any higher than the risk of sliding into a cheese-grater?

[Pancakes]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[jafar]

Or is it? You are talking about exposure to a head on versus a barrier strike and that is in fact the entire point.


The point is or @ least should be that these 'cheese grater' type barriers are hazardous to our health, a concrete barrier would be far preferable not only for motorcyclists but also for the general population.
As stated previously
1/ a truck can & will cross a cheese grater with comparative ease
2/ a motorcyclist is far more likely to lose limbs or worse when comming into contact with said cheese grater @ speed than he would be if there was a concrete barrier.

QUOTE=swbarnett;1116584]And how many of those cars are coming at you on your side of the road? i.e. What, really IS the risk of a head-on anyway? Is it any higher than the risk of sliding into a cheese-grater?[/QUOTE]

Dunno, but the risk of a head on is less with a barrier

[swbarnett]

Dunno, but the risk of a head on is less with a barrier

I suppose it comes down to whether the risk of an intimate moment with a barrier is less than the risk of a head-on without a barrier.

[Pancakes]

With cost seeming to be the deciding factor i don't think the option is rope or barrier I think it's rope or nothing, maybe at best rope or some barrier and you better hope the guy who's fallen asleep in the oncoming lane doesn't doze of in the gaps! I would like to just point out that a bazillion posts won't do jack but a lobby group in a country as small as NZ and with the rules that signatures for petions must be from residents not constituents of that actual council (etc) area getting some heft support isn't a major if you actually think your own time is worth it and you come up with a catchy enough line to hook people in.



Simon Barnett has a high public profile even after all these years and may be the "face" of this great new safety campaign if we play our cards right!

[jafar]

I suppose it comes down to whether the risk of an intimate moment with a barrier is less than the risk of a head-on without a barrier.

The way i see it the question is ; the risk of an intimate moment with a cheese grater or a concrete barrier. My preference would be to not have either , but if I had to have one or the other then I'd rather take my chances with the concrete barrier.
Head on smacks are a different debate

[Delphinus]

But if you're going to do a job... why don't you do it properly? Is there anything that can be done to make the bean counters think outside the cage?

[jafar]

But if you're going to do a job... why dont you do it propery? Is there anything that can be done to make the bean counters think outside the cage?

Strap them to a bike & launch them @ a cheese grater perhaps ?:shutup:

[Pancakes]

But if you're going to do a job... why dont you do it propery?

The same crowd doing this job properly are sorting out "Kiwisaver", the Police, Immigration, Making sure kids don't get abused and ensuring quality free education etc, 'nuff said. Oh and making it illegal for the press to nark on them to their employer (us) when they do stupid crap at work. Sheesh!

Ay Delphinius, your a man with a porpoise, you and Simon could run the barriers campaign?

What really grates me is the use of the term "accident", You accidentally drop your coffee when you pick it up the same way you always have and while paying full attention the handle just drops off! Changing a CD or reading the paper/talking on your phone while driving and plowing into something cos your mind was somewhere else isn't an accident, it's C following A and B.

[Delphinus]

Ay Delphinius, your a man with a porpoise, you and Simon could run the barriers campaign?

Bloody oath... I'd do it if I had the time... Running a couple of businesses doesn't leave much of that though!

[peasea]

Soooo, after all the above discussion, how many NZ motorcyclists HAVE been kille/maimed by these 'cheese-grater' barrier??

As say opposed to those killed by cars crossing the centre of the road????

Look, it happened to me. One of those cheese slicer thingys completely destroyed my law-abiding senses, as well as my memory. I can't recall the accident I may or may not have had but I still feel the urge to travel at 111kph on the open road. It defies logic.

One day I might ride at high speed (as high as an aged FXR can travel at, probably 111kph) into a concrete barrier to see if my senses return.

My god, have you people nothing better to do? I just bought myself (ourselves?) a new bike lift and can't wait until the machines are due for their next oil change to;

1) Give the new tool a workout (coz the old one's gone soft) and
2) Get a life again, coz KB's resembling my old tool.:zzzz:

[swbarnett]

, but if I had to have one or the other then I'd rather take my chances with the concrete barrier.
Head on smacks are a different debate

Indeed, this is the crux of the matter.

[Reckless]

Maybe the figures suggest (if there are any) these barriers are doing their Job. I dunno.
Maybe there are a lot less accidents along those areas cause as a biker when riding along side one of those nasty things I slow down, stay in line and be a good boy. The cagers might be the same. They are very threatening. Therefore it might be the case from the LTSA side that there are far less accidents in these areas.
The above doesn't mean I agree with them. Just a different perspective and an argument you may come up against. Remember these are the guys that alocate road fixs with a "death Vs cost" equation and seem to refuse to accept the condition of our roads have anything to do with our high accident rates.

[swbarnett]

I slow down, stay in line and be a good boy.

I'd rather keep my speed up if I've got cages behind me.


The cagers might be the same.

The trouble is when you get one slowing down and the one behind them getting frustrated - makes for a dangerous situation.



They are very threatening. Therefore it might be the case from the LTSA side that there are far less accidents in these areas.

You may be right. Does anyone have any figures that would answer the above?

[Reckless]

Oh SW! My fault. By slow down I mean back to the speed of the cars not actually like "go slow".

[swbarnett]

Oh SW! My fault. By slow down I mean back to the speed of the cars not actually like "go slow".

Obvious now that you mention it...

[Zapf]

Look, it happened to me. One of those cheese slicer thingys completely destroyed my law-abiding senses, as well as my memory. I can't recall the accident I may or may not have had but I still feel the urge to travel at 111kph on the open road. It defies logic.

One day I might ride at high speed (as high as an aged FXR can travel at, probably 111kph) into a concrete barrier to see if my senses return.

My god, have you people nothing better to do? I just bought myself (ourselves?) a new bike lift and can't wait until the machines are due for their next oil change to;

1) Give the new tool a workout (coz the old one's gone soft) and
2) Get a life again, coz KB's resembling my old tool.:zzzz:

we have our answers now.

[terbang]

We hear terms a lot now days in aviation like 'safety at a reasonable cost' and 'acceptable hull losses'. Buzz phrases invented by people, well removed from the reality of accidents, to justify pulling the purse strings on some of the fundamentals of aviation safety. Believe me, when you climb onto an aircraft, there is a calulated risk for your life to be sacrificed as one of the above..! Sure to us at the coal face, the safety people (pilots, drivers operators) we would like to take a zero tolerance to accidents and not spare the cost to mitigate the effects of such a calamity. I guess that road safety is the same, there are the frontliners (cops I guess) that are always in a constant battle/compromise with the bean counters who would rather only pay for a cheese cutter barrier above a more substantial one. We bikers will always be looked upon as an annoying minority and treated accordingly, not only by the decision makers but also the general public. However there is an old saying 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil'. lets become a squeaky wheel..!

[Grahameeboy]

Are we not jumping too early?

Just to look at from another angle, as I do.

By most other countries standards, we have a small population so roads less congested so what works or doesn't work for other countries may not apply to NZ.

Take UK for eg, cars travel at closer to 90mph with a lot more traffic.

What are the 'fatality' statistics involving these cheesecutter barriers?

Yes Dan's case was tragic (especially having met him on rides), however, was it the barrier that failed to save him? Even with the best barrier money can buy, the way the bike hits the barrier, the way the rider moves / falls and so many more factors can determine the riders survival chances.

I had an hit and run accident where I was thrown approx 50 feet in the air and landed on my back, narrowly missing a shop window and post. I got up and all I got was bad back ache for a year...Police were amazed I survived.......so a few inches difference and I would have said hello to a shop window, post....well you know what I am saying.

You could have the best barrier in the business and still have a tragic loss of life...........what if say a lorry hits the barrier and bits fly off onto the other side of the road killing an oncoming motorcyclist, or bounces off into a motorcyclist.

What is sad that within 24 hours of Dan's accident, there are more posts about barriers than Dan..........

Life is fragile and turns on the toss of a coin, not just a barrier.

Red rep awaited.

[Grahameeboy]

Maybe the figures suggest (if there are any) these barriers are doing their Job. I dunno.
Maybe there are a lot less accidents along those areas cause as a biker when riding along side one of those nasty things I slow down, stay in line and be a good boy. The cagers might be the same. They are very threatening. Therefore it might be the case from the LTSA side that there are far less accidents in these areas.
The above doesn't mean I agree with them. Just a different perspective and an argument you may come up against. Remember these are the guys that alocate road fixs with a "death Vs cost" equation and seem to refuse to accept the condition of our roads have anything to do with our high accident rates.

Road conditions are not responsible for NZ high accident rates...........you drive to the conditions and that means roads, not just weather.

If you ride along the back roads, then you know you could meet a tractor, cow or gravel so you ride to the conditions.

It is because generally NZ has drivers who lack the intelligence to drive properly and safely...............'Dream Drivers'...........think they are invincible like the AB's.......'I'll be right'.

When drivers start looking within rather than finding something else to blame??

[sAsLEX]

Road conditions are not responsible for NZ high accident rates...........you drive to the conditions and that means roads, not just weather.


Yeah some of you your B roads over here put SH22 in the realms of a racetrack smooth
!



Yes Dan's case was tragic (especially having met him on rides), however, was it the barrier that failed to save him? Even with the best barrier money can buy, the way the bike hits the barrier, the way the rider moves / falls and so many more factors can determine the riders survival chances.


Yeah but having a barrier that has an inherent danger to riders does not help the situation, the use of a concrete barrier like the motorway further towards the city for example stops traffic crossing the centre line but also presents far less danger to riders.

[Ixion]

Are we not jumping too early?

...

...

No. We are not. Too late if anything. How many more cut-in-half motorcyclists do you require before 'jumping in'?

The argument that 'life is fragile' etc is not valid. The objection we have is not to barriers, but to the wilful installation of a barrier type that is known to be lethal , when there are other barrier options which are safer. It is exactly the same logic that requires cars to have safety glass in their windscreens. Car manufacturers are forbidden to use ordinary glass, because there is a safer alternative available. There are many other similar requirements. Why should not Transit be required to follow the same safety logic that they implose on others?

Life is indeed fragile, but the fact that we cannot guarantee safety in all circumstances (and would not wish to) is no reason why Transit should be allowed to deliberately choose a barrier method that is manifestly unnecessarily dangerous to us. We cannot eliminate all hazards but we need not supinely accept having unnecessary ones deliberately placed about us.

[Bren]

What is sad that within 24 hours of Dan's accident, there are more posts about barriers than Dan..........

Red rep awaited.

No red rep from me....I agree with ya mate

[swbarnett]

What is sad that within 24 hours of Dan's accident, there are more posts about barriers than Dan..........

Life is fragile and turns on the toss of a coin, not just a barrier.

Red rep awaited.
We honour Dan by our efforts to ensure that this kind of senseless death is not repeated.

[Grahameeboy]

No. We are not. Too late if anything. How many more cut-in-half motorcyclists do you require before 'jumping in'?

The argument that 'life is fragile' etc is not valid. The objection we have is not to barriers, but to the wilful installation of a barrier type that is known to be lethal , when there are other barrier options which are safer. It is exactly the same logic that requires cars to have safety glass in their windscreens. Car manufacturers are forbidden to use ordinary glass, because there is a safer alternative available. There are many other similar requirements. Why should not Transit be required to follow the same safety logic that they implose on others?

Life is indeed fragile, but the fact that we cannot guarantee safety in all circumstances (and would not wish to) is no reason why Transit should be allowed to deliberately choose a barrier method that is manifestly unnecessarily dangerous to us. We cannot eliminate all hazards but we need not supinely accept having unnecessary ones deliberately placed about us.

I knew you would say that but all I am saying is that we are jumping the gun before the full facts are known so you answer has prooved my point.

I am sure that Transit NZ, whether right or wrong, has not deliberately choosen a dangerous barrier method. Sill to suggest that.

[Grahameeboy]

We honour Dan by our efforts to ensure that this kind of senseless death is not repeated.

Fair point, however, lets get the facts first. Any death on a motorbike is senseless anyway, we just need to establish whether the barrier was the key factor or whether Dan would have died anyway.

Then we can honour as you suggest.

[jafar]

I am sure that Transit NZ, whether right or wrong, has not deliberately choosen a dangerous barrier method. Sill to suggest that.

I doubt they have chosen the cheese cutter barriers based on anything more than cost. This type of barrier is effective on holding cars but I would guess useless against a fully loaded truck & lethal against a motorcycle.
As cars make up the majority of road traffic then that is what they are designed for.

[Reckless]

well last time I went to Kiimmy's with the MX bikes. I noticed they have the bloody things each side of the Lane and very very close! Dangerously so in my opinion. Yes thats one on the center line aswell.
They give me the shits even in the 4x4. I don't know whether this is because I'm shit scared of them on the bike or not. But I think they are very very dangerous and threatening.
Maybe that what makes that piece of road so called safer, because even the dumb shit cage drivers are scared of them. God forbid I'm ever in the situation I get caught in someone elses mistake when those are around. If you hit them your dead or very very mangled up. Quite frankly if they can't put concrete down the centre they shouldn't put anything in my humble opinion.

[MSTRS]

...I am sure that Transit NZ, whether right or wrong, has not deliberately chosen a dangerous barrier method....

They did chose. In the face of (safer?) alternatives. How could any decision NOT be deliberate?
Are you saying 'they' put all the possibilities in a hat and a blindfolded bureaucrat was randomly selected to pull out the one 'they' used??

[Swoop]

This type of barrier is effective on holding cars but I would guess useless against a fully loaded truck & lethal against a motorcycle.
As cars make up the majority of road traffic then that is what they are designed for.
I am wondering how well the cheese-cutters perform when a high vehicle (4x4, land rover, land cruiser, etc) has to use them. This type of vehicle is now widely used in our country.
Surely the cheese-cutter is intended for cars?

[swbarnett]

lets get the facts first. Any death on a motorbike is senseless anyway, we just need to establish whether the barrier was the key factor or whether Dan would have died anyway.
From the eyewitness account Dan was cut in half. I can think of no factor that has even a remote possibility of doing this other than the wire barrier. We're jumping on a 99% certainty. Yes, we'll look pretty silly in the extremely unlikely event that it turns out the barrier was not the cause of death. However, for the sake of striking while the iron's hot I for one am willing to take the minute risk that we may be wrong.

[Reckless]

Unfortunatly with the mentality about at transit, it will take death, several, to put this right. And no ones ever accountable.
Some semi truck will have to hit it, take out some cars and be alive enough to say "I could have saved it if the damn wires hadn't been caught around my steering"
or
It can be proved these cheese grators are costing more in unjury than prevention.
Doesn't their road fix priority have a Dollars cost Vs Death/injury cost benefit calculation.
Its not about common sense its about dollars!!

[MSTRS]

I am wondering how well the cheese-cutters perform when a high vehicle (4x4, land rover, land cruiser, etc) has to use them. This type of vehicle is now widely used in our country.
Surely the cheese-cutter is intended for cars?

Their intention is to deflect any vehicle that hits them at a relatively shallow angle. And to contain any vehicle that does so at angles closer to 90 degrees. This they do. I doubt that the higher CoG in a 4x4 would make any difference. Even motorcycles themselves are deflected/contained.
I guess 'we' are not important in the equation.

[rwh]

The argument that 'life is fragile' etc is not valid. The objection we have is not to barriers, but to the wilful installation of a barrier type that is known to be lethal , when there are other barrier options which are safer. It is exactly the same logic that requires cars to have safety glass in their windscreens. Car manufacturers are forbidden to use ordinary glass, because there is a safer alternative available. There are many other similar requirements. Why should not Transit be required to follow the same safety logic that they implose on others?

While I agree with you in this case, one has to be careful with this kind of argument. Would it not be equally valid to argue that we can and should forbid the use of motorcycles, because there is a safer alternative available (the car).

Richard

[Toaster]

Cheesegrater is cheap and easy to install. LTNZ cares not a shit for motorcyclists. HTFU.

Sad but very true.

An unacceptable number of lives would have to be lost BEFORE they do anything to fix this. The economic costs of the deaths are viewed from a macroeconomic point if view. Sadly that does nothing for the individuals sufferring loss, but we are all merely a very small part of a much much bigger picture.

[MSTRS]

Sad but very true.

An unacceptable number of lives would have to be lost BEFORE they do anything to fix this. The economic costs of the deaths are viewed from a macroeconomic point if view. Sadly that does nothing for the individuals sufferring loss, but we are all merely a very small part of a much much bigger picture.

And if deliberate and wanton destruction of these things makes them no longer 'economic' ???

[Ixion]

They may be cheap and economic for Transit. But not so for ACC. So therein maybe is an ally.

[Toaster]

And if deliberate and wanton destruction of these things makes them no longer 'economic' ???

You want to borrow my wire cutters?!

[MSTRS]

You want to borrow my wire cutters?!

Have you 'tested' them...:devil2:

[Neon]

I look at it this way:

Current legislation around Health and Safety issues is that 'all practicable steps' must be taken to elimate, isolate or minimise harm. Why should the rules for Transit be any different? Transit have no choice but to respond to the evidence that has already been gathered by KBers. I'm sure your local MP would be willing to listen...

If I had to choose between meeting a smooth barrier or wires at speed, I know which one I would prefer.

[jafar]

From the eyewitness account Dan was cut in half. I can think of no factor that has even a remote possibility of doing this other than the wire barrier. We're jumping on a 99% certainty. Yes, we'll look pretty silly in the extremely unlikely event that it turns out the barrier was not the cause of death. However, for the sake of striking while the iron's hot I for one am willing to take the minute risk that we may be wrong.

Dan's crash , while it is the catalyst for this thread should not be the sole reason for the removal of this type of barrier, there is plenty of information about these barriers from european countries & other places where they have been used. We will get nowhere quoting one accident as the reason we want these things gone.

[Brett]

Dan's crash , while it is the catalyst for this thread should not be the sole reason for the removal of this type of barrier, there is plenty of information about these barriers from european countries & other places where they have been used. We will get nowhere quoting one accident as the reason we want these things gone.

Yes thats right. Our arguement needs to be bigger than just Dan. And I beleive that we are well on our way to creating such an arguement.

[Grahameeboy]

They did chose. In the face of (safer?) alternatives. How could any decision NOT be deliberate?
Are you saying 'they' put all the possibilities in a hat and a blindfolded bureaucrat was randomly selected to pull out the one 'they' used??

Agree their decision was deliberate.......just not in a dangerous way.

[Grahameeboy]

From the eyewitness account Dan was cut in half. I can think of no factor that has even a remote possibility of doing this other than the wire barrier. We're jumping on a 99% certainty. Yes, we'll look pretty silly in the extremely unlikely event that it turns out the barrier was not the cause of death. However, for the sake of striking while the iron's hot I for one am willing to take the minute risk that we may be wrong.

Don't know the facts but if that is what happened then agree you have a point.

[swbarnett]

Dan's crash , while it is the catalyst for this thread should not be the sole reason for the removal of this type of barrier,
I agree entirely. I did stray from this a bit. I was more thinking about this particular crash as the catalyst for the current fervour.

[scumdog]

I look at it this way:

If I had to choose between meeting a smooth barrier or wires at speed, I know which one I would prefer.

I think the 'choices' were no barrier or a wire barrier.

There are way more deaths from head-ons - yet we still have mainly two-lane, two direction roads instead of freeways.

So going by the logic mentioned by many then Transit should be dealing with the two-lane roads in the 'best' way they can - they do, wire barriers.

Would this tragedy been any less fatal if there had been NO barrier? Who knows.

[MSTRS]

SD - I hope you are not suggesting that all open 2-way roads are to have these nightmares installed???

[Delphinus]

I think the 'choices' were no barrier or a wire barrier.

I think thats part of the issue.

Why are flush-to-the-ground W fencing or concrete barriers not an option, taking into account the danger caused by wire barriers.

[DEATH_INC.]

I think thats part of the issue.

Why are flush-to-the-ground W fencing or concrete barriers not an option, taking into account the danger caused by wire barriers.
Easy. Economics. No-one looks to the future in our road design, so wire is cheap NOW. Like Scumdog sez, wire or nothing. Wire is in the budget concrete is not, so we get wire...

[Reckless]

oh yes and add that to the fact that we have coarse chip cause its cheaper, therefore we design our tyres with harder less grippy rubber so they don't wear out to fast, added to the fact that the chip then gets punched down below the tar, then it rains and we are on an ice skating surface.

oh yes (to remain on topic), then they stick a cheese grater 2m each side of us to really finish the job.

Then they spend millions advertising that if we are 10k over the limit its all our fault!

Its a fuckin joke, its killing us, and NO ONE is Responsable!!

Rant over!

[Sanx]

Easy. Economics. No-one looks to the future in our road design, so wire is cheap NOW. Like Scumdog sez, wire or nothing. Wire is in the budget concrete is not, so we get wire...

Typical short-sighted decisions. Doesn't matter that over ten or twenty years it'll actually be cheaper - the initial outlay is less so go with that, 'cos that allows them to look good for that budget. If a board of directors ran their company the same way, they'd be fired in an instant


oh yes and add that to the fact that we have coarse chip cause its cheaper, therefore we design our tyres with harder less grippy rubber so they don't wear out to fast, added to the fact that the chip then gets punched down below the tar, then it rains and we are on an ice skating surface.

oh yes (to remain on topic), then they stick a cheese grater 2m each side of us to really finish the job.

Then they spend millions advertising that if we are 10k over the limit its all our fault!

Its a fuckin joke, its killing us, and NO ONE is Responsable!!

Rant over!

You're preaching to the converted, dude.

[Reckless]

You're preaching to the converted, dude.

I know I know! but I can't help gettin on me soapbox it shits me off so much!

Oh well "Ours is not to reason why, its just to try not to die":rockon:

[Krusti]

oh yes and add that to the fact that we have coarse chip cause its cheaper, therefore we design our tyres with harder less grippy rubber so they don't wear out to fast, added to the fact that the chip then gets punched down below the tar, then it rains and we are on an ice skating surface.

oh yes (to remain on topic), then they stick a cheese grater 2m each side of us to really finish the job.

Then they spend millions advertising that if we are 10k over the limit its all our fault!

Its a fuckin joke, its killing us, and NO ONE is Responsable!!

Rant over!

Then they put placards all over the place warning cage drivers to watch out for motorcyclists.....

[Drum]

Typical short-sighted decisions. Doesn't matter that over ten or twenty years it'll actually be cheaper - the initial outlay is less so go with that, 'cos that allows them to look good for that budget. If a board of directors ran their company the same way, they'd be fired in an instant....

The economics are actually worked out over a standard 25 year period.

[SPman]

If a board of directors ran their company the same way, they'd be fired in an instant
You're preaching to the converted, dude.

Many do and they aren't - 'nuff said!

[jafar]

I think the 'choices' were no barrier or a wire barrier.

There are way more deaths from head-ons - yet we still have mainly two-lane, two direction roads instead of freeways.

So going by the logic mentioned by many then Transit should be dealing with the two-lane roads in the 'best' way they can - they do, wire barriers.

Would this tragedy been any less fatal if there had been NO barrier? Who knows.


I think thats part of the issue.

Why are flush-to-the-ground W fencing or concrete barriers not an option, taking into account the danger caused by wire barriers.

The crash that started this thread happened on a 4 lane motorway where they have 'armco' barriers used as well. There is no way they can claim there isn't enough room for a better barrier . the better ones are installed within a few metres of the crash site.

[Sanx]

The economics are actually worked out over a standard 25 year period.

I'd love to know what element of road engineering in this country is worked out over a 25 year period. Like laying chipseal down on the new Mercer stretch of SH1. Eighteen months later, and it had to be laid all over again. Wouldn't a decent concrete or tarmac road have been more economic in the long run?

As for the cheese-grater barriers. The research quoted in other threads has indicated that, whilst wire-rope barriers are cheaper to install, int he long run they're more expensive than the maintenance-free concrete barriers.

[bmz2]

we are in a catch 22 at the moment, transit new zealand does not have the funds for all roading upgrades , their funding is allocated from local bodies and the helen and her mob, cost of buying houses to make way for new roads and BUS LANES , ,they are taking about toll roads to pay for upgrades , yet there is a 8 billion surplus of money , spend the money and get the roads set to a high safety standard , wire rope is the most cost effective way of splitting roads and is designed to grab the wheels and under side of a 4 wheel vechile to stop them crashing onto oncoming vechiles , i do support that , as my oldest child was killed through not having any type of safety device on the north western motorway ,as i protested then to have some form of safety barrier, it took another few deaths before anything got done, someone posted about placing plastic covers over the wire barrier, this is the most sensible way to protect any one untill they can upgrade to solid barrier,transit new zealand is only half the battle we have to get local bodies and the goverment to come to the party, the last one is going to be hardest to do with mr cullan hogging the money,

[sAsLEX]

in the long run they're more expensive than the maintenance-free concrete barriers.

Especially if they keep failing from random angle grinder attacks....

[scumdog]

Especially if they keep failing from random angle grinder attacks....

So... you would rather no barriers and risk a head-on eh?

Seen the stats of fatalities caused by a cage crossing into the path of a mtotrbike(s) lately??

It wasn't too long ago a drunk killed two and injured others doing just that.

And I know of one locally where the bike crossed into the path of a van - dead....same as he may have well been with 'cheese-cuttters'.

[sAsLEX]

So... you would rather no barriers and risk a head-on eh?

Seen the stats of fatalities caused by a cage crossing into the path of a mtotrbike(s) lately??

It wasn't too long ago a drunk killed two and injured others doing just that.

And I know of one locally where the bike crossed into the path of a van - dead....same as he may have well been with 'cheese-cuttters'.

well most of the motorway ones I have seen have two rows of them, with a grass verge in the centre.... removing one side would not remove the barrier aspect.

And the vast majority of roads in NZ ie 99% of them have no barrier and most are far more difficult to negoiate than the MWs.

Fair call though.

[RiderInBlack]

So... you would rather no barriers and risk a head-on eh?On a single carriageway with the "Biker Cutter" where the dividing line was, like between Puhoi and Waiwera? Yep. Have more chance of missing the on coming traffic than I have of hitting the barrier. At least I might be lucky to find a gap in the traffic.

[Drum]

I'd love to know what element of road engineering in this country is worked out over a 25 year period. Like laying chipseal down on the new Mercer stretch of SH1. Eighteen months later, and it had to be laid all over again. Wouldn't a decent concrete or tarmac road have been more economic in the long run?

As for the cheese-grater barriers. The research quoted in other threads has indicated that, whilst wire-rope barriers are cheaper to install, int he long run they're more expensive than the maintenance-free concrete barriers.

All elements. It is a standard 25 year evaluation period required by Transfund/ LTNZ. Although I am not familiar with the circumstance at Mercer, it is common practice to lay chipseal on a new section of road when it is first built because the chipseal is flexible and can cope with the settlement of the road fill which occurs over the first 12 to 18 months. Then you come back and reseal with a structural pavement layer, which is much more expensive and you don't want that breaking up with the initial settlement.

As for the cost of maintenance - I have seen economic studies which show wire rope to be cheaper in the long run. It is a common misconception that concrete barriers are maintenance free, and the cost of replacing one after a large strike can be quite high and time consuming. With wire rope barriers the ropes can usually be linked back together and the posts replaced for minimal cost and inconvenience.

[sAsLEX]

As for the cost of maintenance - I have seen economic studies which show wire rope to be cheaper in the long run. It is a common misconception that concrete barriers are maintenance free, and the cost of replacing one after a large strike can be quite high and time consuming. With wire rope barriers the ropes can usually be liked back together and the posts replaced for minimal cost and inconvenience.

But lets throw in some ACC costs to the picture, as one cannot isolate the mere costs of the barrier but also the costs that can be directly attributed to that choice of barrier.

The recent death, sad as it is , can be apportioned a value lets callit :The updated value of statistical life (VOSL) is $3.05 million per fatality from : http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/NewFolder/Social-cost-June-2006-update.pdf

That is alot of fuckin concrete and cheap labour to replace a barrier.

And if he had of survived minus a few limbs the ongoing costs can be alot higher again!

Even Dan's Father has said he has survived slides of the assumed speed with no harm, and that the fact the barrier was there caused the spil to become fatal. A smooth concrete barrier would of resulted in sliding and tumbling injuries not death.

[MSTRS]

Typical short-sighted decisions. Doesn't matter that over ten or twenty years it'll actually be cheaper - the initial outlay is less so go with that, 'cos that allows them to look good for that budget.

Same policy as ACC....would rather spend $500 per week for the next 30 years, instead of $10,000 now for an operation that will mean the recipient can get back to full employment.

[Drum]

...........The recent death, sad as it is , can be apportioned a value lets callit :The updated value of statistical life (VOSL) is $3.05 million per fatality .....

Sure, but if you need a benefit/ cost ratio of 4 and an internal rate of return of 10% then all of a sudden your $3.05m isn't worth that much.

There is no guarantee that a concrete barrier wouldn't have resulted in the same end result/ cost to the taxpayer.

[JKWNZ]

I think everyone can understand the cost aspect however it seems to me there is a lot of evidence out there to the contrary to what Transit is saying.

I also notice there was a truck crash this morning where the truck went straight through the barrier into oncoming cars. I dont suppose that was a cheese cutter was it?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10471503

If so theres another accident in short time which may have cost society less if a proper barrier was installed. After all what saslex is saying is just one accident. There will be more. Plus we are talking about a differential cost between concrete and wire, not the total cost, therefore that $3.05 millions stretches quite a bit further

[discotex]

So... you would rather no barriers and risk a head-on eh?

Most people (car drivers and motorcyclists) want barriers to stop head-ons. They just don't want said barriers to increase the danger to motorcycles.

If the risk of head on collision is high enough to warrant a barrier and wire barriers are the only viable solution covers should be fitted to make them safe for all road users.

If the risk of head on in a stretch of road is clearly proven and covers cannot be safely fitted then the speed limit for that stretch could be reduced to below 70km/h to reduce the risk of injury.

This issue isn't that different to the snow tyres debate that's been going on recently. In the majority of accidents involving snow tyres speed, inexperience and inattention (txting while driving) were involved. Again the "authorities" tried to suggest that there wasn't enough evidence that snow tyres were the problem and pointed to other factors in the crashes to distract the public. It was pretty clear that had normal tyres been fitted to the cars involved the chances of those accidents happening would have been greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Persistence by grieving relatives, coroners and motoring lobby groups appear to have got the message through. I really hope we can achieve the same result on this issue.

[Sanx]

If covers cannot be fitted then the speed limit needs to be reduced to below 70km/h to reduce the risk of injury.

Be careful what you ask for ...

[discotex]

Be careful what you ask for ...

I specifically meant where it's clearly a heavy traffic zone with proven risk of head on collisions. Will update my post to make that point clearer.

[Hitcher]

It will take a massive effort to convince policy-makers in LTNZ and Transit (and through them to the politicians) as to the evils of cheese-cutter barrier. Their priorities are to make it easier for inept car drivers to get from A to B without killing each other. They are not interested in addressing the root causes of road safety. They are only interested in people driving "to the conditions" and preventing them from impacting other road users at the least possible cost.

[vifferman]

True.
We have to remember that bureaucrats and politicians aren't like normal humanbeanz.

[Hitcher]

True.
We have to remember that bureaucrats and politicians aren't like normal humanbeanz.

Unfortunately. But ultimately they're the ones who decide whether or not cheesecutter stays or goes.

[vifferman]

Unfortunately. But ultimately they're the ones who decide whether or not cheesecutter stays or goes.
That was sort of my point; with normal humanbeanz subject to normal (understandable?) emotions and logic, you could appeal to their feelings, sense of fairness, whatever motivates them.
Like this: You (the Gubmint) have determined that for accounting purposes, a human life is worth $3.05million. The difference between cheese cutters and cheese cutters with deluxe wraps is $x/100m, which equate to y dead motorcyclists.

But for politicians, it's more complicated, as they have to factor in public perception (do people really give a stuff, and if so, which ones, and do they matter?), how much spin can be doctored for each decision, how many votes are at risk (if any), blah blah blah.
For your bureaucrat, it's more a question of balancing budgets, how much paperwork is involved, how will it affect my chances of promotion, does it give me more/less power, can I have a new PC, wonder what's on telly tonight....

[idb]

It will take a massive effort to convince policy-makers in LTNZ and Transit (and through them to the politicians) as to the evils of cheese-cutter barrier. Their priorities are to make it easier for inept car drivers to get from A to B without killing each other. They are not interested in addressing the root causes of road safety. They are only interested in people driving "to the conditions" and preventing them from impacting other road users at the least possible cost.

The EU has put in place a policy that all future road barriers must take motorcycle safety into account.

If these authorities were only interested in people "driving to the conditions" wouldn't the erection of barriers be un-necessary?

[Hitcher]

If these authorities were only interested in people "driving to the conditions" wouldn't the erection of barriers be un-necessary?

Many European countries have enlightened governments that actively support advanced driver skills programmes. New Zealand, on the other hand, has officials that are vehemently opposed to such courses.

It would be interesting to see what happened to New Zealand's road toll if all road markings and warning signs were removed, along with seat belts and airbags, automatic transmissions, ABS brakes and steel-belted radials. In other words making motorists more responsible for their own health and safety and, by abstraction, the health and safety of other road users.

[jrandom]

automatic transmissions...

You can take the automatic transmission in my Camry from my cold, dead hands, right after you get my latte and cellphone.

[Hitcher]

You can take the automatic transmission in my Camry from my cold, dead hands, right after you get my latte and cellphone.

Aucklander.

[Mental Trousers]

Aucklander.

Correction: J.A.F.A.

[idb]

Many European countries have enlightened governments that actively support advanced driver skills programmes. New Zealand, on the other hand, has officials that are vehemently opposed to such courses.

Surely you're not suggesting that there is a train full of gravy on which some are riding at the expense of the rest of the travelling public?!

[Pixie]

Would this tragedy been any less fatal if there had been NO barrier? Who knows.

This accident?

At 3:30 AM on the southern end of the motorway, most probably it would be scuffed gear and possibly riding bike home.

[Hitcher]

Surely you're not suggesting that there is a train full of gravy on which some are riding at the expense of the rest of the travelling public?!

No. I am suggesting that there are bunch of officials who believe that improving the skills and standards of drivers/riders, merely encourages them to drive/ride faster and that this is evel (sic) and should not be condoned or encouraged.

[Reckless]

It will take a massive effort to convince policy-makers in LTNZ and Transit (and through them to the politicians) as to the evils of cheese-cutter barrier. Their priorities are to make it easier for inept car drivers to get from A to B without killing each other. They are not interested in addressing the root causes of road safety. They are only interested in people driving "to the conditions" and preventing them from impacting other road users at the least possible cost.

I'm not directly questioning you or your quote Hitch but using it as an example and agree with you.

"driving to the conditions" and this is part of my beef with the authorities.

There is a hell of a lota blame put on drivers/riders within that phrase. But when are the powers that be, going to be held responsible for "conditions" that are simply so far below standard that they are dangerous no matter who you are or how you drive!
Case in point and my pet hate! the punched down under chip and exposed tar. Its slippery when its melted in the hot sun, quite tractable when its dry and at the correct temp for the tyres, and like ice, in ever changing patches, when its wet. And there is thousands of miles of it everywhere. In the wet you can loose traction on this smooth glossy surface in an instant and for no apparent reason. Becuase the surface changes constantly as you drive over it depending on the amount of glossy tar exposed. I question any general cage driver to judge how to drive on that surface in any of the above conditions, especially in the wet.
So sooner or later someone has gotta get their head out of the sand and say the road conditions on that particular corner caused this accident. But it all gets blamed on speed and Drive to the conditions. Therefore we get cheese graters to keep us in our lanes not decent road surfaces to keep us safer!
Because no ones accountable or has the guts to challenge the above. There is no safety margin left!! And thats half the reason why we are dying.

[swbarnett]

So... you would rather no barriers and risk a head-on eh?
Yep. Got more chance of avoiding a vehicle than the barrier. Even if you hit you've got a better chance of survival.

A case in point - Katana 750 doing 230km/h on a dead straight road had a front tyre blow, swerved into the path of an oncoming car (the only one on the road). The rider managed to almost jump the car and got away with only broken legs on the upper windscreen. A couple of months in traction and he was riding again. Doubtful he would've survived if there was a wire barrier.

[scumdog]

Yep. Got more chance of avoiding a vehicle than the barrier. Even if you hit you've got a better chance of survival.

A case in point - Katana 750 doing 230km/h on a dead straight road had a front tyre blow, swerved into the path of an oncoming car (the only one on the road). The rider managed to almost jump the car and got away with only broken legs on the upper windscreen. A couple of months in traction and he was riding again. Doubtful he would've survived if there was a wire barrier.


And then there was the much publicised (on KB) event a few months ago when a drunk driver crossed the centre-line of the road and hit a pack of motorcyclists and killed two.
A good chance a cheese-cutter would have prevented THAT event being as tragic as it was.

Balance grasshopper, balance....

[Krusti]

At a minimum I would like to see the lower half of the barriers filled in with something which would stop me sliding through. This would probably still allow larger vehicles to be grabbed by the upper half of the barrier.

Am I right or wrong?

[MSTRS]

This has become such an emotive issue. Simple physics holds all the answers anyone could need as to whether the cheesecutters should stay or go.....
Scenario - hold one of your arms up, take a meat cleaver in the other hand, hit your arm with the flat of the cleaver, try it straight on and at an angle. NOW try the same with edge of the cleaver. Doesn't even have to be done 'fast'.
It's all about lbs/in2.
Can't argue with that.

[imdying]

A case in point - Katana 750 doing 230km/h on a dead straight road had a front tyre blow, swerved into the path of an oncoming car (the only one on the road). The rider managed to almost jump the car and got away with only broken legs on the upper windscreen. A couple of months in traction and he was riding again. Doubtful he would've survived if there was a wire barrier.230km/h? Oncoming traffic? We want him to survive why?

[NordieBoy]

230km/h? Oncoming traffic? We want him to survive why?

So we can slag him off on teh interweb in person.

[imdying]

Mmmm... seems like an unusal choice of an example of why to dump the barriers.... I mean, if I was Transit, and you came and said 'Speeding motorcyclists die when they hit them', I'd laugh you out of my office.

[discotex]

And then there was the much publicised (on KB) event a few months ago when a drunk driver crossed the centre-line of the road and hit a pack of motorcyclists and killed two.
A good chance a cheese-cutter would have prevented THAT event being as tragic as it was.

Balance grasshopper, balance....

Logic grasshopper, logic.

Installing WRBs so people can safely drive drunk without causing head-ons is not going to work.

To make any difference to the odds of that crash repeating you would have to divide EVERY road in NZ with barriers which would significantly increase the odds of motorcycles being involved in WRB collisions far outweighing and lives saved caused by drivers (drunk or otherwise) crossing the centreline.

Policing and appropriately punishing drink driving would be the logical solution but heaven forbid we attacked the root cause of a problem in NZ.

To illustrate my point I see Miss 11 drink driving convictions (plus numerous driving while disqualified) just got busted AGAIN at close to double the limit. Does she have to kill someone before she's put in prison? Oh wait... Even when you kill someone driving drunk or recklessly a prison sentence is only 50/50. No wonder people keep driving drunk.. There's no real penalty! :mad:

[swbarnett]

Balance grasshopper, balance....
I totally agree. My opinion is that cheese graters put things out of balance. There is a viable alternative. Even covering the posts as they've done in France would be an improvement.

[buddieb ktm master]

hi all,just sayin that the news of the poor guy in papakura has spread all around the world and all us irish bikers are doin our bit to get these fookin wire barriers removed from the roads.they are still sticking them in over here,but finally there is enough sh*t been kicked up that people are being heard.its sick that it takes a tragic death of a two wheeled brother to get it through to the MAN.
condolances to the family and friends of Daniel,the world is thinking of you all!!

[scumdog]

Even when you kill someone driving drunk or recklessly a prison sentence is only 50/50. No wonder people keep driving drunk.. There's no real penalty! :mad:

A point I've been putting to my head-honcho in Capital City. (And more than once)

And it frustrates me too matey.

[scumdog]

Logic grasshopper, logic.

Installing WRBs so people can safely drive drunk without causing head-ons is not going to work. :mad:

THAT is not a valid argument, sure the guy was pissed - but not ALL idiots crossing the centreline are pissed, there's even been cases of motorcyclists being killed by another one crossing the centreline stone cold sober....

[swbarnett]

230km/h? Oncoming traffic? We want him to survive why?
Fair point. I too think this was stupid. It does, however, illustrate how survivable a head-on can be. Even at legal speeds WRSBs will kill and maim.

[swbarnett]

THAT is not a valid argument, sure the guy was pissed - but not ALL idiots crossing the centreline are pissed, there's even been cases of motorcyclists being killed by another one crossing the centreline stone cold sober....
I think you've missed the point.

I think the odds of meeting a drunk driver on my side of the road without barriers would be lower than my chances of getting cut up by a barrier if every road in NZ had WRSBs.

I take it you never want to overtake anyone ever again? Imagine the rush to get past slower traffic when there is a lane available.

Something else that I don't think has been mentioned yet - What about barriers that have gaps to allow for side roads? On SH1 past Rangiriri there's a stretch of road with a WRSB on either side of the lane. If some idiot decides to pull out right in front of me I've got nowhere to go.

[discotex]

THAT is not a valid argument, sure the guy was pissed - but not ALL idiots crossing the centreline are pissed, there's even been cases of motorcyclists being killed by another one crossing the centreline stone cold sober....

Absolutely agree. That's my point. As many (if not most) head-on collisions are one-offs with respect to location you can't predict where to put the barriers.

Unless you can predict where people will cross the centreline you have to cover the whole country with WRBs which is clearly not good plan.

I'm the first to admit that there are some clear black spots where lane division is needed but lets make sure the barrier installed is safe i.e. don't use WRBs unless modified to make them safe for bikes or much more preferably use concrete.

[rwh]

Policing and appropriately punishing drink driving would be the logical solution but heaven forbid we attacked the root cause of a problem in NZ.

To illustrate my point I see Miss 11 drink driving convictions (plus numerous driving while disqualified) just got busted AGAIN at close to double the limit.

To deviate briefly, I'm starting to think that maybe these people get drunk, then no longer think about the reason not to drive. If they're liable to make such bad decisions when they're drunk, they need to be banned from drinking.

Richard

[Sanx]

To deviate briefly, I'm starting to think that maybe these people get drunk, then no longer think about the reason not to drive. If they're liable to make such bad decisions when they're drunk, they need to be banned from drinking.

Richard

Unfortunately, unless you want to go down the route of issuing everyone in the country an electronic picture ID without which you can't buy alcohol, and back it up with signature / fingerprint recognition, plus introduce laws preventing the supply or sale of alcohol to anyone not in possession of said ID, it'd be very difficult to regulate and enforce. Even with it, it's difficult to do. Case in point - how many disqualified drivers are on our roads daily? How many cars without WOFs and regos on our roads daily?

Whilst in a utopian society such recidivist offenders would be banned from drinking and banned from driving to life - with those conditions enforced - in the real world, it's impossible to police.

Still, please don't let that stop anyone starting a cop-bashing thread - we haven't had one of those for ten minutes or so.

[rwh]

Unfortunately, unless ...

Yes. Too hard. I know :(

Richard

[Pixie]

And then there was the much publicised (on KB) event a few months ago when a drunk driver crossed the centre-line of the road and hit a pack of motorcyclists and killed two.
A good chance a cheese-cutter would have prevented THAT event being as tragic as it was.

Balance grasshopper, balance....

That's where you are wrong.
Aside from the fact that that section of road will never have any barrier on it,a wire barrier is flexible and any vehicle colliding with it drags it several metres into the opposing lane.
There have been many head ons with a wire rope trapped between the two vehicles.

[NordieBoy]

Aside from the fact that that section of road will never have any barrier on it,a wire barrier is flexible and any vehicle colliding with it drags it several metres into the opposing lane.

And that is why the manufacturer says to have a 3m gap from the edge of the road to the wire.

In Nelson around the bypass it's a 1.5m gap each side of the centre line.

[Krusti]

Problem is that for every one of use who rides a bike as well as those who are sympathetic to our cause there are probably ten others who think that we are a bunch of idiot who deserve what they get!

It did not really sink home until I looked on the TM message board and saw the posts there....:eek5:

At one stage there poor old crashe was backed into a corner trying to punch her way out!

The ten to one ratio may be a bit over the top but it sure looks that way at times.

[Marmoot]

Problem is that for every one of use who rides a bike as well as those who are sympathetic to our cause there are probably ten others who think that we are a bunch of idiot who deserve what they get!

It did not really sink home until I looked on the TM message board and saw the posts there....:eek5:

At one stage there poor old crashe was backed into a corner trying to punch her way out!

The ten to one ratio may be a bit over the top but it sure looks that way at times.

It is such a sad world where people can, to their sick delight, use a tragic death to justify their presumptions and construct an argument with the sole purpose of cornering someone.

[scumdog]

That's where you are wrong.
Aside from the fact that that section of road will never have any barrier on it,a wire barrier is flexible and any vehicle colliding with it drags it several metres into the opposing lane.
There have been many head ons with a wire rope trapped between the two vehicles.


OK, I was wrong to quote a specific example BUT it was just to illustrate the ying-yang of wire barrier vs no barrier.

I agree, a concrete barrier would be a lot rider friendly (until it bounces you back into the path of the semi that you have just overtaken) than the wire one - but it is also (in most cases - which counts) better than none.

[RiderInBlack]

Let's face it, If we really wanted to stop head ons on Expressways/freeways/motorways we would have put the two directions farther apart as I have seen in USA. But we don't have the space or money to do so. This does not mean we couldn't try ta make the barriers we do use a lot safer.

The wire barriers could be modified to be safer. The Armco barriers are not much better than the present wires barriers for bikes. They also have dangerous gaps under them (which can trap a biker), and (as anyone who has hit them on Puke can tell ya) very unforgiving if ya hit them. The concrete barriers are unforgiving too, but at least ya have a chance of sliding down those.
If they just put a cover along the wire barriers so that riders don't get caught on the posts, wire barriers would be so much safer for all road users. At least they have some give.
But at the minimum, the present wire barriers need to be made a lot safer.

[bmz2]

Let's face it, If we really wanted to stop head ons on Expressways/freeways/motorways we would have put the two directions farther apart as I have seen in USA. But we don't have the space or money to do so. This does not mean we couldn't try ta make the barriers we do use a lot safer.

The wire barriers could be modified to be safer. The Armco barriers are not much better than the present wires barriers for bikes. They also have dangerous gaps under them (which can trap a biker), and (as anyone who has hit them on Puke can tell ya) very unforgiving if ya hit them. The concrete barriers are unforgiving too, but at least ya have a chance of sliding down those.
If they just put a cover along the wire barriers so that riders don't get caught on the posts, wire barriers would be so much safer for all road users. At least they have so give.
But at the minium, the present wire barriers need to be made a lot safer.

agree ,as i said before, what price do we place on human life, or should i say ,the clowns who sit and fall asleep in that grey building which is going to be rebuilt at the cost of millions , to loose a loveone to the road and you can see the money being spent in places where it does not need to be spent , your boold starts to boil,and your loveone that is a road toll number which is used only as a lever to gain money for roading , which does not go into safety but other parts of the transport system , it stinks, after 19 years of suffering with the loss of my child, i know that you still have to keep fighting for safer roads, i know that we need to spend money on the roads , but if the harbour bridge fall down tomorrow thet would find the money to replace it, so find the money and put safety first