PDA

View Full Version : New cheesecutter going up



sprag
30th October 2007, 07:54
Here is the story

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4254729a11.html

Its in Wellington

Mr Merde
30th October 2007, 08:02
It just goes to show how little that Transit NZ care about the opinions of a small minority (motorcyclists).

So they are dangerous to us but do they give a damm? Like hell. Just slap up some more WRB's.


We mustnt disagree with our masters or we will be punished.

car
30th October 2007, 08:07
Here is the story

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4254729a11.html

Its in Wellington

Yeah, I sat for a solid five bloody minutes with the bike blasting hot air over my legs last night while they were coning that off.

The posts have been up for months, though, it's just the wires they're adding. So previously they were just lethal to bikers with little to no benefit for cars and trucks. Now, at least, they'll be dangerous to bikers who hit them but go some way to stopping oncoming traffic ploughing into your lane.

sprag
30th October 2007, 08:13
It just goes to show how little that Transit NZ care about the opinions of a small minority (motorcyclists).

So they are dangerous to us but do they give a damm? Like hell. Just slap up some more WRB's.


We mustnt disagree with our masters or we will be punished.

Well anything to save "them" money *rolls eyes*

Think i will just get back to work :P

Paul in NZ
30th October 2007, 08:16
I doubt that sections going to be much of an issue - its 80kph along there and the biggest danger to a biker is a distracted driver going the other way...

Yes - you could fall off and hit it but...... There have been major issues with cars crossing the lines

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 08:21
The trouble is that since 2004 there have been no fatalities amongst users of that section of road which also includes motorcylists so not sure why Transit NZ are accused of not caring. They appear to have monitored things since 2004.

I am not saying there is not a better system barrier, however, accidents and deaths happen regardless of safety systems that may be in place. I mean seat belts / air bags do not always prevent fatalities.

Lias
30th October 2007, 08:25
Use the "Have Your Say" thing on stuff.co.nz to send in your comments and see if we cant get the dompsot to write an ANTI barrier article because that one sure as hell is pro transit and pro cheese-cutter.

imdying
30th October 2007, 08:38
So they are dangerous to us but do they give a damm? Like hell. Just slap up some more WRB's.Just how dangerous are we talking? Haven't they only taken one life? And didn't he die because of the way he was riding in the first place?

Pixie
30th October 2007, 08:48
Just how dangerous are we talking? Haven't they only taken one life? And didn't he die because of the way he was riding in the first place?

No .
He fell off,possibly because of the way he was riding,
He died because he was mangled by the Killer Barrier.

imdying
30th October 2007, 08:51
So we've got one idiot who falls off and whacks himself, and Chris Lane 'director of Kapiti Emergency Medical Services' telling us that 'it's fantastic' cause he doesn't have to scrape bodies off that piece of road anymore, and has probably prevented 15 casualty accidents they he knows of. 15 to 1 is pretty good odds in favor of the barrier.

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 08:55
Just how dangerous are we talking? Haven't they only taken one life? And didn't he die because of the way he was riding in the first place?

The way he was riding is still under investigation, however, agree with your angle.

Lias
30th October 2007, 08:56
Just how dangerous are we talking? Haven't they only taken one life? And didn't he die because of the way he was riding in the first place?

The 85% of riders will lose a limb coliding with them at 80% figure would seem to indicate they are sodding dangerous.

MSTRS
30th October 2007, 08:56
So we've got one idiot who falls off and whacks himself, and Chris Lane 'director of Kapiti Emergency Medical Services' telling us that 'it's fantastic' cause he doesn't have to scrape bodies off that piece of road anymore, and has probably prevented 15 casualty accidents they he knows of. 15 to 1 is pretty good odds in favor of the barrier.

FFS. It's not barriers per se...it's the type that is the issue. Go have a meeting with a cheesecutter at 75kph and your name will be prophetic....

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 08:57
So we've got one idiot who falls off and whacks himself, and Chris Lane 'director of Kapiti Emergency Medical Services' telling us that 'it's fantastic' cause he doesn't have to scrape bodies off that piece of road anymore, and has probably prevented 15 casualty accidents they he knows of. 15 to 1 is pretty good odds in favor of the barrier.

Imdying, understand where you are coming from but think we should leave the speculation until all facts are investigated etc.

Otherwise, agree 100% with what you say. Too many people jumping on a bus which shows "Out of Service"............you know what it is like with folk knee jerking.........

Disco Dan
30th October 2007, 08:59
The media certainly know how to bait us lot dont they!!!!! hahahahahaha :lol::lol::lol:

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 08:59
The 85% of riders will lose a limb coliding with them at 80% figure would seem to indicate they are sodding dangerous.

But the figures don't mention that the fatalities avoided included a motorcylist.

imdying
30th October 2007, 09:00
Yes, I know if I hit one I'm toast... same with tunnel entrances, tourists in camper vans on the wrong side of the road, and stupid bitches in 4wds taking their kids to school. Difference is, none of those other things have saved other lives thus far.

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 09:02
FFS. It's not barriers per se...it's the type that is the issue. Go have a meeting with a cheesecutter at 75kph and your name will be prophetic....

The thread is about Transit NZ not caring despite the fact that 15 fatalities have been avoided...........the type of barrier is a seperate issue.

I think we forget that we are a minority. I mean what would happen if they designed a barrier that totally protected fatalities amongst motorcylcists but increase dangers to occupants of cars...........

Mr Merde
30th October 2007, 09:03
Its the old "head in the sand" attitude.

Until there is an accident involving those who advocate the status quo, or to someone they know, opinions will not change.

I've seen this in other aspects of life and have learnt that there is nothing I can do to alter those views or perceptions.

There has only been one death in this country. Yes, but how many in other countries where these have been utilised.

How many injuries?

sAsLEX
30th October 2007, 09:05
So we've got one idiot who falls off and whacks himself, and Chris Lane 'director of Kapiti Emergency Medical Services' telling us that 'it's fantastic' cause he doesn't have to scrape bodies off that piece of road anymore, and has probably prevented 15 casualty accidents they he knows of. 15 to 1 is pretty good odds in favor of the barrier.

Favour of a barrier, not the particular method used here at a guess.


Recent examples in the Auckland MW system have shown the wrb to be ineffective in keeping trucks on the correct side of the road.

Haven't heard of a decent concrete barrier deflecting much.

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 09:05
Yes, I know if I hit one I'm toast... same with tunnel entrances, tourists in camper vans on the wrong side of the road, and stupid bitches in 4wds taking their kids to school. Difference is, none of those other things have saved other lives thus far.

Good point Sir..................I mean cheescutters are not the only dangers, what about sign posts, lamposts. Hit a lampost and you are likely to be toast.

Top gear showed a car hitting a standad lampost compared with a lampost that breaks on impact and reduces danger.....have you seem any campaigns against highway furniture lately..............

imdying
30th October 2007, 09:12
Favour of a barrier, not the particular method used here at a guess.

Recent examples in the Auckland MW system have shown the wrb to be ineffective in keeping trucks on the correct side of the road.

Haven't heard of a decent concrete barrier deflecting much.Well I guess, given that it is a WRB is in place there, it is 15:1 in favour of the WRB barrier.

I assume truck drivers all speed in Auckland like they do down here? 40 tonnes of truck ain't got stop for anything short of the Berlin wall, so no surprise there.

I'm sure I'd be upset if someone I knew was forced off the road and decapitated by a WRB, but it seems to me that I'm currently 15 times more likely to be praising them for saving me mum from having a head on. Not that mum drives, but you know... For me, that's a good enough reason to put up with having to be extra careful around WRBs.

Some of that plastic covering, assuming it actually makes a difference, would be nice to see that on the new stretch. Maybe that's where the energy of the group would be better focussed.

MSTRS
30th October 2007, 09:18
Maybe that's where the energy of the group would be better focussed.

Have you not been taking in ALL the other posts/threads on this subject?
We don't expect cheesecutters to be removed and replaced with concrete...just made safe(r) for us. Same goes for the exposed posts under Armco. And no new ones to be installed that are not concrete

sAsLEX
30th October 2007, 09:19
Well I guess, given that it is a WRB is in place there, it is 15:1 in favour of the WRB barrier.

I assume truck drivers all speed in Auckland like they do down here? 40 tonnes of truck ain't got stop for anything short of the Berlin wall, so no surprise there.


Some of that plastic covering, assuming it actually makes a difference, would be nice to see that on the new stretch. Maybe that's where the energy of the group would be better focussed.

40 tonnes of truck has little momentum tangential to its main direction of travel, which is where a continuous barrier excels and straightens the trucks path should it veer slightly off course. The WRB on the other hand "snatches" at the truck should it veer into it and can turn not much sideways velocity into alot as it try to slow the forward momentum of the vehicle down and deflects in to the oncoming lane.

imdying
30th October 2007, 09:25
Have you not been taking in ALL the other posts/threads on this subject?
We don't expect cheesecutters to be removed and replaced with concrete...just made safe(r) for us. Same goes for the exposed posts under Armco. And no new ones to be installed that are not concreteNope, haven't read them. This country has a finite level of money to spend, I'd rather they spend it on keeping the majority. Preferably not at the expense of people involved in our relatively dangerous fringe sport, but a little I can accept if it means they can spread their dollars further.

*snip blah blah*Make your point...

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 09:27
Its the old "head in the sand" attitude.

Until there is an accident involving those who advocate the status quo, or to someone they know, opinions will not change.

I've seen this in other aspects of life and have learnt that there is nothing I can do to alter those views or perceptions.

There has only been one death in this country. Yes, but how many in other countries where these have been utilised.

How many injuries?

You cannot just compare with other Countries who probably have greater volumes of traffic that NZ does.

If there is only 1 death per year, yes it is one too many, however, does it justify saying that Transit NZ don't care.?

sAsLEX
30th October 2007, 09:28
Make your point...

Concrete barriers > WRB


As WRB can deflect far into the other lane where other barriers don't.

koba
30th October 2007, 09:35
Nope, haven't read them. This country has a finite level of money to spend, I'd rather they spend it on keeping the majority. Preferably not at the expense of people involved in our relatively dangerous fringe sport, but a little I can accept if it means they can spread their dollars further.
Make your point...

Good shit, that is a valid opinion based on a reasonable amount of fact.
I would rather read a bit more myself, and I'm of a divided opinion knowing some WRBs are helpfull but also many are very dangerous but it never hurts to have other opions in the mix!
:jerry:

MSTRS
30th October 2007, 09:41
Nope, haven't read them.

Well then...perhaps you'd be wise to. There are many theories/opinions out there and yes, most of ours will be biased towards us. Doesn't change the fact of physics and $ well spent.

imdying
30th October 2007, 09:43
Concrete barriers > WRB

As WRB can deflect far into the other lane where other barriers don't.Yep, as I understand it, that seems to be valid. Your equation unfortunately applies to cost as well :(

Good shit, that is a valid opinion based on a reasonable amount of fact.
I would rather read a bit more myself, and I'm of a divided opinion knowing some WRBs are helpfull but also many are very dangerous but it never hurts to have other opions in the mix!
:jerry:For me, every life is equal, motorcyclist or cager, I also accept that there's only so much money allocated for barriers. It would however be nice if we could have a few less barriers to pay for upgrading the new ones with covers (if they're indeed proven to minimize injuries to motorcyclists). Given that every life is equal, the barriers seem to be doing alright... out of the 15 head ons prevented, how many were bikes that would've been on the receiving end? Of course, we'll never know that, but it would seem that it would only take one to even the score thus far.

imdying
30th October 2007, 09:44
Well then...perhaps you'd be wise to. There are many theories/opinions out there and yes, most of ours will be biased towards us. Doesn't change the fact of physics and $ well spent.Every life is worth saving, the more the better imho. Sure that's likely to be in favor of cages over us, but then there's more of them, so perhaps that's appropriate.

avgas
30th October 2007, 09:58
Nope, haven't read them. This country has a finite level of money to spend,
Agreed - but explain to me the profit margin thing again?

MSTRS
30th October 2007, 10:01
Every life is worth saving, the more the better imho. Sure that's likely to be in favor of cages over us, but then there's more of them, so perhaps that's appropriate.

I guess one could take the position that we are safe/r in the instance of a car being prevented from crossing into our path. But that is not the point. Too often we are 'victims' of dodgy driving on our side too and going into the cheesecutter is not something that sits well with me.
And if their use is dictated by dollars, then why are they installed in areas that do not have a history of head-ons, and why are they installed on the roadside in some places. Transit could say that they are 'merely being pro-active' in these cases, but it still doesn't change the fact that if dollars are the concern, why not spent more initially (on concrete barriers) in the places of greatest need?

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 10:09
I guess one could take the position that we are safe/r in the instance of a car being prevented from crossing into our path. But that is not the point. Too often we are 'victims' of dodgy driving on our side too and going into the cheesecutter is not something that sits well with me.
And if their use is dictated by dollars, then why are they installed in areas that do not have a history of head-ons, and why are they installed on the roadside in some places. Transit could say that they are 'merely being pro-active' in these cases, but it still doesn't change the fact that if dollars are the concern, why not spent more initially (on concrete barriers) in the places of greatest need?

Transit NZ cannot win by what you say. How do you know that a highways previous good history will not change as traffic volumes change?

What would you say if in the space of a week there were 2 fatalities on a road, not previously considered a 'Black Spot'.....ah well until then it was a safe road so no point putting up a barrier as we can use our pennies for a 'Black Spot" as 2 deaths does not make it a black spot.

In the UK they monitor a road / junction over a period of 12 or so months recording number of accidents to determine whether a road is a black spot

imdying
30th October 2007, 10:11
And if their use is dictated by dollars, then why are they installed in areas that do not have a history of head-ons, and why are they installed on the roadside in some places. Transit could say that they are 'merely being pro-active' in these cases, but it still doesn't change the fact that if dollars are the concern, why not spent more initially (on concrete barriers) in the places of greatest need?When I get a degree in civil engineering, and actually have access to all the facts, I'll be sure to look into it :yes:

MSTRS
30th October 2007, 10:27
No point in trying to convince some of you, is there? I will just hope that you (or any other motorcyclist) never get intimately acquainted with a fucking cheesecutter. Is $30/m worth your life???

imdying
30th October 2007, 10:31
I regard them as no worse than diesel on the road, oncoming traffic, lamp posts, Asian drivers, and drops off cliffs. What separates them from those other hazards, is they have the potential to save lives as well as bugger them.

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 10:41
No point in trying to convince some of you, is there? I will just hope that you (or any other motorcyclist) never get intimately acquainted with a fucking cheesecutter. Is $30/m worth your life???

You are correct...........if we happen to met a cheesgrater we will provide feedback......it's sure to be a cutting issue story

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 10:42
I regard them as no worse than diesel on the road, oncoming traffic, lamp posts, Asian drivers, and drops off cliffs. What separates them from those other hazards, is they have the potential to save lives as well as bugger them.

You forgot Kiwi drivers................however, that aside you are right.

imdying
30th October 2007, 10:44
You forgot Kiwi drivers................however, that aside you are right.No no, didn't forget, I just assumed that was a given :lol:

Paul in NZ
30th October 2007, 11:02
Folks - every stretch of road has it's issues, it's about coming up with a suitable solution.. I don't like the damn wire at all and the issue with the 'killer highway' is crap driving (and i suspect a few vehicular suicides) resulting in cars crossing the centreline so a barrier was deemed essential. Concrete won't work because it might need to be pulled down to allow emergency vehicles access... (that was one justification)

In some places - I suspect we will have to live with wire... NOT in all places though!

k14
30th October 2007, 11:29
Concrete barriers > WRB


As WRB can deflect far into the other lane where other barriers don't.
Yep thats exactly right, but how much more do concrete barriers cost than cheese graters? Lets for arguments sake say they are five times more expensive, that means if we go for concrete barriers, five times less of the road is protected from oncoming traffic coming into your lane. I can just see in six months time a headline "Six motorcyclists taken out by car crossing centre line where cheese grater used to be", this is bound to happen. I know which scenario I would rather have. Although I'm biased since I only ever drive a cage on the road.

Ixion
30th October 2007, 11:43
I think the "car crossing the centre line" scenario is overstated.

In going on toward 50 years on the road, and maybe a million kilometres, I can recall only ONE occasion where I had to take evasive action to avoid a vehicle that had (deliberately) crossed the centre line and was driving on my side of the road. It was not hard to avoid. The cage encroaching on the opposite lane through a corner is another matter, but that is not what is meant here by "crossing the centre line", and I really, really hope noone is suggesting putting the stuff through single lane corners.

As to the "there's only been one person killed, so how do you know they are dangerous" - well, how many people have been killed in the last 5 years by having their heads cut off with an axe? - So then, will you allow me to hit your neck with the sharp edge of an axe? After all, nobody's been killed that way in ages, so how do you know it's dangerous. Some things are obviously a menace, you don't need any more evidence than your own eyes.

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 11:53
I think the "car crossing the centre line" scenario is overstated.

In going on toward 50 years on the road, and maybe a million kilometres, I can recall only ONE occasion where I had to take evasive action to avoid a vehicle that had (deliberately) crossed the centre line and was driving on my side of the road. It was not hard to avoid. The cage encroaching on the opposite lane through a corner is another matter, but that is not what is meant here by "crossing the centre line", and I really, really hope noone is suggesting putting the stuff through single lane corners.

As to the "there's only been one person killed, so how do you know they are dangerous" - well, how many people have been killed in the last 5 years by having their heads cut off with an axe? - So then, will you allow me to hit your neck with the sharp edge of an axe? After all, nobody's been killed that way in ages, so how do you know it's dangerous. Some things are obviously a menace, you don't need any more evidence than your own eyes.

That is just your singular experience. I have had 2 in 50,000k's in 9 years so x the number of road users etc etc

SPman
30th October 2007, 12:04
The thread is about Transit NZ not caring despite the fact that 15 fatalities have been avoided..........


Thats rather a large leap in assumption - so every potential lane crossing is a fatality - you don't work for the media do you? Or TNZ?

Grahameeboy
30th October 2007, 12:10
Thats rather a large leap in assumption - so every potential lane crossing is a fatality - you don't work for the media do you? Or TNZ?

I am just going by the news clip which said that 15 possible fatalities were avoided, I am not saying that every potential lane crossing is a fatality but on the road there is always potential for a hazard......

avgas
30th October 2007, 14:52
i personally dont like the fences, not because they can kill....but because we "need" them.
If you consider where they are - when was is OK to cross lanes.
Either make it a full blow motorway, or penalise the drivers out there that think its fine to "bounce off" the fence.
Why lay pillows out with a red carpet cos your a bad driver.
Would they make the same mistake if the fence was setup to kill the driver of the car if they got close to it? How many bad drivers fall off the various cliff faces and die instantly? f all.
Bloody nana state indeed

Paul in NZ
30th October 2007, 14:52
Goodness.... This wire is just ONE stretch of highway where there has been a consistent and HIGHLY publicised issue over many years with cars crossing the centre line resulting in many fatalities... YES - Motorcycles have been hit by these cars and other idiots doing U turns to go fishing.

Its very narrow and cannot be made wider to 4 lanes which would better reflect the amount of traffic using it.

My point - fighting the use of wire rope barriers using the centenial highway (the Killer highway) as an example could be doomed to failure - their use could well be justified there..

Paul N

discotex
30th October 2007, 15:49
My point - fighting the use of wire rope barriers using the centenial highway (the Killer highway) as an example could be doomed to failure - their use could well be justified there..

1. If a WRB is the only possible solution why not modify them to make them safer?

2. Are all the installations of other WRBs equally justified and will they actually achieve the intended result if they allow deflection into the oncomming lane anyway?


The argument to keep the status quo sounds awfully similar to pro-tobacco lobbying e.g. "will have to wait until the link with cancer is proven" ... "you can't prove smoking caused the cancer, they may have got it anyway" ... "I've been smoking for 40 years and look I'm not dead" ...

You just have to look at the mounting evidence overseas that shows that WRBs (and armcos with exposed posts) are a major risk factor to bikers that can be addressed reasonably easily.

Paul in NZ
30th October 2007, 17:14
I give up.....

Colapop
30th October 2007, 17:21
Wire rope barriers save lives.

The current campaign is not only about motorcyclists wailing against the oppressive hordes (of cagers and politicians) to further solely our aims. We are road users - part of a group of road users. Yes, wire rope barriers in their current form are very dangerous to motorcyclists but do save the lives of a large number of people. We should be looking to work with Transit to improve them rather than wailing about how they should be completely removed.


"To eat an elephant, you must first take a bite" Dalai Lama.
Small victories in battle often make up the most momentous victories in war. I'm saying that by taking small steps, we can achieve a greater good.

Paul in NZ
30th October 2007, 17:53
And I'm saving my energy for other things.. Go for it Col - like your attitude

discotex
31st October 2007, 09:19
We should be looking to work with Transit to improve them rather than wailing about how they should be completely removed.


Small victories in battle often make up the most momentous victories in war. I'm saying that by taking small steps, we can achieve a greater good.


And I'm saving my energy for other things.. Go for it Col - like your attitude


Can you munters not read?

That's exactly what is being called for.... The retrofitting of WRBs to make them safe... No-one behind this protest is calling for the removal of barriers.

imdying
31st October 2007, 09:29
Yeah, right... I've got a fiver that says at an 'anti-cheesecutter event', the message out there will be 'cheesecutters are dangerous, get rid of them!' rather than 'cheesecutters are dangerous, make them safer!'.

Check out this flyer... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=59690 Stop the construction of WRBs and increase the safety of other barriers.

Pixie
31st October 2007, 10:11
So we've got one idiot who falls off and whacks himself, and Chris Lane 'director of Kapiti Emergency Medical Services' telling us that 'it's fantastic' cause he doesn't have to scrape bodies off that piece of road anymore, and has probably prevented 15 casualty accidents they he knows of. 15 to 1 is pretty good odds in favor of the barrier.

Another bleedin' Devil's Advocate.

Using your logic we can make it compulsory that all cars have steel spikes mounted in front of the drivers forehead.
Only a small percentage will crash and get skewered,so it's alright,and the upside is that it will make them very careful drivers.

Pixie
31st October 2007, 10:16
You cannot just compare with other Countries who probably have greater volumes of traffic that NZ does.

If there is only 1 death per year, yes it is one too many, however, does it justify saying that Transit NZ don't care.?

How many kids drowned in pools per year prior to compulsory fencing?

Grahameeboy
31st October 2007, 10:19
How many kids drowned in pools per year prior to compulsory fencing?

No idea, however, not the point I am making..........:jerry:

sAsLEX
31st October 2007, 10:25
Yep, as I understand it, that seems to be valid. Your equation unfortunately applies to cost as well :(
For me, every life is equal, motorcyclist or cager, I also accept that there's only so much money allocated for barriers. It would however be nice if we could have a few less barriers to pay for upgrading the new ones with covers (if they're indeed proven to minimize injuries to motorcyclists). Given that every life is equal, the barriers seem to be doing alright... out of the 15 head ons prevented, how many were bikes that would've been on the receiving end? Of course, we'll never know that, but it would seem that it would only take one to even the score thus far.

ahh yes.

But how much would be saved if they avoided letting recidivist drunk and proper dangerous drivers back on the road.

We hear so much about these drivers killing on our roads and yet speeding seems the main thrust......

Maybe if a judge had been given some teeth some of those 15 never would of happened.

imdying
31st October 2007, 10:45
Must be different up north... down here I see more active enforcement against drunk drivers than speeders :shrugs:

/edit: That's not entirely true... I see more cops patrolling than booze buses out on the highways... but maybe that has something to do with the ration of 100km/hr zones to pubs....

As far as the 15 perhaps not happening... well, bad news, the standard of driving of the general population is bad enough that I wouldn't be surprised if none of them had been on the piss.

DEATH_INC.
31st October 2007, 11:09
WTF????
They are no cheaper in the long run....cost cannot be an argument for them.
Concrete or full armco will save as many lives, and stop trucks into the bargain, thereby saving potentially more.
The width is not that much of an issue, a concrete barrier is only a couple of feet through, not that huge.
Why are they banned in other countries if the no's don't add up?
There is no excuse for them.

discotex
31st October 2007, 12:34
Yeah, right... I've got a fiver that says at an 'anti-cheesecutter event', the message out there will be 'cheesecutters are dangerous, get rid of them!' rather than 'cheesecutters are dangerous, make them safer!'.

Check out this flyer... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=59690 Stop the construction of WRBs and increase the safety of other barriers.


I've seen the flyer and agree it doesn't communicate the message clearly. It also doesn't mean the campaign is anti barrier as you lot are implying.

Sure the odd person would like all road furniture removed but the majority agree on a very clear message - that barriers should be made safer for motorcycles while actually preventing head-on collisions (which incorrectly installed WRBs probably don't as they deform).

Of course Transit would prefer that the media see the minority extremist position you seem to believe rather than the more moderate publicly acceptable one promoted by most KB members.

Paul in NZ
31st October 2007, 12:54
Can you munters not read?

That's exactly what is being called for.... The retrofitting of WRBs to make them safe... No-one behind this protest is calling for the removal of barriers.

Yes - we can read thanks... :nono:

This thread is about ONE section of road where there is already considerable political influence involved. ANYONE trying ANY campaign about this one section of road or even mentioning this one particular section of road will doom your whole campaign to failure as you will get embroiled in all sorts of other issues... However, if you feel like taking 50 years of highly emotive issues on, please be my guest, local politicians have lost their careers trying.

By all means - make the barriers safer, ban them or paint em pink and sell em to a sucker but do not mention this new stretch or you will be buried before you get traction...

Cheers

MSTRS
31st October 2007, 13:17
And the use of cheesecutter on this stretch is better than a smooth barrier, why???

imdying
31st October 2007, 13:18
I've seen the flyer and agree it doesn't communicate the message clearly. It also doesn't mean the campaign is anti barrier as you lot are implying.I'm just pointing out that the campaign seems like a disorganised cluster fuck and I don't think that your message is going to get across in the way that the organisers have intended. The people that look after things like WRBs play in a reasonably heavy league (public money, politics, etc), you've gotta be on your game if you want to sway them.

Paul in NZ
31st October 2007, 14:45
And the use of cheesecutter on this stretch is better than a smooth barrier, why???

Because it is so narrow and cannot, will not be made wider... A solid barrier cannot be dropped to allow access by emergency services as a wire rope can.

Its not technical to ride and has an 80kph limit.

The MAJOR and REGULAR hazard is distracted drivers crossing the cantre resulting in many many deaths and accidents.

The solution is Transmission Gully and don't hold your breath for that.

This section of road is so political ANY mention of it will set alarm bells ringing everywhere and bring out the dogs of war

MSTRS
31st October 2007, 16:07
Because it is so narrow and cannot, will not be made wider... A solid barrier cannot be dropped to allow access by emergency services as a wire rope can.

Its not technical to ride and has an 80kph limit.

The MAJOR and REGULAR hazard is distracted drivers crossing the cantre resulting in many many deaths and accidents.

The solution is Transmission Gully and don't hold your breath for that.

This section of road is so political ANY mention of it will set alarm bells ringing everywhere and bring out the dogs of war

I totally understand the need for a barrier of some sort along here (this is the section from Pukerua Bay to Paekakariki, right?) BUT forgive me if I don't understand...how can the wires be dropped to allow access when they are supported by fixed posts every (2-3m?)

discotex
31st October 2007, 16:14
I'm just pointing out that the campaign seems like a disorganised cluster fuck and I don't think that your message is going to get across in the way that the organisers have intended. The people that look after things like WRBs play in a reasonably heavy league (public money, politics, etc), you've gotta be on your game if you want to sway them.

Sure.. So stop being part of the problem and part of the solution. If you think focussing on specific areas is a good idea then by all means point them out.

On the other hand don't diss a bunch of people for whining about something that is a real issue.

Much as I think Erin sole out to Noels she still shows if you stick at it you can change people's minds.


Because it is so narrow and cannot, will not be made wider... A solid barrier cannot be dropped to allow access by emergency services as a wire rope can.

Its not technical to ride and has an 80kph limit.

The MAJOR and REGULAR hazard is distracted drivers crossing the cantre resulting in many many deaths and accidents.

The solution is Transmission Gully and don't hold your breath for that.

This section of road is so political ANY mention of it will set alarm bells ringing everywhere and bring out the dogs of war

Then point that out.. There's no need to rubbish the idea of making WRBs safer as a pile of shit and just whining bikers.

Surely if stopping head-ons is the goal then WRBs will not achieve that anyway. Having seen them operate personally I can attest that they will not stop a head on unless there is at least 2m of verge.

In some ways they can make the situation worse as the car can end up stuck in the middle of the opposing lane rather than sailing on through.

Maybe a sectioned armco with some form of gate in it would be a better idea?


Yes - we can read thanks... :nono:

If it came across as an insult I apologise. I'm just over people jumping having not read any of the other threads.

Moaning about everyone wasting their time really doesn't do it for me. Can you tell?

Paul in NZ
31st October 2007, 19:17
I'll try to make it plainer....

I'm against wire rope barriers... they give me the shits... I want this protest to do good things BUT I drive this road twice a day and live locally and if you mention it in any protest it will make the job that much harder.. This is the poster child for WRB's.. There is endless CCTV footage of the WRB stopping head ons... The local emergency doc is for it, the firefighters are for it, the local council are for it, Transit paid for it after a trial period... Protest but just don't mention this particular deployment....

discotex
1st November 2007, 08:42
I'll try to make it plainer....

I'm against wire rope barriers... they give me the shits... I want this protest to do good things BUT I drive this road twice a day and live locally and if you mention it in any protest it will make the job that much harder.. This is the poster child for WRB's.. There is endless CCTV footage of the WRB stopping head ons... The local emergency doc is for it, the firefighters are for it, the local council are for it, Transit paid for it after a trial period... Protest but just don't mention this particular deployment....

Got you loud and clear and totally agree. There shouldn't need to be mention of specific roads as all kiwis have seen armcos and WRBs and instinctively know they won't be good to hit at speed in a car or not.

I figure getting the country on board to retrofit all barriers to make them safer would be much easier and better for bikes overall rather than stopping a single barrier from being built.