Cheeecutter saves motorcyclist's life - 2 April 2011

[Katman]

It’s disappointing, (not to mention hugely inequitable) that a reasonably large slice of road users can be so effectively disenfranchised from such decisions but nonetheless charged more for their use of the roads on the stated basis that they’re injured more often.

Since when has 2% been "a reasonably large slice"?

[bogan]

Since when has 2% been "a reasonably large slice"?

3% of the vehicle fleet, and just under 100,000 bikes in 08, and probably a smidge more now. I would consider it very reasonable that the planners and engineers think of us when designing roads.

[Ocean1]

Since when has 2% been "a reasonably large slice"?

If it's large enough to charge more expressly to cover ACC related costs then it's large enough to consider when designing roads in order to explicitly mitigate those costs.

I wonder what percentage of the road-going public are represented by cyclists in order that special consideration be given them in terms of infrastructure design. Must be rather a high percentage to justify completely separate lanes, a raft of different legislation and licence to park wherever they want I suppose...

[StoneY]

3% of the vehicle fleet, and just under 100,000 bikes in 08, and probably a smidge more now. I would consider it very reasonable that the planners and engineers think of us when designing roads.

They do in Victoria, and the changes in the engineering standards there have been proven to save lives

[Ocean1]

They do in Victoria, and the changes in the engineering standards there have been proven to save lives

Hush, we only copy Victoria for revenue positive initiatives.

[StoneY]

Hush, we only copy Victoria for revenue positive initiatives.

And we will be :-)

[Berries]

Can't find the reference now but it showed budget figures for WRB vs concrete. WRB was a few percent cheaper to install, more costly than concrete if you included maintenance costs. Any added installation costs at all would probably make WRB more expensive than concrete and should make it lose it's preferred option status.

I see the concrete median barrier was hit again today on the southern 'motorway' in Dunedin. Zero repair costs. A section of wire rope was taken out a fortnight ago, repair would have been five figures when you take in to account traffic management. Whole life cost is not a consideration, if it was we would see more concrete.

I wonder if the environmental lobby groups might have had some input, there, they're certainly more influential than any of the bikers lobby groups.

Not sure, but visual intrusion, particularly when placed along lake sides, must be a reason it is preferred to armco in those places.

[Ocean1]

Not sure, but visual intrusion, particularly when placed along lake sides, must be a reason it is preferred to armco in those places.

Paremata-Haywards road. It's got a 1M drop to either sand or reed beds. http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&...-8&sa=N&tab=wl It's got Armco for most of it's length.

Paekakariki hill is a narrow windy road with a steep fall of maybe 100M to the railway line and/or SH1: http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&...-8&sa=N&tab=wl
It's got intermittent stretched of ankle high wooden railings I could kick over the edge.


The trafic density's lower, but risk should be a part of any safety analisys and I just can't make it add up. Unless those herronduckgoose things at Paremata are very very nasty to land on.

[BoristheBiter]

The trafic density's lower, but risk should be a part of any safety analisys and I just can't make it add up. Unless those herronduckgoose things at Paremata are very very nasty to land on.

So as only 2 bike have hit a WRB they deem the risk as insignificant, I guess.
It would be good to see what parameters they use in a safety analysis for any piece of road.

[MSTRS:Me]

So as only 2 bike have hit a WRB they deem the risk as insignificant, I guess.
It would be good to see what parameters they use in a safety analysis for any piece of road.

More than 2, apparently. 1 death and 1 serious injury.
Armco strikes are no good either...lots of deaths over the years.
The difference is Armco has been around longer and is in more places.
Wait until WRB has the same proliferation. I will guarantee the injury/death rate will be waaaay higher than with Armco.

Roading engineers use a system of greater/lesser risk in determining whether a barrier is required. ie - a particular condition on this bit of road poses x amount of risk. Will a barrier pose a lesser risk, or a greater risk, if installed?

[BoristheBiter]

More than 2, apparently. 1 death and 1 serious injury.
Armco strikes are no good either...lots of deaths over the years.
The difference is Armco has been around longer and is in more places.
Wait until WRB has the same proliferation. I will guarantee the injury/death rate will be waaaay higher than with Armco.

Roading engineers use a system of greater/lesser risk in determining whether a barrier is required. ie - a particular condition on this bit of road poses x amount of risk. Will a barrier pose a lesser risk, or a greater risk, if installed?

I wish some correct figures can be found in regards to who's hit what so we can see what impact these have made and also death/injury with each type.

One side of me thinks they are better for keeping people on there side of the road and the biker in me gives them a very wide berth as i know i would never what to try them out.
In fact i would not want to try any of them out.

[Ocean1]

So as only 2 bike have hit a WRB they deem the risk as insignificant, I guess.
It would be good to see what parameters they use in a safety analysis for any piece of road.

I wasn't clear. Risk = exposure x consequence.

If the traffic is heavy but the likely consequence of a prang are very light then there's probably no need to engineer a safety solution. If the traffic's light but a crash will definitely see you plummet 100 metres onto a railway line then that might be a good place to spend a bit of budget on a barrier.

This is really basic, safety 101, but it doesn't stack up against actual barrier projects. History indicates that when decisions are made by local or national governments that don't agree with specialist advice it's invariably because a politician has a vested interest in the outcome.

[MSTRS:Me]

...vested interest...

This is the bit that always niggles at me. The statistics surrounding various barrier types, from all over the world, are discounted by the claims 'that there is insufficient research to indicate...'
Actual crashes and their outcomes, are not anecdotal, so what has 'research' got to do with anything?
Vested interests, indeed.

[Ocean1]

One side of me thinks they are better for keeping people on there side of the road and the biker in me gives them a very wide berth as i know i would never what to try them out.
In fact i would not want to try any of them out.

I can understand that. However the arguement for me isn't WRB or nothing, it's WRB or concrete.

Statistiaclly irrelevant, but I can report that in at least one instance hitting a concrete barrier at the legal limit hurts. It didn't, however break anything other than a brake lever and mirror. Scratched some paint. Bit of a bruise. If that car had pulled out into me against anything with posts I have absolutely no doubt I'd be either dead or wish I was.

[Berries]

I wish some correct figures can be found in regards to who's hit what so we can see what impact these have made and also death/injury with each type.

Ask the MOT or NZTA national office. The crash database only records whether a guardrail was hit, not the type. To get that info each crash report has to be viewed, and you have to hope the cop wrote down something more than just "guardrail", but they have enough flunkeys to do that. Would only take them half a day.

It is a valid question, and one they should want to know the answer to themselves, if they don't already.