NZTA response to question about wire rope barriers.

**Moi** · 27th January 2016, 10:31

The following appeared in the NZ Herald on Tuesday 26 January 2016 in response to a question sent to 'Ask Phoebe'.

This is being posted for your information...

I would like to know how the NZTA can justify installing wire rope barriers on our main roads. Have you seen what happens to a motorcyclist should they come off their bike and hit one of these?

If you're not decapitated and killed outright, the injuries are horrific and usually limbs are lost.

This type of barrier should be banned, so I would appreciate a response from NZTA as to why it has zero consideration for the safety of motorcyclists. Greg Ewen, Auckland.

The Transport Agency was happy to provide the following:

"The main purpose of wire rope safety barriers is to stop traffic leaving the road and colliding with solid objects such as other vehicles, trees and poles.

Studies show the fear that the steel ropes have a cheese-cutter effect is unfounded, and that wire rope barriers are more forgiving than traditional steel barriers with a 70-80 per cent reduction in road deaths.

A study of New Zealand motorcycle barrier crash data from January 2001 to July 2013 shows that of the 20 motorcycle fatalities that followed a collision with a barrier, 13 were from W-beam and three from wire rope. (A W-beam is a semi-rigid steel guard rail with a cross-section in the shape of a rounded W.)

In this same period there were 97 deaths from collisions with posts, 70 from hitting traffic signs and 93 from hitting unprotected trees.

Of the barrier collisions, wire rope safety barriers have around half the fatality rate of W-beam ones and concrete barriers are the most dangerous of all to motorcyclists.

Wire rope barriers 'catch' vehicles that leave the road. When a vehicle hits the wire rope barrier the cables flex, slowing the vehicle and pushing it back into its lane. The system absorbs impact energy, reducing the force on the passengers which means fewer and less severe injuries.

They are also designed so no part of them can penetrate the passenger compartment of cars."

This is a link to the piece in the NZ Herald

**OddDuck** · 27th January 2016, 11:00

Fuck me. Studies show... who gives a shit what some fucking study shows. Go be a pillion on a bike, ride close to one of these, and see what you start thinking about them, safety guru.

What a bunch of condescending dickheads!!

**Banditbandit** · 27th January 2016, 11:17

If you ride a bike you fall off - if you fall off you can hit things .. there are plenty of things alongside a road to hit ... why are you worried about just one of them? Do you want large run-off areas besides all our roads like race tracks have?

Don't fall off ...

FFS .. get over your cotton wool selves ..

**nzspokes** · 27th January 2016, 11:51

Wouldn't that be because wire barriers are a recent thing?

To be fair I wouldn't want to be sliding into either.

**Akzle** · 27th January 2016, 11:54

i think all barriers should be removed.

...and replaced with landmines.

**Tazz** · 27th January 2016, 12:16

Originally Posted by nzspokes

Wouldn't that be because wire barriers are a recent thing?

To be fair I wouldn't want to be sliding into either.

yeah I'd say! How many meters are there of the older style vs the wires should be noted. Fucking typical half arsed govt stats.

There is a bit more too it though than just slicing and dicing though so I guess they have a bit of weight with that comment?

http://www.righttoride.eu/2013/09/30...able-barriers/

**caspernz** · 27th January 2016, 12:20

Compared to some road side furniture, the WRBs vs oncoming vehicles crossing into my path...the WRBs will do fine thanks. A 4 inch high concrete kerb will cause all manner of damage to a sliding body, yet I don't see anyone getting all up in arms over kerbs...

**FJRider** · 27th January 2016, 12:23

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

If you ride a bike you fall off - if you fall off you can hit things .. there are plenty of things alongside a road to hit ... why are you worried about just one of them? Do you want large run-off areas besudes all our roads like race tracks have?

Don't fall off ...

FFS .. get over your cotton wool selves ..

One thing that I often think of while riding ... is the extremely large number of places that ... if you ever left the road ... you would be dam lucky to survive. Let alone be found ... ever.

But I guess nobody lives forever ...

**Big Dog** · 27th January 2016, 12:23

Originally Posted by Moi

...In this same period there were 97 deaths from collisions with posts, 70 from hitting traffic signs and 93 from hitting unprotected trees...

Originally Posted by nzspokes

Wouldn't that be because wire barriers are a recent thing?

To be fair I wouldn't want to be sliding into either.

Statistically - Worldwide it is unlikely you will be harmed or maimed by a wire rope any more than you would be by another sort of barrier.
The supporting structures on the other hand are somewhat intolerant of flesh and often inopportune for a motorcyclist in placement.

Personally - rightly or wrongly I probably take more care around these vicious things that sacrifice the risk to the few over the benefit to the many and in wonder if this is the reason for the anomaly that leaves the stats the way they are.
Do you really think ACC or nzta care which is true?

Sent via tapatalk.

**Doppleganger** · 27th January 2016, 14:14

So they ae safer aye.....
Wonder why we dont see them around the race tracks of this world

**RDJ** · 27th January 2016, 14:50

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Do you really think ACC or nzta care which is true? Sent via tapatalk.

I am thereby reminded of the classic quote allegedly by a US college athlete:

Coach: "Son, what is it with you, ignorance or apathy?"

Athlete: "Coach, I don't know and I don't care."

I believe this describes the senior (laughably named) management of NZTA and ACC precisely.

**Hitcher** · 27th January 2016, 16:23

NZTA's response show what happens when facts meet emotion. Bikers need to learn from this, particularly if they want to become effective lobbyists.

**swbarnett** · 27th January 2016, 16:34

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

If you ride a bike you fall off - if you fall off you can hit things .. there are plenty of things alongside a road to hit ... why are you worried about just one of them? Do you want large run-off areas besudes all our roads like race tracks have?

Don't fall off ...

FFS .. get over your cotton wool selves ..

My objection is not so much about the barriers themselves. It's the complete lack of consideration given to a legal sub-group of the motoring public. Replace "Motorcyclist" with "Maori" in this context and just watch the size of the outcry.

**merv** · 27th January 2016, 16:52

Given that it is typical to be blaming cagers for hitting bikers and bikers on here are all good riders why would said bikers want to hit a cheesecutter anyway, but sure as hell they will help stop the cager from hitting the biker in a head on. Cheesecutters are normally fitted on fairly easy curves or straights and a bike has a lot of room in the lane so yeah just don't bother hitting the cheesecutter and you'll be fine.