NZTA response to question about wire rope barriers.

[Big Dog]

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.

I see you haven't been to the Waikato lately then.

[nodrog:Me]

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

probably due to the lack of oncoming traffic or hard objects to hit, Einstein.

[gjm]

I see you haven't been to the Waikato lately then.

Aye. Massive lengths of SH1 north of Te Kauwhata, many areas south, and (iirc) much of the new Waikato Expressway.

Thios suggests new road builds will get wire barriers.

Nowt t'do wit budget, of course.

[Ocean1]

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.)

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.

All of which might be pertinent to a discussion about how dangerous wire rope barriers are, if any attempt had been made to address the exposure half of the risk equation. Namely, how many kilometers of each barrier has to be negotiated.

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."

Aye, energy dissipation, a traffic engineer's wet dream. Except wire rope barriers aren't significantly better in that regard than a concrete median barrier, even if the recommended 7 meters between lanes is provided. And completely irrelevant in discussing bike risk.

And I can't believe nobody has mentioned the elephant in the room:

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

Which not only begs the question "Why is there a dramatic growth in the installation of posts and signs?" But also: "What the fuck does the corespondent think holds all them wire ropes up, wishful thinking?"

Overall a poor effort at spinning numbers to fit a preconceived agenda.

[Scuba_Steve]

i think all barriers should be removed.




...and replaced with landmines.

While I see where you're going I can't say I like that idea; I use the extra space created by the cheese graters to overtake

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

Same reason we don't use slicks for everyday travel... Just cause something works in 1 environment doesn't mean it works in another

[swbarnett]

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.

Situation 1: Rangiriri straight, night, wet, following a sloooow car, one lane, no way to pass, watching a large truck in my mirror that doesn't look like it's slowing down in time.

Situation 2: (My wife this time) Tight blind corner, find a car overtaking directly in front of her, thankfully no left barrier, accident avoided by going bush on the grass verge.

ANYTHING that stops us getting ourselves out of a potential fatal situation is not to be tolerated.

[Doppleganger]

probably due to the lack of oncoming traffic or hard objects to hit, Einstein.

Try and read a little more of the reply given to the op dumb ass.
They claim an up to 80% improvement in the death rate. If thats the case shouldnt all the crcuits be changing to this 'rider friendly' style of crash barrier.

Scuba Steve

Same answer to you numb nuts because the claim it is sooo much safer, god you guys are hard work....

Come on cups cake keep up....

You guys are part of the problem if your happy to sit around buying into this spin.

[Mike.Gayner]

Wire rope barriers don't bother me that much. They're generally on easy bits of motorway where you're never going to hit them. Their primary purpose is keeping other vehicles out of oncoming traffic, and I'm all in favour of that in such circumstances. I've never seen an actual case of dismemberment from these things, and the research seems to indicate they are no less safe then any other barriers, unless someone has some data to the contrary.

[FJRider]

I've never seen an actual case of dismemberment from these things, and the research seems to indicate they are no less safe then any other barriers, unless someone has some data to the contrary.

In the statistics listed of the "No other vehicle involved" motorcycle accidents ... I have not seen mention of any case of a collision with a WRB.

If they were as dangerous as some claim ... a few should have hit one by now (with no outside help) ...

[OddDuck]

A quick search turned this up, from across the ditch:

http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/...84/atsb201.pdf

There's a lot to go through. I've only had time for a glance, but two things stand out:

1) the authors understand that crash barriers designed for motorcyclists need to have smooth, continuous surfaces running parallel to the road, top mid and base with no exposed posts, and

2) there's very little data available for wire rope barriers and bikers.

The NZTA themselves say the same thing about the data.

I can see the pros and cons of the things. The wire rope barrier on the Kapiti coast means that I won't have to worry about cagers trying a dodgy overtake and going head-on with me - but take a look at the barrier posts pictured here:

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-r...fety-barriers/

Slide into those at speed (if you've come off and you're at ground level) and you're guaranteed to get seriously messed up. Without them you might be going into oncoming traffic, true, but at least that has gaps / can dodge.

As BanditBandit said, get over it, ride, and don't come off. Yes. I accept that the wire rope barriers are here and they're not going away.

The bit that I have a problem with is authority shamelessly covering its own backside on this issue. It's the spin. If they just stopped playing games with the truth, I wouldn't get so angry about it.

[Moi]

A couple more that are available to read. Neither come out and say that wire barriers are deadly but they have the potential to be so, same as any other piece of road side furniture.

These are the two: Motorcycle Safety and Roadside Barriers

and Review-Motorcycle Crashes into Roadside Barriers: Stage 4:
Protecting motorcyclists in collisions with roadside barriers-University of New South Wales 2015

If you read this - Safe System from NZTA you will see how roadside barriers and centre barriers are all part of their wider vision for road safety.

[Big Dog]

In the statistics listed of the "No other vehicle involved" motorcycle accidents ... I have not seen mention of any case of a collision with a WRB.

If they were as dangerous as some claim ... a few should have hit one by now (with no outside help) ...

Then they have "selected out" 2007 and 2008.
Auckland single vehicle wire rope barrier dismembered fatally 2007.
Wellington fatal 2008. Details a bit sketchier because it didn't get as much publicity.
I'm not sure does partial decapitation count as dismemberment?


Oh wait. None of the 3 deaths count in the dismemberment stats because they weren't treated for that.


Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

It doesn't help that the coroner's reports on such things are always "closed". Doesn't stop some people publishing them.
Adding "coroner's report" to searches gives your result set a different point of view than a set of results based on hospital admissions.

Sent via tapatalk.

[FJRider]

Oh wait. None of the 3 deaths count in the dismemberment stats because they weren't treated for that.

This might put a different spin on the WRB arguments ...

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-r...fety-barriers/

A study of NZ motorcycle-barrier crash data from January 2001 to July 2013 shows of the 20 motorcycle fatalities following hitting a barrier, 13 were from W-beam and 3 from wire rope. It is worth noting that in this time period there were 97 fatalities from collision with posts or poles, 70 from hitting a traffic sign and 93 from crashing into unprotected trees.

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

[Big Dog]

I wouldn't argue that the number of deaths compared to other barriers was higher over the timescale.
Stats are stats.
I would be interested to know how many collisions with these resulted in low or no injury.
Of the high injury how many survived.

I do question why the stats deliberately omit groups of data that don't support the arguments of the supporters.
If it is not sugnificant that 3 people died in altercations with these barriers surely it is not significant that those same 3 people suffered some degree of dismemberment?

I think they have used some loaded terms. Half the rate implies half as many who struck the barrier died but the data set does not actually support that and suggests they mean 2x as many people who died were in contact with a w beam.

If the data is that 100 riders struck each and 2x as many survived that would support their argument. I suspect we don't see that ratio is because it doesn't support their position.

How come such specific detail can be provided around deaths but not around strikes?

Does anyone know of any rider striking these barriers at greater than running pace and not recieving a significant injury?

I can't find any mention of survivors.

Sent via tapatalk.