Fair call for a barrier but cheese grater?

[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/...006-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:Me]

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/...ectid=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.