Wire (cheese cutter) barriers

**Ocean1** · 22nd October 2007, 01:51

Originally Posted by cooneyr

I'm not entering this thing to far for professional reasons (i'm and traffic and transportation engineer) but I have a few suggestions. I don't do road design work so not looked into this in any detail.

Look into the total economic equation i.e. costs and benefits. You need to consider the construction and maintenance costs as well as the benefits of the barriers (yes there is a value placed on life in the evaluation procedures).

If a complete case is to be put forward to TNZ you need to look at the benefits to all road users i.e. motorcyclists, cars, and trucks. You may find for example that wire rope barriers kill motorcyclists and yet trap and slow down cars and trucks where as concrete J rails are better for motorcyclists and yet bounce cars and trucks back into the traffic stream and involve other vehicle in the accident. Tough stuff to study and get info on but try your best.

Lastly if you are going to annoy people contact the Ministry of Transport, Transit New Zealand Head Office in Wellington (sorry I don't have a contact), and Transit Regional Office in your area.

I dont mean to rain on the enthusiasm, rather trying to prove insight into the thinking behind current policy/design rules.

Cheers R

Thanks for that. You're right, a less than well reasoned or informed reaction would be unfortunate, and probably inefective.

Couple of points, however. While I personally don't have a problem with using resources to best effect it seems to me that such policies potentially discriminate against bikers. We are a minority, but not a small one, and we're over-represented in both accident and fatality statistics, as evidenced by our high registration costs. It could reasonably be argued that optimising road safety for cars and trucks with little emphisis on the requirements of road design for bikes is not equitable.

I'd like more information on the original design purpose of wire barriers also. It seems to me I've heard that they're supposed to be employed with a minimum (3M?) separation from traffic lanes. In other words they're designed as a last resort measure to prevent head-on accidents, but are less than safe when installed too close to normal traffic streams. I've never seen such generous separation here, in fact in some places the wire IS the lane boundary.

One more point: Fuel surcharges were originally introduced as a "user pays" means of helping fund roading infrastructure maintenance and development. Where the fuck is it being spent?

**Max Preload** · 22nd October 2007, 02:10

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Fuel surcharges were originally introduced as a "user pays" means of helping fund roading infrastructure maintenance and development. Where the fuck is it being spent?

You see all those sky dishes on houses in Labour's key electoral seats, low socio-economic areas... I think I have your answer...

**Drum** · 22nd October 2007, 03:00

Originally Posted by Ixion

....If they are not installed in accordance with the required standards and best practice, then arguably LTSA might be guilty of negligence, even criminal negligence.......

The LTSA doesn't exist any more and hasn't for a couple of years. They are now part of an organisation called Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ).

Regardless, the barriers are not installed by LTNZ, they are installed by Transit NZ, and the man you need to contact at TNZ in Wellington is Roly Frost (General Manager Network Operations).

Other helpful links:

Transits Specification for Road Safety Barrier Systems (M/23):

http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_f...47_pdfFile.pdf

It's worth noting Section 5.2 which lists the complying guidelines, which can be found here............

http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_f...30_PDFFile.pdf

Edit: And appendix A of M/23..........http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_f...50_pdfFile.pdf

**cooneyr** · 22nd October 2007, 06:54

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Thanks for that. You're right, a less than well reasoned or informed reaction would be unfortunate, and probably inefective.

Couple of points, however. While I personally don't have a problem with using resources to best effect it seems to me that such policies potentially discriminate against bikers. We are a minority, but not a small one, and we're over-represented in both accident and fatality statistics, as evidenced by our high registration costs. It could reasonably be argued that optimising road safety for cars and trucks with little emphisis on the requirements of road design for bikes is not equitable.

You are very correct. Any reaction if well informed will have a much greater impact. I agree that there may be discrepancies between users but this will always be the case in many aspects of road design. Think of the amount on money spent on pedestrians in NZ. Most of the NZ roading budget goes into private car and truck facilities as they make up 99% of all road users.

Be careful using the accident statistics (real data) as a reason for improve road design from a motorcyclists perspective. There are the three E's - Engineering (aspect we are focusing on in this thread), Education (something the policy makers will focus on in response to any argument we put up) and Enforcement (many other KB threads). One of the hardest aspects in Central Government policy is acheving the "correct" balance (whatever that may be) between the three E's. I personally think that Education needs to be emphasised more in NZ. I like having to use my brain to negotiate a road rather than being wrapped in cotton wool and twisting the wrist/putting the foot down.

Remember that bikers have a bad rep for being hoons. Unless the complete accident data records are studied for all the minor details around the crash rather than the focusing on speed etc (me cyinical about the speeding policy - never

) we will never get the real picture. It is very easy to look at the crash data and determine that XX% of all crashes involve speed but if you look closer at the crash data (I have access) many of them will actually be too fast for the conditions. An example of of this is loss of control on a corner crash - speed was a factor (and is recorded as such) hence is picked up in the speed percentage serches but the driver may have been doing 60 around a 35 corner. This means that only targeting 105km + is targeting the wrong type of speeding in many cases i.e. excessive speed for the situation should be the the main target, hence do a driver for dangerous driving.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I'd like more information on the original design purpose of wire barriers also. It seems to me I've heard that they're supposed to be employed with a minimum (3M?) separation from traffic lanes. In other words they're designed as a last resort measure to prevent head-on accidents, but are less than safe when installed too close to normal traffic streams. I've never seen such generous separation here, in fact in some places the wire IS the lane boundary.

The pole spacing and the potential angle of impact are very relevant in this respect. The closer the pole spacing the smaller the penetration distance and also the shallower the angle of impact the smaller the angle of penetration.

I dont know the details but I'm sure there are specs on manufactures web sites that could be interrogated (can you help with specs Drum?). The way in which the barriers are used in central medians on some roads does seem a little odd to me.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

One more point: Fuel surcharges were originally introduced as a "user pays" means of helping fund roading infrastructure maintenance and development. Where the fuck is it being spent?

Apparently (so I've heard but not read) 100% of all road user taxes (fuel surcharges and RUC) are used in roading now. I stand correct if I've heard wrong though.

R

**Edbear** · 22nd October 2007, 07:53

This is all well and good, of course, but are we missing the point?

For whatever reason, and that may come out soon, a biker came off his bike and hit the barrier. He was cut in half! The type of barrier caused his horrible death.

If this was a building such as the Imax theatre in Auckland where a young man fell to his death from a walkway, something would be urgently done about it.

Maybe the rider was speeding, maybe he was tired, the reason is irrelevant to the result.

People sometimes forget what is the important bit...

**Skyryder** · 22nd October 2007, 08:04

There's not much that has not been said already on the subject. However for those of you who want to do something about the removal/replacement of wire barriers, this is a big project and unless you have the time for the 'long haul' you may want to reconsider. Having said that these projects can be a lot of fun and if you do decide to proceed remember make it fun; that way when the bad times come, and they will and plenty of them, you can move on from the bad news. Like most things if you are to win you need a strategy in place.

First is a 'launch' you are promoting youselves and the danger that wire barriers are to the community as a whole. Best launching vehicle I know of is a protest that gets the media attention. There's been the odd suggestion of a ride to Parliment. Been awhile and it's nearing election time. Road safety always good as an election issue. Use it.

Someone suggested that you need data on accidents etc on wire barriers and that this can be difficult to aquire. Yes that is true, but not impossible. Find out what countries have used wire barriers and replaced them. Write to the appropiate government departments and ask for 'official data' on their reaons for removal etc. One armed with facts you can make more noise. Find a sympethatic MP. Preferbly one from the major parties. There heaps more but as you can imagine this all takes time. A small and 'dedicated' group can make a difference.

I wish you well for those who want to get involved with this.

Skyryder

**sAsLEX** · 22nd October 2007, 08:10

Originally Posted by JMemonic

Christchurch riders will have noticed one of these things on the tunnel road heading towards Lyttelton, anyone know why transit spent the money? I cant find anyone who knows of an accident there that would justify this hazard, there used to be a gentle gradient on the grass allowing plenty of time to stop, and it provided a safe area should there be a breakdown, now it means cars and trucks have to stop in the lane and should you be riding up there at 2300, on pitch dark night, and the light fuse blows you have to try jamming yourself up against the bloody thing as cages wiz by at 100+ kph, none to pleasant.

The ones they added just North of Meremere turned the road into a killing zone with narrow lanes and no escape routes, was fantastic when tractors use the road which they used to avoid as they would be driving along the verge, now they are in the centre and cause havoc!

And why do we need barriers on the left hand edge of the road and relatively normal sections of road!? Has anyone in the industry got an idea?

Originally Posted by bugjuice

Don't watch the clips if things are still raw, but this will show you what LTSA see, and why they see it. They're cheap, effective, and small, and do the job well. At the cost of.. well, we all know

I am sorry but how are they effective at stopping head ons?!

Those clips showed the vehicle pushing the barrier well into where the other lane would be in most NZ applications of the Wire Rope barrier. So to be effective theses zones should be yellow lined/ to the side of the road lane which they are not, but if they were then concrete barriers would have a far reduced foot print!!

**Ms Piggy** · 22nd October 2007, 08:40

Originally Posted by SpankMe

They need to go.

As usual it takes a tragedy before action is taken, so this thread is for compiling information about why they should be removed, so lets stick to the facts.

Whats wrong with them
Should they be removed or modified
What other countries have done
How to approach/convince Transit NZ

No idle comments or guesses please. We just need info.

Here's my 2 cents worth:
- they can be fatal for motorcyclists.
This is also an issue for Aussie riders: http://www.ozbiker.org/index.php?opt...=601&Itemid=39
http://www.ozbiker.org/index.php?opt...=605&Itemid=39
-I believe they should either be removed or modified.
-I believe other countries have modified or banned their installation.
- A standard letter to send to our local MP as well as the Minsiter of Transport...it's Harry Duynhoven http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_team...ven/index.html

I had a quick scan through the thread and I don't think I've doubled up on anything anyone else has posted. Cheers and let me know if there's any way I can help...being in Welly I'm more than happy and confident to make an appointment to visit the Minister once some info has been compiled.

**raster** · 22nd October 2007, 08:57

Those barriers have saved many lives, that is not the argument I think.

would a vehicle coming the other way have not done as much damage.

I have been working on this for more that 12 months in my limited capacity, I am in for the long haul.

They can be modified to reduce the carnage to M/C riders!
Especially on corners. The one south of Meremere, the person who put that in should be shot!

I'm going to go and take some photos.

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd October 2007, 09:17

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

The ones they added (somewhere near) Meremere turned the road into a killing zone with narrow lanes and no escape routes...

First time I had ever seen or heard of these wire rope barriers was here....I was in a cage and I had thought that my motorcycling days were long over (until I got the 'bug' again)...anyway, one look at that vile installation and my immediate thought was "What happens to a human body hitting one of those things?"

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

And why do we need barriers on the left hand edge of the road and relatively normal sections of road!?

The strange thing about Govt-funded entities is that they have a budget allocated...which they must spend or risk reduction next year. Save here = spend there. Nobody ever said it had to be spent wisely...

**sAsLEX** · 22nd October 2007, 09:41

Originally Posted by MSTRS

The strange thing about Govt-funded entities is that they have a budget allocated...which they must spend or risk reduction next year. Save here = spend there. Nobody ever said it had to be spent wisely...

Hotmix and decent tarmac in the first place would chew up some of this budget and benefit everyone, but we get crap road surfaces that are falling apart days after they have been put down and need repairs constantly. Have they ever heard of doing something once and doing it right? I mean some Roman era roads are still in use!

**tri boy** · 22nd October 2007, 09:45

As Ixion has mentioned, BRONZ has its AGM soon. Probably NZs most potent weapon in approaching the powers that be.
This is NZ riders chance to consolidate in a sensible manner, and support BRONZ in its efforts to improve our rights as road users.
The Ozzie chapter of said organisation has been active in state and Federal policies for over 20 yrs, and have made some good inroads into riders rights.
I've been slack in supporting BRONZ. Time I made a change.

**DEATH_INC.** · 22nd October 2007, 10:18

Originally Posted by Celtic_Sea_lily

Minsiter of Transport...it's Harry Duynhoven http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_team...ven/index.html

Maybe the opposition mp may be a better place, give him some ammo on the current one, and he may fight for us if it get's him some publicity (read votes)