Reply from MP Harry Duynhoven

[Ocean1]

1) From what (incredibly little) I understand... 9 accidents does not make a sample size from which statistically valid conclusions can be reached.

Not a statistician.
However, risk is a simple enough equation. Risk equals exposure times consequence.

In order to accurately assess the risk of WRBs to motorcyclists you first need to establish a baseline. Are you looking to compare the risk to those posed by no barrier at all? Or those posed by alternative designs of barrier?

The first part of the sum won’t change much, (unless a particular design can be said to cause accidents), it’s just the number of motorcycle accidents occurring adjacent to or in close proximity to the barrier. If we’re looking to compare the inherent risks to bikers of various forms of barrier then you need to assign categories of damage/injury caused (or prevented) by accidents relating to all of the designs in question.

On the face of it that’s exactly what’s been done. The sample, however, is pitifully small, nowhere near large enough for an acceptable level of confidence. There’s ways to fix that, we can wait for the sample to get bigger, (and, ethics aside, that’s not ideal because the environment is changing quickly), or we can go get data from essentially similar groups with larger existing samples, (off shore). We can also simulate the consequences, by scientifically chucking sheep carcases at barriers to see what happens. Either of the last two would probably be effective, (in an acceptable time frame), in filling in the consequence half of the risk sum, for us, as a group.

I’d be very surprised if the above data isn’t already available, the most likely source would seem to be one or more of the riding interest groups who’ve already been successful in forcing modifications to policy overseas. Any entity concerned with maintaining the status quo here will focus on the frequency of related events, (exposure), because the numbers there are small, easily attributed to “acceptable collateral damage” in any analysis of the barriers overall effectiveness. I’m picking they might rather we not focus on the consequences side or that sum, not only is the data highly likely to indicate “unacceptable carnage” but the data itself would be graphic, a powerful PR tool in it’s own right.

So let’s do that.

[MSTRS:Me]

I had a reporter here this morning for an interview on the subject. I let her read Duynhoven's reply while I got some stuff together for her....the walls/air turned blue with the language. Good thing he is not in HB.

[Squiggles]

Stats>Research it seems.

Bugger, so a bunch of us have to be killed by these things before its considered

[ynot slow]

What do you expect from a hopeless MP,as stated all he does is toe the party line,hell how many years has he been in parliament (12?),and still not in cabinet,allways an associate minister outside cabinet.Remember he was a teacher prior to becoming an MP(mentally pathetic)for labour.Interestingly he coached NPboys high 3rd 11 soccer team when teaching,even then he couldn't get the top job,mind you he was passionate about his Porsche car,he liked the model which is his domain in life,maybe if he rode a bike instead of older cars it might be ok.At least the previous NP MP called Friedlander had an interest in road/transport and is the road transport assoc president.

[Hitcher]

Hon Duynhoven's reply would have been written by his officials. It clearly shows the extent of prejudice inherent in the "system". Playing Jedi mind-games with the brain-dead is neither stimulating or rewarding. The sooner we organise a face-to-face with said Minister, the better!

[limbimtimwim]

My letter is almost exactly the same and arrived a couple of days ago.

Kept meaning to scan it in and post it, and kept forgetting.

[Matt_TG]

Is that an exact copy and paste of the letter? If so the spelling and grammar are shocking.

My thoughts exactly. Written by someone with a NCEA Inglish pass perhaps?

Could we stage a sort of "Mythbusters" test by throwing a dummy at a WRB and a concrete barrier at say 80km/h and compare the results? Just a thought.

[ynot slow]

My thoughts exactly. Written by someone with a NCEA Inglish pass perhaps?

Could we stage a sort of "Mythbusters" test by throwing a dummy at a WRB and a concrete barrier at say 80km/h and compare the results? Just a thought.

Hell no that would be tantamount to the MPs admitting they were wrong,great idea though a couple of dummies flung at the barriers would cost stuff all,hell use a real dummy couple of labour cabinet ministers.

[Hitcher]

Could we stage a sort of "Mythbusters" test by throwing a dummy at a WRB and a concrete barrier at say 80km/h and compare the results? Just a thought.

Mythbusters? We could drive a car at it, particularly on the Centennial Highway, to demonstrate that a 1.5km stretch of wire rope on a windy stretch of road, held up only by aluminium pegs, will not stop a car from crossing into the path of oncoming traffic.

The "myth" that needs to be challenged here isn't the implied fact that the lives of motorcyclists are worth less than car occupants. It's that cheesecutter makes roads safer by preventing accidents. Based on the "supporting" statements they make to defend their position, officials have bugger all real evidence to defend their prejudice.

[sunhuntin]

im with hitch. use a combo of vehicles, cars, vans, campers, trucks, and, if it can be safely pulled off, a motorbike.

[Ocean1]

Mythbusters? We could drive a car at it, particularly on the Centennial Highway, to demonstrate that a 1.5km stretch of wire rope on a windy stretch of road, held up only by aluminium pegs, will not stop a car from crossing into the path of oncoming traffic.

Aluminium? Or steel?

Whether they prevent head-ons, at least, should be capable of statistical proof. Has there not been a reduction of accidents, fatalities and head-ons on that stretch of road since installation? There bloody well better have been, that's exactly the basis on which they were stuck there, notwithstanding the lack of required seperation.

The "myth" that needs to be challenged here isn't the implied fact that the lives of motorcyclists are worth less than car occupants. It's that cheesecutter makes roads safer by preventing accidents. Based on the "supporting" statements they make to defend their position, officials have bugger all real evidence to defend their prejudice.

The threat to various lives is an issue I'd like to see addressed however. The consequences of an accident are already high enough for us without introducing even more narrow impact obstacles inches from the traffic line. Introducing them to the left, effectively denying the natural escape line, is an abomination.

Do you doubt that they do, in fact, prevent head-on incidents?

I'm aware that they have trouble with anything larger than a typical Queens St taxi, but do they not actually work for a typical family car, in a typical encounter?

[MSTRS:Me]

Aluminium? Or steel?

Whether they prevent head-ons, at least, should be capable of statistical proof. Has there not been a reduction of accidents, fatalities and head-ons on that stretch of road since installation? There bloody well better have been, that's exactly the basis on which they were stuck there, notwithstanding the lack of required seperation.

The threat to various lives is an issue I'd like to see addressed however. The consequences of an accident are already high enough for us without introducing even more narrow impact obstacles inches from the traffic line. Introducing them to the left, effectively denying the natural escape line, is an abomination.

Do you doubt that they do, in fact, prevent head-on incidents?

I'm aware that they have trouble with anything larger than a typical Queens St taxi, but do they not actually work for a typical family car, in a typical encounter?

Steel AFAIK. Sunhuntin stopped to look at some prior to wire being fitted and reckoned they weighed maybe 5kg. Doubt they do, but certainly too heavy to be alu??
What I'd like to know is - on a stretch where many cross-overs occurred but there is now cheesecutter...are there the same number of cross-over 'attempts' that are now thwarted? Or much less because people take more care for fear of hitting that shit?
Perhaps it is a moot point, since deaths are avoided, but if the barriers are not being hit regularly can we be convinced of their effectiveness over a range of vehicles striking them?

[clint640]

Could we stage a sort of "Mythbusters" test by throwing a dummy at a WRB and a concrete barrier at say 80km/h and compare the results? Just a thought.

I don't think it's really necessary to test the bleedingly obvious, & overseas research is quite clear that WRB = bad news. What I reckon we need is when the next politician/bureaucrat comes out with that "WRB are no more dangerous to motorcyclists than other barriers" bollocks, show them a pic of a concrete barrier, and a wire rope barrier, ask them to imagine they're on a motorcycle doing 30 km/h, wearing full protective gear & they're going to hit one of these barriers at a 30 degree angle. Which one would they rather have?

It's a bit of a no-brainer really, so even politicians & bureaucrats should get it.

Cheers
Clint

[MSTRS:Me]

It's a bit of a no-brainer really, so even politicians & bureaucrats should get it.

Sorry, O Delusional One. They would deny the noses on their faces if their staff told them to....

[Ocean1]

Steel AFAIK. Sunhuntin stopped to look at some prior to wire being fitted and reckoned they weighed maybe 5kg. Doubt they do, but certainly too heavy to be alu??

I did say I'd check, and haven't. Will look tonight and report, but the ones I've seen where the paint has failed certainly look like galvanised steel...

What I'd like to know is - on a stretch where many cross-overs occurred but there is now cheesecutter...are there the same number of cross-over 'attempts' that are now thwarted? Or much less because people take more care for fear of hitting that shit?
Perhaps it is a moot point, since deaths are avoided, but if the barriers are not being hit regularly can we be convinced of their effectiveness over a range of vehicles striking them?

Any visible constraint to driving lines has the effect of slowing traffic, it's a well known phenomena, one used to justify much road safety furniture. A heightened perception of risk seems to me the mechanism, and there’s no doubt it works, at least in the short term. It’s the only possible justification I can think of for WRBs on the left side of the road. It can’t believe that effect can offset the danger they represent though. No doubt a closely spaced row of vertically mounted chainsaws would have an even more dramatic effect, the rationale is identical.

The barriers up the coast have been hit regularly, and the numbers are available, (although the source may be questionable). You don't have to stop many head-ons to comfortably justify a median barrier, and that fact represents a substantial hurdle to any statistical attempt to change current policy.

The overall effect of most of the modifications to the coast road, (in particular) is to constrain available space. They closed the footpath some time ago and have added several areas of potential run-off over the years, but now they've prevented access to what may otherwise be a road of decent width. If you take the overall surface width of the terain available you'd have room for four lanes and a median barrier through most of it, so I don't understand the move to so restrict the road to sheep track dimensions.