Safety Barrier (WRSB) Presentation - 5th of May

[sunhuntin]

you can take or leave offence... i really dont care.
in all honesty, my opinion of what kind of person you are have been completely reversed in this thread. you come across as heartless, as though dans death was acceptable because it was "just one." as if it would better to have 100 die from cheese cutters, because then there would 100 families in mourning. yeh, sure, thats a better option.


not.

[MSTRS:Me]

Settle peoples.
The issue of cheesecutters is an emotional one for some, a matter of economics for others, and actuarially-acceptable statistics for others still.
For those of us at the sharp end it certainly is an important issue. R6 - I'm pleased that you are able to lecture and demonstrate why to a bunch of people who would never think about it otherwise. Slow spread of publicity and changing of peoples' opinions is a good thing - in view of the fact that TANZ will not change without it.

[Grahameeboy]

I am well aware of this and it is a point I raise in the presentation. But should safety barriers be installed for the benefit of one group of road users at the expense of other groups?

I agree but not easy. I guess the issue of safety is about "to others" since the barriers are really meant to seperate collisions from spilling onto the opposite carriageway as opposed to just preventing injury / fatalities and we have to deal with HGV's as well from going across the barrier.

I think we all know that there is a degree of risk involved with motorcycling, as there is with any motorvehicle. We also know that (in general) the safest place to do high speeds is on a closed race circuit.

The guidelines for safety barrier use state that it must be safe for all road users, and that it must not present a greater risk than the object which it protects from collision - in many cases WRSB do not do this. We all wear helmets, and most of us wear full leathers, boots and gloves - this is the best we have, and when designing the barriers we should be taken into consideration with the assumption that we are already doing the best we can to protect ourselves.

As above...I don't think the primary reason for motorway barriers is about "injury".



It's not about turning safety barriers into cotton wool and making the road a safe playground for the hoons and hooligans. It's about making something that is meant to be inherently safe for all those who may or may not come in contact with it, actually do it's intended job.

Was not referring to "cotton wool" in that context. Like I said what is the primary job of a barrier.

...................

[Grahameeboy]

you can take or leave offence... i really dont care.
in all honesty, my opinion of what kind of person you are have been completely reversed in this thread. you come across as heartless, as though dans death was acceptable because it was "just one." as if it would better to have 100 die from cheese cutters, because then there would 100 families in mourning. yeh, sure, thats a better option.


not.

That's fine although shame you have altered your view from one issue but I have to accept that.

But did I actually say that Dan's death was acceptable...you are taking me out of context...I am not saying lets wait for 100 more deaths....I think if there were just a few more like Dan's then I would review my opinion but so far and thankfully (having a heart) Dan's death has been one off...that is my perspective.

[Grahameeboy]

Settle peoples.
The issue of cheesecutters is an emotional one for some, a matter of economics for others, and actuarially-acceptable statistics for others still.
For those of us at the sharp end it certainly is an important issue. R6 - I'm pleased that you are able to lecture and demonstrate why to a bunch of people who would never think about it otherwise. Slow spread of publicity and changing of peoples' opinions is a good thing - in view of the fact that TANZ will not change without it.

I agree.................

[Maha]

Having a different outlook on life to you does not mean I don't have a heart dude...you don't know me or my personal circumstances that may just make me look at the different angles of life

This particular issue always has the two sides colliding (scuze the pun)
I know you and I also know that you are not taking an angry stance or ignorant view on the subject matter.

But........Myself and thousands (yes thousands) would rather come in contact with anything else but a WRB. The chance of survival increase (slightly) but the WRB's will take your life should it get in the way if you have an off.

I would hate to loose a friend like you due to these barriers..at least with the concrete barriers, you get the chance to slide, you may still die due to the impact angle, but the word 'chance' is better than 'no chance'.

So shut up and do some work...

[PirateJafa]

I agree but not easy. I guess the issue of safety is about "to others" since the barriers are really meant to seperate collisions from spilling onto the opposite carriageway as opposed to just preventing injury / fatalities and we have to deal with HGV's as well from going across the barrier.

You do know how these barriers are "supposed" to work, don't you?

When a vehicle hits them, they continue moving up to several metres onto the other side of the barrier before the cable tension pulls them back onto their correct side of the road.

That is why the barrier manufacturers say there should be several metres of clear grass/median on each side of the barrier.

Take a stretch of WRSB like those on our country's main road, SH1 between Auckland and Hamilton. The WRSB is installed 30cm from traffic - on BOTH sides of the road.

So if a vehicle traavelling the other direction to you hits the barrier, they will travel right into YOUR LANE before being returned to their side of the road.

Of course, this is no problem, because you can always escape off to the road shoulder... oh wait you can't.

Tough luck mate, it's a pity you're decapitated now, but I'm sure that if a dozen more suckers like you get minced THEN I might start to care.

'Course, you and your dependents might feel differently. Well, you won't, because you'll be dead - but they might.

[Grahameeboy]

This particular issue always has the two sides colliding (scuze the pun)
I know you and I also know that you are not taking an angry stance or ignorant view on the subject matter.

But........Myself and thousands (yes thousands) would rather come in contact with anything else but a WRB. The chance of survival increase (slightly) but the WRB's will take your life should it get in the way if you have an off.

I would hate to loose a friend like you due to these barriers..at least with the concrete barriers, you get the chance to slide, you may still die due to the impact angle, but the word 'chance' is better than 'no chance'.

So shut up and do some work...

Okay Marky...............

[Grahameeboy]

You do know how these barriers are "supposed" to work, don't you?

When a vehicle hits them, they continue moving up to several metres onto the other side of the barrier before the cable tension pulls them back onto their correct side of the road.

That is why the barrier manufacturers say there should be several metres of clear grass/median on each side of the barrier.

Take a stretch of WRSB like those on our country's main road, SH1 between Auckland and Hamilton. The WRSB is installed 30cm from traffic - on BOTH sides of the road.

So if a vehicle traavelling the other direction to you hits the barrier, they will travel right into YOUR LANE before being returned to their side of the road.

Of course, this is no problem, because you can always escape off to the road shoulder... oh wait you can't.

Tough luck mate, it's a pity you're decapitated now, but I'm sure that if a dozen more suckers like you get minced THEN I might start to care.

'Course, you and your dependents might feel differently. Well, you won't, because you'll be dead - but they might.

I will ignore the emotional side of your post. Sorry.

If that is the case then the problem would be the installation and not the barrier itself.

Kinda makes sense what the barrier is suppose to do..does it slow velocity better than concrete barriers is my next question.

[GSXR Trace]

damn wish i had read this before now (as i have an hours break from 3-4)... how did it go?

[The Stranger:Me]

the barrier is suppose to be for vehicles...not people...

Realistically, if we are trying to keep the road toll down wouldn't it make sense to save the lives of people and not worry too much about the vehicles?

[The Stranger:Me]

If that is the case then the problem would be the installation and not the barrier itself.

Kinda makes sense what the barrier is suppose to do..does it slow velocity better than concrete barriers is my next question.

What do you mean "If that is the case"?
How can you argue a position when you don't bloody know the basic information?
You're a bad as DB.

[Grahameeboy]

Realistically, if we are trying to keep the road toll down wouldn't it make sense to save the lives of people and not worry too much about the vehicles?

Agree but the barriers are suppose to stop cars that have people in them...guess same for bikes but the issue we are debating.

If you want to save lives we should start with educating people on how to drive safely with barriers as a last resort...rather than expect barriers to protect bad drivers...putting better barriers up is not going to solve the root of the cause.

[Grahameeboy]

What do you mean "If that is the case"?
How can you argue a position when you don't bloody know the basic information?
You're a bad as DB.

Are you being pedantic....

I have just agreed that if the verge is not correct then that needs to be solved...did I miss something?

DB = Dangerous Bastard? Don't know him so cannot comment

[The Stranger:Me]

Are you being pedantic....

I have just agreed that if the verge is not correct then that needs to be solved...did I miss something?

DB = Dangerous Bastard? Don't know him so cannot comment

Expecting someone to know the subject they are arguing about is not being pedantic. I consider it fundemental.

I know you agreed "if", however you shouldn't need the "if" if you know the basic information.

Yes DB, he is another of your ilk who are happy to argue without knowing basic facts - look him up, you 2 should get on well.