Fair call for a barrier but cheese grater?

[peasea]

Soooo, after all the above discussion, how many NZ motorcyclists HAVE been kille/maimed by these 'cheese-grater' barrier??

As say opposed to those killed by cars crossing the centre of the road????

Look, it happened to me. One of those cheese slicer thingys completely destroyed my law-abiding senses, as well as my memory. I can't recall the accident I may or may not have had but I still feel the urge to travel at 111kph on the open road. It defies logic.

One day I might ride at high speed (as high as an aged FXR can travel at, probably 111kph) into a concrete barrier to see if my senses return.

My god, have you people nothing better to do? I just bought myself (ourselves?) a new bike lift and can't wait until the machines are due for their next oil change to;

1) Give the new tool a workout (coz the old one's gone soft) and
2) Get a life again, coz KB's resembling my old tool.

[swbarnett]

, but if I had to have one or the other then I'd rather take my chances with the concrete barrier.
Head on smacks are a different debate

Indeed, this is the crux of the matter.

[Reckless]

Maybe the figures suggest (if there are any) these barriers are doing their Job. I dunno.
Maybe there are a lot less accidents along those areas cause as a biker when riding along side one of those nasty things I slow down, stay in line and be a good boy. The cagers might be the same. They are very threatening. Therefore it might be the case from the LTSA side that there are far less accidents in these areas.
The above doesn't mean I agree with them. Just a different perspective and an argument you may come up against. Remember these are the guys that alocate road fixs with a "death Vs cost" equation and seem to refuse to accept the condition of our roads have anything to do with our high accident rates.

[swbarnett]

I slow down, stay in line and be a good boy.

I'd rather keep my speed up if I've got cages behind me.

The cagers might be the same.

The trouble is when you get one slowing down and the one behind them getting frustrated - makes for a dangerous situation.

They are very threatening. Therefore it might be the case from the LTSA side that there are far less accidents in these areas.

You may be right. Does anyone have any figures that would answer the above?

[Reckless]

Oh SW! My fault. By slow down I mean back to the speed of the cars not actually like "go slow".

[swbarnett]

Oh SW! My fault. By slow down I mean back to the speed of the cars not actually like "go slow".

Obvious now that you mention it...

[Zapf]

Look, it happened to me. One of those cheese slicer thingys completely destroyed my law-abiding senses, as well as my memory. I can't recall the accident I may or may not have had but I still feel the urge to travel at 111kph on the open road. It defies logic.

One day I might ride at high speed (as high as an aged FXR can travel at, probably 111kph) into a concrete barrier to see if my senses return.

My god, have you people nothing better to do? I just bought myself (ourselves?) a new bike lift and can't wait until the machines are due for their next oil change to;

1) Give the new tool a workout (coz the old one's gone soft) and
2) Get a life again, coz KB's resembling my old tool.

we have our answers now.

[terbang]

We hear terms a lot now days in aviation like 'safety at a reasonable cost' and 'acceptable hull losses'. Buzz phrases invented by people, well removed from the reality of accidents, to justify pulling the purse strings on some of the fundamentals of aviation safety. Believe me, when you climb onto an aircraft, there is a calulated risk for your life to be sacrificed as one of the above..! Sure to us at the coal face, the safety people (pilots, drivers operators) we would like to take a zero tolerance to accidents and not spare the cost to mitigate the effects of such a calamity. I guess that road safety is the same, there are the frontliners (cops I guess) that are always in a constant battle/compromise with the bean counters who would rather only pay for a cheese cutter barrier above a more substantial one. We bikers will always be looked upon as an annoying minority and treated accordingly, not only by the decision makers but also the general public. However there is an old saying 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil'. lets become a squeaky wheel..!

[Grahameeboy]

Are we not jumping too early?

Just to look at from another angle, as I do.

By most other countries standards, we have a small population so roads less congested so what works or doesn't work for other countries may not apply to NZ.

Take UK for eg, cars travel at closer to 90mph with a lot more traffic.

What are the 'fatality' statistics involving these cheesecutter barriers?

Yes Dan's case was tragic (especially having met him on rides), however, was it the barrier that failed to save him? Even with the best barrier money can buy, the way the bike hits the barrier, the way the rider moves / falls and so many more factors can determine the riders survival chances.

I had an hit and run accident where I was thrown approx 50 feet in the air and landed on my back, narrowly missing a shop window and post. I got up and all I got was bad back ache for a year...Police were amazed I survived.......so a few inches difference and I would have said hello to a shop window, post....well you know what I am saying.

You could have the best barrier in the business and still have a tragic loss of life...........what if say a lorry hits the barrier and bits fly off onto the other side of the road killing an oncoming motorcyclist, or bounces off into a motorcyclist.

What is sad that within 24 hours of Dan's accident, there are more posts about barriers than Dan..........

Life is fragile and turns on the toss of a coin, not just a barrier.

Red rep awaited.

[Grahameeboy]

Maybe the figures suggest (if there are any) these barriers are doing their Job. I dunno.
Maybe there are a lot less accidents along those areas cause as a biker when riding along side one of those nasty things I slow down, stay in line and be a good boy. The cagers might be the same. They are very threatening. Therefore it might be the case from the LTSA side that there are far less accidents in these areas.
The above doesn't mean I agree with them. Just a different perspective and an argument you may come up against. Remember these are the guys that alocate road fixs with a "death Vs cost" equation and seem to refuse to accept the condition of our roads have anything to do with our high accident rates.

Road conditions are not responsible for NZ high accident rates...........you drive to the conditions and that means roads, not just weather.

If you ride along the back roads, then you know you could meet a tractor, cow or gravel so you ride to the conditions.

It is because generally NZ has drivers who lack the intelligence to drive properly and safely...............'Dream Drivers'...........think they are invincible like the AB's.......'I'll be right'.

When drivers start looking within rather than finding something else to blame??

[sAsLEX]

Road conditions are not responsible for NZ high accident rates...........you drive to the conditions and that means roads, not just weather.

Yeah some of you your B roads over here put SH22 in the realms of a racetrack smooth
!

Yes Dan's case was tragic (especially having met him on rides), however, was it the barrier that failed to save him? Even with the best barrier money can buy, the way the bike hits the barrier, the way the rider moves / falls and so many more factors can determine the riders survival chances.

Yeah but having a barrier that has an inherent danger to riders does not help the situation, the use of a concrete barrier like the motorway further towards the city for example stops traffic crossing the centre line but also presents far less danger to riders.

[Ixion]

Are we not jumping too early?

...

...

No. We are not. Too late if anything. How many more cut-in-half motorcyclists do you require before 'jumping in'?

The argument that 'life is fragile' etc is not valid. The objection we have is not to barriers, but to the wilful installation of a barrier type that is known to be lethal , when there are other barrier options which are safer. It is exactly the same logic that requires cars to have safety glass in their windscreens. Car manufacturers are forbidden to use ordinary glass, because there is a safer alternative available. There are many other similar requirements. Why should not Transit be required to follow the same safety logic that they implose on others?

Life is indeed fragile, but the fact that we cannot guarantee safety in all circumstances (and would not wish to) is no reason why Transit should be allowed to deliberately choose a barrier method that is manifestly unnecessarily dangerous to us. We cannot eliminate all hazards but we need not supinely accept having unnecessary ones deliberately placed about us.

[Bren]

What is sad that within 24 hours of Dan's accident, there are more posts about barriers than Dan..........

Red rep awaited.

No red rep from me....I agree with ya mate

[swbarnett]

What is sad that within 24 hours of Dan's accident, there are more posts about barriers than Dan..........

Life is fragile and turns on the toss of a coin, not just a barrier.

Red rep awaited.

We honour Dan by our efforts to ensure that this kind of senseless death is not repeated.

[Grahameeboy]

No. We are not. Too late if anything. How many more cut-in-half motorcyclists do you require before 'jumping in'?

The argument that 'life is fragile' etc is not valid. The objection we have is not to barriers, but to the wilful installation of a barrier type that is known to be lethal , when there are other barrier options which are safer. It is exactly the same logic that requires cars to have safety glass in their windscreens. Car manufacturers are forbidden to use ordinary glass, because there is a safer alternative available. There are many other similar requirements. Why should not Transit be required to follow the same safety logic that they implose on others?

Life is indeed fragile, but the fact that we cannot guarantee safety in all circumstances (and would not wish to) is no reason why Transit should be allowed to deliberately choose a barrier method that is manifestly unnecessarily dangerous to us. We cannot eliminate all hazards but we need not supinely accept having unnecessary ones deliberately placed about us.

I knew you would say that but all I am saying is that we are jumping the gun before the full facts are known so you answer has prooved my point.

I am sure that Transit NZ, whether right or wrong, has not deliberately choosen a dangerous barrier method. Sill to suggest that.