Attacking Transit on another front:

[yungatart]

Just came across this site
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/080126/3/3qpy.html
list most dangerous roads in New Zealand anybody know the locations listed and what the roads are like

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=65832

[sunhuntin]

For the sake of clarity, that is a sword, not the m/c model....

had me scratchin me head, thats for sure!

[Nikolai_V]

Sorry to digress back to teh original point of this thread (retroreflectve chevron signs) I`ve done a bit of checking and it seems the problems are occurring with the VIP grade material, being installed at the 5 degree offset we use for the engineering grade material.

Nightime tests we performed over the weekend show that 10 degrees is more appropriate, and reduces the amount of reflected light to the driver (test vehicles were my bikes, car and the contractors ute.) We didnt find the glare excessive in the car or the RGV before we made changes, however in the hilux and on the 900SS there was noticably more light being reflected back at the driver/rider. After the change in offset angle, the problem disappeared. I`ve sent a notice around our network contractor and mentioned this to the other RCA`s in my region, so this should n`t be a problem in the future, (locally at least). I`ll bring it up with counterparts in Transit when i get the time.

[Ixion]

That sounds very hopeful. Thank you.

[yungatart]

Thanks for doing that. I'm sure it is appreciated by those who are affected by it.
My question is this. Why on earth is the testing not done beforehand?
Surely it is cheaper, safer and more effective to do the testing before these things are installed than to retrospectively alter each and every one to comply?

Do you see why some of us think that Transit are a bunch of incompetent fools playing at road safety and using our money unwisely?

[Nikolai_V]

Yungtart - while it makes us feel special that you single out Transit for your attentions, there are over 50 road controlling authorities in New Zealand, who build and maintain far more of the roading network than Transit does. We don`t have any control over their actions, nor have much (if any say) in how they maintain their networks. You could even think of us as a minority RCA if it helps...

With regard to the signs, as I said on the weekend, out in the field I personally wouldn`t have called it dangerous, or even annoying the amount of reflected light from the signs. But I can see the point of view of those on teh forum with issues with them, hence the field tests and the recomendation to our contractors/consultants.

New Zealand, being small and not particularly well funded (in international terms) relies on overseas guidelines for a lot of our standards. We require our contractors to put the signs up in accordance with applicable standards - if these need to be revised / reviewed we do so. Cheaper to do this in response to a ne3ed, rather than start from scratch on everything (which we cant afford to do).

This is why the testing was not done beforehand - as we followed a) manufacturers guidelines and b) int. best practise.

and as for your throwaway comment at the end - no offense taken - having fronted many a public meeting i`m pretty thick skinned. Given that the attitudes prevailing to road safety on here seem to fall into either the (400 dead a year is an acceptable number - leave us to speed, drive however we want) or (transit wants to kill us all etc...) camps, I`ll just keep doing what i`m doing, because what we`re doing (which is driven by policy which YOUR elected officials set) seems to be working better than a whole raft of alternatives I could name.

Would be a nice world if I could forsee every problem before implementation / construction and eliminate them - i`d be paid a hell of a lot more thats for certain...

[MSTRS:Me]

Yungtart - while it makes us feel special that you single out Transit for your attentions, there are over 50 road controlling authorities in New Zealand, who build and maintain far more of the roading network than Transit does. We don`t have any control over their actions, nor have much (if any say) in how they maintain their networks. You could even think of us as a minority RCA if it helps...

With regard to the signs, as I said on the weekend, out in the field I personally wouldn`t have called it dangerous, or even annoying the amount of reflected light from the signs. But I can see the point of view of those on teh forum with issues with them, hence the field tests and the recomendation to our contractors/consultants.

New Zealand, being small and not particularly well funded (in international terms) relies on overseas guidelines for a lot of our standards. We require our contractors to put the signs up in accordance with applicable standards - if these need to be revised / reviewed we do so. Cheaper to do this in response to a ne3ed, rather than start from scratch on everything (which we cant afford to do).

This is why the testing was not done beforehand - as we followed a) manufacturers guidelines and b) int. best practise.

and as for your throwaway comment at the end - no offense taken - having fronted many a public meeting i`m pretty thick skinned. Given that the attitudes prevailing to road safety on here seem to fall into either the (400 dead a year is an acceptable number - leave us to speed, drive however we want) or (transit wants to kill us all etc...) camps, I`ll just keep doing what i`m doing, because what we`re doing (which is driven by policy which YOUR elected officials set) seems to be working better than a whole raft of alternatives I could name.

Would be a nice world if I could forsee every problem before implementation / construction and eliminate them - i`d be paid a hell of a lot more thats for certain...

Funny how ALL our bitching refers to our perception of problems on NUMBERED highways...correct me if I'm wrong, but those fall under Transit's control.
International best practice? Perhaps in some things. Interestingly enough, internationally things are changing with regards to barriers at least. But 'you' are not.
Elected officials? Yes, but I didn't vote for them and neither did she...
And no matter how much or little you are paid, you are paid to ensure the best result for everybody.

[Nikolai_V]

"Whilst a number of these metal barriers have been installed or existing metal barriers retrofitted at a number of locations in Europe, including France and the UK, a number of countries have adopted a different approach specifically to WRSBs. In particular, Norway, Denmark and Holland have either removed or decided to no longer install WRSBs in response to lobbying by motorcycle groups despite there being no conclusive evidence that WRSBs are a greater or lesser risk than other types of barriers."

My emphasis added.

"... the Advisory Group on Motorcycling: Final Report to Government in the UK which includes evaluations from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) stating that “ the current conclusion from this work is that all types of barrier pose some form of risk for motorcyclists but wire rope is no more of a risk than other types of post and beam barrier…There is, however, general agreement that the harmful items are the exposed posts of safety barriers, irrespective of their other components.”
Heres the international consensus amongst roading engineers you`ll be talking about then.

A recent study concluded quite nicely that upright crashes into barriers (concrete and armco) can be survivable on a motorcycle, but that in sliding crashes all types of barrier (including concrete) are generally fatal to motorcyclists in terms of AIS score and head injury.

I can email this to anyone who wants a copy...

There are retrofittable systems available for WRB, which are being studied at the moment - Mototub is one (french) system which we are watching the trials of with interest. Worth noting is that a large amount of the european barrier stock has the old I shape posts, which have never been allowed in NZ, and that NZ brifen barrier systems have the weakened sigma posts to minimise damage from collision between motorcyclists and the posts (see the above quote)

Due to their un-yielding nature concrete barriers which can effectivley stop heavy trucks inflict serious damage to small / midsize cars, which are generally not caused in collision with armco / wrb.

The problem is not wrb in isolation, it is sliding a motorcycle and rider(&pillion?) into any unyielding object. To design roadside furniture to be frangible for motorcyclists generally makes them too weak to function correctly for other motorists. (as obviously the kinetic energy implicit in a truck at 90km/h is rather different to a GSXR at 100 km/h).

I`d love to know the answer to this... (aside from banning bikes - some elected member will propose this one day soon), maybe we could all just not fall off / crash as much - works for me...

[MSTRS:Me]

"... the Advisory Group on Motorcycling: Final Report to Government in the UK which includes evaluations from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) stating that “ the current conclusion from this work is that all types of barrier pose some form of risk for motorcyclists but wire rope is no more of a risk than other types of post and beam barrier…There is, however, general agreement that the harmful items are the exposed posts of safety barriers, irrespective of their other components.”
....
There are retrofittable systems available for WRB, which are being studied at the moment - Mototub is one (french) system which we are watching the trials of with interest. Worth noting is that a large amount of the european barrier stock has the old I shape posts, which have never been allowed in NZ, and that NZ brifen barrier systems have the weakened sigma posts to minimise damage from collision between motorcyclists and the posts (see the above quote)

....

I`d love to know the answer to this... (aside from banning bikes - some elected member will propose this one day soon), maybe we could all just not fall off / crash as much - works for me...

Bullshit. We know it. Why can't 'you lot' understand? The wires are dangerous by themselves, and have the added 'advantage' of directing us into the posts.
...
Bullshit. Again. Tens of k's of I beam post WRB on Auckland's MW system. Old and new.
...
Not fall off? Ideally, yes. But in practice, we know it has happened. And will again. For as many reasons as one can come up with. Including rider being culpable. Or not.

[sunhuntin]

Due to their un-yielding nature concrete barriers which can effectivley stop heavy trucks inflict serious damage to small / midsize cars, which are generally not caused in collision with armco / wrb.

The problem is not wrb in isolation, it is sliding a motorcycle and rider(&pillion?) into any unyielding object. To design roadside furniture to be frangible for motorcyclists generally makes them too weak to function correctly for other motorists. (as obviously the kinetic energy implicit in a truck at 90km/h is rather different to a GSXR at 100 km/h).

I`d love to know the answer to this... (aside from banning bikes - some elected member will propose this one day soon), maybe we could all just not fall off / crash as much - works for me...

and again you plug the "fact" that my life is worth less than the cage driver who rear ended me causing that collision with wire rope that left me minus a limb. sorry... ya gonna have to try a LOT harder to change my mind.

and as for suggesting we just decide not to fall off as often... the only time ive come off, it wasnt my decision that saw me doing a superman over the car that the driver ran the stop sign. id have much rather stayed upright and kept my knees fully functional.

[Nikolai_V]

good to see we all have a sense of humour - maybe i need to specifcally state when i`m being tongue in cheek. I think a mass inferiority / persecution complex is at play here.

Lets get one thing straight. I like you ride motorcycles. The roads I ride also have WRB , as well as countless other hazards. I work in the industry, and am aware of the (actual) risks posed by WRB, as well as countless other hazards (seeing a pattern here?), and I still ride around the place.

You call BS on my statements/ quotes - your perogative. I have refrained from doing so on your emotive statements - also my perogative. I understand the risk when I head out the door to go for a ride - as far as i`m concerned its part of the deal.

I`ll stop wasting my time trying to preach to the converted, because sure as hell you cant see past the tragic death of one person (which half the forum sees as acceptable wastage - as long as theyre car drivers) Your ideas - putting concrete barriers everywhere are inpracticable, and would kill as many people as brifen / wrb. you persist in seeing a conspiracy where none exists - if you want to feel marginalised / treated as second class road users - good on you. You can feel like outlaw bikers, despised by society if you like... what ever floats your boat.

I value my life pretty highly - no belief in an afterlife here, so I act accordingly. Statistics (which you demean) paint a pretty bleak picture of motorcyclists ability to interact with the road environemnt and other road users.

As for me, when i`m on the road, as a pedestrian, cyclist, car / truck driver or motorcyclist, i understand the risks, internalise them and get on with things.

[MSTRS:Me]

(that man on the cross) wept.
Tongue in cheek is one thing, but you post what you say are incontrovertible facts and I call Bullshit! as I've seen precisely what you say doesn't exist.

I, too, am well aware of all the hazards out there, for motorcyclists in particular, and ride with them in mind. I've been doing that for nigh-on 37 years.

Problem here is that Transit are all about making things safer, and preventing 'un-necessary' road deaths. That's great. But in the case of the cheesecutters, our safety is further compromised in every instance that could mean we come in contact with them.

If Transit are going to cover the posts and wires, great. Our campaign will have made things a bit safer for motorcyclists. Shame about the low-slung sports cars. But, oh well, there's not many of them comparatively speaking, so why get too out of joint about them, hmmm?

[Nikolai_V]

Exactly. kill em all and let (insert deity here) sort em out. Thats our motto. You`ve finally got where i`m coming from - all that talk about road safety is a front so we can kill more motorcyclists... and you`ve just given me a great idea, how about we get those buggers in their "low slung sports cars" as well...

HA. Why would anyone need to help motorcyclists kill themselves - we pretty good at it ourselves. (oh and that was tongue in cheek before, just so theirs no confusion).

Strangely i`m not seeing much carnage on our roads since WRSB were introduced. I`ll keep a eye on CAS (our crash analysis system) for changes in injury rates / types attributable to WRSB.... If I dont find a statistically valid correlation i`ll let you know, you`ll dismiss is as I work for transit so am not to be trusted, and the world will keep on spinning....

You just keep on feeling threatened by them, i`ll keep on doing my thing - we`ll see what happens.

[Ocean1]

…There is, [I]however, general agreement that the harmful items are the exposed posts of safety barriers, irrespective of their other components.” [I]

A recent study concluded quite nicely that upright crashes into barriers (concrete and armco) can be survivable on a motorcycle, but that in sliding crashes all types of barrier (including concrete) are generally fatal to motorcyclists in terms of AIS score and head injury.


The problem is not wrb in isolation, it is sliding a motorcycle and rider(&pillion?) into any unyielding object. To design roadside furniture to be frangible for motorcyclists generally makes them too weak to function correctly for other motorists. (as obviously the kinetic energy implicit in a truck at 90km/h is rather different to a GSXR at 100 km/h).

The trouble with such statistics is that they cost lives to gain, and the smaller the sample the less clear are the results. Statistically the number of motorcycle impacts with WRBs here is insignificant, of no value whatsoever in evaluating short range roading infrastructure policy. It doesn’t come as any surprise then, to see a study based on such data use the term “generally fatal” with regards to any evaluation of barrier design safety.

I actually agree that the dangerous bit for bikers is not the wires. The reason I agree is that, as you say the wires themselves represent a somewhat yielding target, even for a rider. I also agree that the posts are the problem, all vertical immovable objects represent the same problem, and yet they proliferate along the sides of our roads in the name of safety. And even the supposedly weaker "S" shaped WRB posts are going to be a serious problem for a biker on the ground, at speed.

What I don’t agree with is the statement that the frangible element of any barrier needs have a design limit relevant to only a narrow mass/speed range. It’s entirely possible to build a barrier with different energy absorption systems for different vehicle masses. It’s also possible to design such a barrier that has a continuous surface at the heights applicable to the relevant classes of impact, which would spread the point of impact for a rider over as much area as possible.

So why don’t we see such designs considered?

[swbarnett]

I`ll keep a eye on CAS (our crash analysis system) for changes in injury rates / types attributable to WRSB....

Just make sure that you take traffic patterns in to account. Does anyone keep data on how many of a given type of vehicle pass a given point in the NZ road system in a given time period? Without this the statistics can be very misleading.