Wire Rope Barriers

As you know, the feds have announced a big chunk of pork-barrelling over
roads, which will include major highways, and some of that money is
going to go to prevent head ons.

WHich means wire rope fencing.

As you know, there's going to be a federal election soon, which means a
lot of pollies are suddenly going to be looking for ways to be nice guys
to voters. Meaning you and me and every other biker.

When you get that election bumf in your mailbox, don't throw it away
immediately. Instead, contact the polly. If they say they are open to
talking (and most opposition and non-sitting ones will) then arrange to
talk to them.

And bend their ears about how dangerous wire rope is, and how all those
motorcyclists hate it. And how the votes are going to be close and a
party or polly that had a good policy on them would definitely catch
rider attention.

Tell them that the only research that's been done on wire rope and the
effect on riders has been paid for *by* riders. That funding for more
research has been knocked back.

While you are at it, ask them what they are doing about motorcycles as
sustainable transport. Point out that most Oz cities have lousy public
transport, that so many of the cars that are choking them have only one
person in them, that a bike takes a fraction of the space on the road
and parked. That London is embracing bikes as suitable transport by
exempting them from the congestion charge. If you are feeling you are
on a roll, you can even mention that lanesplitting (they call it
filtering) is legal there, and they aren't killing bikers in droves that
way.

Face it. There is *no* way that wire rope is going to be stopped unless
we stop it. It will turn up on bends, and it will be badly installed.
And more of us are going to die from it.

It is a state issue, unless the feds make it a federal one, which they
are doing with the highway funding. So find that pollie who is wanting
your vote and bash some ear.

If one or two do it, they'll brush it off. If 20, 40, 100, do it, then
the planners at party HQ will suddenly realise there's an issue.

That's how compulsory lights on was repealed. Enough noise was made at
an election where there was a chance of kicking the incumbents out.

Does it work? Well, the Vice Pres of the MCC gave it a whirl, and the
Labor sitting member was interested, especially in the idea that this
might be a vote getter... And in the idea that they could stick it up
the Libs by asking them why they hadn't done something to ensure uniform
safety requirements in these roads they are funding, and why they hadn't
done suitable research about bikes, but assumed they were the same as
cars.

So find your local federal member, and find the ones opposing them, and
tell them plainly that wire rope is dangerous to riders. Your chance to
make a difference and maybe save your hide.


Zebee

 

Do you have any stats we can point to about the dangers of wire rope
barriers? Have we lost riders to these things? Where when and how many?

Don't get me wrong I hate the things as much as anybody, but if the polly we
speak to pipes up in parliament and the retort is there's never been a bike
accident on a rope barrier, it would not help the case.

--
Cheers
Dave (Mojo67)
FZR600 >> ZX6R Brisbane
http://users.bigpond.net.au/mojo67/mojo67.htm
I used to never be able to finish anything but now I

 

Mate of mine here hit one and it made quite a mess of him ...

He doesn't read newsgroups, but I got him to get in touch with Zebee
about the MCC issues.

Cheers

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:51 +1000

That info will be on the MCC site soon. There have been at least 2
deaths this year.

Zebee

 

Can it be proven that it was the type of barrier that was the cause or that
it was inevitable that the rider was going to die?

I don't think that the installation of NO centre barrier is a solution. And
the use of concrete barriers isn't much better for the MAJORITY of road
users.

So, come up with a solution Zeebee. You can't just be anti-wire rope
barrier and then not come to the party with a viable alternative.

What would you have them do here? Do you think politicians and safety nazis
want more people on bikes? NOPE.
It would be far more efficient to make sure (carrot and stick) that people
who did drive car-pooled.


Richard

 

I know of 2 incidents. One in Ferntree Gully when a rider came off his bike on a tight, downhill
bend and hit his head on a WRB upright.

I also heard of a police motorcyclist that died in Tassie after clouting a WRB (came off after being
forced off the rod by a car or truck I believe was alledged at the time).

--
Dale Porter
GPX250 => CBR600 => CBR954 => VTR1000
*Add .au to e-mail address to respond*

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:59:57 +1000

Can it be proven? What standard of proof do you want, and how can that
be done.

That the riders were impaled on the posts is true. That they would not
have been impaled on concrete is also true.

ISn't it? What information do you have on that? My information is that
concrete costs about the same to install, takes less maintenance, and
isn't more dangerous to cars while being a lot less dangerous to bikes.

Brifen, if properly installed on a straight road is barely acceptable.
Brifen on corners, or without the manufacturer's recommedation of post
orientation and clearance from the lane is not remotely acceptable. And
there's a lot of the latter in NSW.

What proof do yo uhave of that? What do you believe the agenda is?

The agenda we believe they have is not a vendetta against bikes, but a
desire for less congestion both on the road and parked, and without a
mass of govt money to fund it. What we have most definitely discovered
(had our noses rubbed into it even) is that it's not they hate bikes.
They just don't *think about them*. In meeting after meeting, it's been
shown.

What meetings have you attended, and who have you talked to, to believe
they don't want people on bikes?

It's been tried and quite signally failed for one of the same reasons
that public transport does - namely convenience.

Zebee

 

The solution has been around for years, the concrete barrier. My
understanding of the situation with the WRBs is that it isn't the wires that
are causing the major injuries to riders but the securely fixed posts that
are used to support them. Most crashes involving traffic seperation
barriers occurr in the same direction as the barrier i.e. a glancing blow.
The chances of injury or death are demonstratably reduced when you are
rolling or sliding alond a smooth, unbroken barrier wall than a fence like
structure with solid supports perpendicular to the direction of travel. The
only real advantage of a WRB is reduced cost to the authority installing it.
--
Deevo

Geraldton
WA, The Nanny State (® Corks)
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie

 

In the case of the one in Gosford a couple of months ago - without a
shadow of a doubt unless you want to bring anal probing aliens into the
solution set

Maybe, maybe not, but I'd love to hear the argument as to the situations
where they aren't the best solution, lead on McDuff ?

Oh yes she can, she can say there is insufficient research to suggest
these are safe, more research needs to be done before they are wholesale
introduced, given that the research to date indicates it's liable to
cause more problems than it solves (other than to politicians wallets)

Besides, why do you have to come up with a workable alternative when
something is bad news - why is the onus on us ? Professional road safety
engineers should be working on coming up with better solutions, not
laypersons.

And lastly the better alternatives are well known - pollies just don't
want to foot the bill.

I would have them get their heads out of their bums and encourage more
bikes on the roads, and if they think it's too dangerous they should
address the reasons why, it's been damn effective in London and Venice

Bullshit

 

You are the one campaigning against the fences, the onus is (obviously) on
you.

Impaled on the fence? Where is this proof? First I have heard of any such
accident, little alone more than one rider.

I think you should also ban all the lead up to bridges that aren't
adequately protected before you worry about WRB.

Your information, a report you have read, or summarised?

Can you list them all? As well as show why they are not acceptable?

Hammo

 

The WRB issue came up for discussion on Melbourne radio late last week.
The spokesman for VicRoads said one of the reasons behind the roll-out of
WRBs is that they cause less damage to vehicles than concrete barriers.
The flip side of this is to prove that WRBs cause more damage to
motorcyclists and therefore outweigh the cost benefits gained from the odd
vehicle that bounces off them.
Looks as though it's going to be a dollar-sum argument.
- sanbar

 

And how would hitting an armo upright or a solid concrete barrier or a tree
have had a different result?

 

This has been posted once before.....

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1063690.htm#transcript

Brifen costs less to install and more to maintain (if damaged).

Why would road builders install a road barrier system that cost MORE to
built and maintain? Maybe it's more effective in saving lives??

Richard

 

Huh, why would vicroads be interested in reducing vehicle damaged based on $
reasons..

Less vehicle damage = less possible damage to the occupants. Simple as that.

 

golly, if it was a car driver we'd all be saying it was the fault of
inadequate driver training.... not a road barrier system..

 

http://www.aussiemotorists.com/faq/brpolicy.html

http://www.finnbike.com/Safetybarrier_Australian.pdf

Interesting to see that 2.4% of rider fatalities involve collision with a
guard rail or barrier.

http://www.finnbike.com/Fema_kaidetutkimus.pdf

Concrete barriers in this report get a bad rap. High HIC figures.

 

Richard Fay? As in Rockhampton Richard Fay - who featured so nicely on
the front page of the Bully???




- Teddie

 

Richard Fay who features prominently in Oxford street here in Sydney.

 

Or maybe whoever was pitching it made a better go of it than the concrete
guy...

 

Hammo wants his schtick back...