M1 Crash

Crossley

From today's Independent. Yet another example of a type of accident that the NRA would have us believe are infrequent and thus doesn't justify the expense of installing barriers on the central median :-

Long delays as five injured in three-car pile-up

A YOUNG pregnant woman was among five people injured in a three-car pile-up on a motorway yesterday which caused 10-mile tailbacks and traffic delays that lasted over nine hours.

The accident happened on the M1 motorway near Dublin Airport.

Two of the five sustained serious injuries in the crash, which happened shortly before 10.30am when a car going northwards crossed the central median and was in collision with another car heading towards Dublin in the southbound carriageway, a Garda spokesman said.

The motorway has no central barrier, apart from a hedge.

MrPudding

Ha. There may not be a barrier but there is a really wide median which will allow drivers to bring there cars to a controlled stop before they cross into the other lane. Have you not seen it?

MrP

Fudger

yea very bad crash. They are installing median barriers on a lot of the motorways now though. Examples are Maynooth N4 by-pass and on the N6 athlone by-pass. On the new N4-N6 motorway they are putting in a concrete wall !!! same story on most motorways around the country. Amazing that such a new motorway the M1 has no median barrier ????!!!!!! It must be an EU standard or something and thats why they are putting them in now...????

Highlander

I drive on the M1 5/6 days a week and this was definitely an accident waiting to happen. For the first 7 months after it opened there were no crash barriers at all apart from hedges and a median, then held up traffic for 3 weeks while they closed down lanes and put up high tension steel cable barriers. It's typically Irish to build a Motorway and then think about putting crash barriers up months or even years after the fact.

milltown

I have my reservations (sorry) about the barriers being installed on a lot of the motorways. They are, essentially, thick steel cables tensioned between posts. They may be perfect for stopping or slowing cars but I shudder to think of the consequences for a motorcyclist who hits them at motorway speed.

The motorist who caused yesterday's accident, I think it's safe to assume, was travelling at excessive speed. Yet, by luck or otherwise, nobody was killed. Cars are safer now than they ever have been but regardless of improvements in the quality of motorcycle gear a biker hitting one of these cables at 60 - 70 mph would be cut in half.

Sleipnir

MrPudding wrote:

Ha. There may not be a barrier but there is a really wide median which will allow drivers to bring there cars to a controlled stop before they cross into the other lane. Have you not seen it?

MrP

yeah, you can bring a car doing 60mph to a complete halt on a 'really wide' grass & mud median :rolleyes:

That's there in case they decide to add extra lanes to the motorway in the future.

Crossley

MrPudding wrote:

Ha. There may not be a barrier but there is a really wide median which will allow drivers to bring there cars to a controlled stop before they cross into the other lane. Have you not seen it? MrP

That excuse always raises my blood pressure. They may as well put an ice rink in the median. The braking co-efficient is about the same particulary in the wet :rolleyes: At least the ice rink would be smooth and flat and not the bumpy rutted surface that exists at present which will only serve to launch the car.

I'm not very happy about the wire cables either. When I first saw these about 20 yrs ago on "Tomorrow's World" they seemed to be about the same height as an Armco installation. What I've seen installed on the M7 appear to be about a foot high and look like anything bigger than a pram will simply go straight over them.

Trojan

I passed by the accident scene about 5 minutes after it occurred (~10.32). The back of the black Ford Focus was completely destroyed - I'm glad to hear noone was killed, the back seat must have been empty. The rear axle and wheels were on the other side of the road and the rear seat was touching the ground. One of the other cars was a write off looking like it had suffered a head on with the rear of the Focus, with the other 3 ranging from light to major damage, but not written off.

I cannot believe noone was killed. Simply put, those barriers are essential, it's time to bring them in.

BrianD

The bottom line is that the NRA are correct, these types of crashes - note crashes not accidents - are relatively infrequent. Having said that the NRA have bitten the bullet on this one and have retro fit projects underway. I have noticed that these barriers also block off the "crossover" points that are installed along the m-way. This means that it is almost impossible to introduce a temporary counter flow should it be necessary in the event of a crash or roadworks.

Trojan

Designing the barriers so that there is a gap and a short single-lane wide parallel section is trivial, thus allowing cross-over in emergency situations.

MrPudding

Sorry but I was actually being ironic. I should use more of the emoticon thingies! I think I have posted on this subject in the past. I personally think that the person in the NRA that decided there should be no crash barriers should be charged with corporate manslaughter if someone dies as a result of them not being there.

I heard an NRA guy on the radio once talking to someone campaigning for barriers to be installed. He was trying to say that a car bouncing off the barrier and back into it’s own lane was as dangerous as the same car crossing into the oncoming traffic. He would hear no argument about closing speeds.

MrP

Crossley

MrPudding wrote:

Sorry but I was actually being ironic.MrP

That's ok. I knew you were.

BrianD wrote:

The bottom line is that the NRA are correct, these types of crashes - note crashes not accidents - are relatively infrequent.

Surely it's not the frequency of such crashes that's important but the potential for disaster. Pilots becoming incapacitated during flight is probably an even rarer event, do you suggest that airlines start single-manning flight decks?

jlang

The should still be able to use the crossovers by releasing the tension in the cables and lifting the posts at the crossover (assuming they've installed them to allow that).

Fudger

NRA to review crash barrier policy
08 November 2004 13:47
The National Roads Authority has said it is going to review its policy of not routinely building crash barriers in the central reservations of motorways.

Someone is watching us !!!!!!!

enterprise

Everybody watches everybody

welcome to Big Brother!

BrianD

I personally think that the person in the NRA that decided there should be no crash barriers should be charged with corporate manslaughter if someone dies as a result of them not being there.

On the grounds of what exactly??? The logic of this statement is that every road should have a fixed barrier down the centre. The barriers between carraigeways on motor ways, while desirable, is unneccessary and is completely optional.

narommy

Fudger wrote:

NRA to review crash barrier policy
08 November 2004 13:47
The National Roads Authority has said it is going to review its policy of not routinely building crash barriers in the central reservations of motorways.

Someone is watching us !!!!!!!

Probably, It would make sense.

But it is old news. They were reviewing them after the priest got killed the last time. In fairness they have installed them in alot of places

enterprise

narommy wrote:

Probably, It would make sense.

But it is old news. They were reviewing them after the priest got killed the last time. In fairness they have installed them in alot of places

Where did the priest get killed?

narommy

Thought it was the M50 north of Blanchardstown only few years ago.

seamus

BrianD wrote:

On the grounds of what exactly??? The logic of this statement is that every road should have a fixed barrier down the centre. The barriers between carraigeways on motor ways, while desirable, is unneccessary and is completely optional.

In this type of crash, it's less to do with *how* the crash occured (i.e. the ability to crossover), than why it's so dangerous - the speed. A loss of control at 70mph on a motorway is a lot more likely to result in a crossover than a loss of control at 40mph on a dual carraigeway (given that the slower the car is moving, the easier it is to regain control, and the less deviant any swerves are going to be).

The fact that these crashes are rare is irrelevant. It's the severity that's the problem. I don't need to explain the physics to you.

Crossley

Just short of the Finglas junction northbound (Jct 5). A young woman was also killed on the M1 south of Dundalk in a crossover incident shortly after that road was opened. There have been numerous other near misses.

sliabh

From my travels around the country I'd say the stretch of the M1 is one of the few places where the retrofit has yet to be completed. Certainly as far as I can see most of the N7 and N6 have been done.

BTW, I was traveling in the UK a few months ago, (west from Heathrow, I don't know the road number) and they had the wide grass strip in the middle of the road with bushes. There were no barriers there. So this is something that other countries do.

The NRA policy on this changed earlier this year. It's good to see that they are adaptable on these things.

narommy

There are EU regs about them but i think that most of the medians are wider than the minimum required by those regs thus they were not requred to have the barriers.

I would argee with sliabh. They seem to have retrofitted them most places i've seen.

My favourite type are the ones in the Adare Limerick Carriageway. They are Wire too but look safer. and higher.

Afaik the hedges and chick wire have absolutely no barrier function and i think the NRA has confirmed this. They are there to cut out the dazzle of headlights on the opposite side of the road.

But I saw a big lorry skid mark half way accoss the naas dual carriage way mediam a year or so ago and the hedge did stop it.

On another barrier issue. I think the M4 motorway being built with a solid concrete barrier??

BrianD3

As already mentioned, there is large potential for carnage in crossover accidents. Not only is there the speed involved, but there's also the fact that drivers do not (or cannot due to no visibility or line of sight) check for danger on the opposite carriageway. So there is no "early warning" when incidents occur. With single carriegways, you generally have a much better view of the oncoming traffic and have more time to react if say a lorry which is 200 metres away has a blowout and starts to drift towards you.

Also the view that crossover collisions are rare is somewhat misleading. I would like to see stats on crossover *incidents* where no actual collision with another vehicle occurs. I'd say most of these incidents aren't even reported and IMO they are quite common. In my travels I often take note of the amount of holes in the chicken wire/hedges, damaged barriers, skidmarks running across the median etc. It's only chance that these incidents don't result in a major accident.

BrianD3

sliabh

BrianD3 wrote:

In my travels I often take note of the amount of holes in the chicken wire/hedges, damaged barriers, skidmarks running across the median etc. It's only chance that these incidents don't result in a major accident.

I have seen people do u-turns through the hedges when they are stuck in tail backs. If the ground is soft you will leave tyre tracks. So not all holes represent accidents.

At the end of the day, motorways remain the safest roads.

Fudger

Why are the barriers not just installed ??? Between car tax, VRT and EU grants etc there is more than enough money in the government purse to fund these barrier installations ????? Granted the government are a bunch of crooks, but surely this is a hot potatoe for safety promotion bodies and groups etc. The government screw ALL drivers between car tax, VRT, Insurance (which can be wholly blamed on the government) penalty points etc yet I honestly don't see what the government are doing to make the roads safer ? Has anyone got an example ........ thats working !!!!!

The Muppet

Its difficult to legislate for drivers who decide to rummage in the footwell for their mobile phone when they shoud be concentrating on the road ahead. Cental barriers would help but its bad driving practices that cause most of these incidents.

jlang

There's also the argument that having the grass median allows minor accidents to not become major ones. I mean that the extra space gives more time to recover; most of those wheel marks on the grass median were made by people who were able to continue their journey without much more than a little fright. I'm no actuary, but I do wonder will the insurance claims for scratches and scrapes go up.

This is particularly true where the design and build contracts have cut land costs down by using the solid concrete barriers on a narrow median, allowing almost any lack of concentration lead to a bounce back into the carriageway and a nasty scratch at best.

Yes, there's less chance of crossing into the other side, but I think I'd still prefer to allow people fix their mistakes than force every slip to become a statistic - the ones that cross the median competely are likely to find some other way to kill themselves soon enough in time.

impr0v

narommy wrote:

On another barrier issue. I think the M4 motorway being built with a solid concrete barrier??

Not as far as I know. There are sections of the project, specifically the N4 section west of Kinnegad, which will be using the concrete barrier (called a new jersey barrier), but the motorway sections to the best of my knowledge will have the wide grass median and wire barrier. The N6 Kinnegad to Athlone scheme is scheduled to use the concrete barrier also.

Crossley

jlang wrote:

the ones that cross the median competely are likely to find some other way to kill themselves soon enough in time.

I'm not the least bit concerned about them killing themselves. What I do worry about is being killed by one of them in the process.

Crossley

From today's Independent :-

Motorway pile-up prompts sharp u-turn over barriers

THE National Roads Authority has been forced into a major u-turn on the provision of central crash barriers on motorways and dual carriageways following a horrific pile-up. Crash barriers are to be installed on the M1 in a bid to prevent a repeat of the weekend pile-up in which five people were hurt after a driver went across the central reservation to the wrong side of the motorway. The central barrier currently on the motorway only consists of grass and a small hedge. Gardai said that only "chicken wire" separated cars and truck travelling in opposite directions. Following a number of fatal crashes where drivers crossed to the wrong side of the reservation, the NRA previously said it would fit crash barriers on motorways - but only where the central reservation was less than 15 metres wide. In a major policy change, the authority yesterday signalled it will install crash barriers even where the central median is more than 15 metres wide. Prior to this, the authority felt that wide central reservations with no barriers enabled motorists to regain control of their vehicles without slamming into traffic travelling in the opposite direction. There was also the risk of cars rebounding into traffic following behind them. Now it has changed its mind again, and plans to put in the barriers at places, such as the scene of the Sunday's pile-up, where the gap is bigger than 15 metres. Michael Egan, NRA corporate affairs manager, said yesterday that in light of the weekend crash on the M1 near Dublin Airport the authority would be reviewing its crash barrier policy. "We had thought that 15 metres was wide enough. But in light of the accident . . . we will go back and install them," he said. Safety barriers costing €5.1m are currently being installed due to the first policy change towards providing them, which followed a fatal crossover accident on the M50 in 2001.
Spokesman for the AA Conor Faughnan said yesterday that proper crash barriers should be installed on all motorways and dual carriageways.

Fine Gael transport spokeswoman Olivia Mitchell TD welcomed the NRA decision but pointed out that said this was first promised 12 months ago by the previous Transport Minister Seamus Brennan. She also questioned the need to close one side of the motorway for almost an entire day. She said the NRA was to be commended for its decision to review its policy of not always building crash barriers in central reservations. "The dreadful accident on Sunday is evidence that chicken wire and hedgerows do little to prevent a vehicle from crossing the motorway. "Twelve months ago the former Transport Minister, Seamus Brennan, gave a commitment to retrofit safety barriers on all motorways. Against the background of that policy decision it is difficult to understand why the NRA has not already proceeded with a contract for the M1, one of the most heavily used roads in the country," she said.


This 15m idea really cracks me up. The perception and reaction distance at 70mph is 154ft and the total stopping distance is 342ft. These of course are assuming dry metalled surfaces not grass. The wet figures are nearly double the dry. 15m is just over 49ft.

dowlingm

A lot of the 400 series highways here in Ontario have dips in the median, presumably to "trap" the vehicle.

Otherwise, what about graveltraps, as used in Formula 1 and some airport runway endings? Might be cheaper than barriers?

BrianD

"The dreadful accident on Sunday is evidence that chicken wire and hedgerows do little to prevent a vehicle from crossing the motorway.

When do they keep saying this?? We all know that the hedge is not there as a barrier! No doubt as soon as these retrofit barriers go up we'll have to put something else up to protect the motoring public from themselves. Does anybody know what the cause of the M1 crash was? Personally, I would like to see the money for the barriers spent on a decent motorway services area on the M1 with cheap petrol, a decent latte and clean toilets. Don't know how many times I had to go down the M1 with the yellow light on.

In Portugal, they put very deep ditches down the median. While it stops a vehicle I wouldn't fancy my chances if you ended up in it. You could even drown in the dyke at the wrong time of the year.

The Muppet

BrianD wrote:

- Does anybody know what the cause of the M1 crash was? Personally, -

Alledgedly the guy that crossed the central reservation was looking for his mobile phone in the footwell of his car. I believe this information was published in the Hearald last night so it is in the public domain already. The Herald is not my source. On Sunday evening I was given an account of what happened from a very reliable source and it matched the Herald's story.

impr0v

BrianD wrote:

Personally, I would like to see the money for the barriers spent on a decent motorway services area on the M1 with cheap petrol, a decent latte and clean toilets. Don't know how many times I had to go down the M1 with the yellow light on.

There isn't any shortage of money to do this, any number of private operators would probably be glad to construct such a facility if given the opportunity during the construction of the road. The fact that there will be no major service stations on the new inter-urbans is down to NRA policy, which is in turn down to the fact that it would have been extemely hard to get the road schemes through the statutory procedures with local endless objections being heard from local traders complaining about their loss of business to such areas. Accordingly, the stated policy is that traffic must leave the motorway to get fuel, food, and access to restrooms, etc. and theoretically the bypassed towns still get their business.

On topic: safety barrier being installed on the Athlone bypass today when I drove along it.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

On the grounds of what exactly??? The logic of this statement is that every road should have a fixed barrier down the centre. The barriers between carraigeways on motor ways, while desirable, is unneccessary and is completely optional.

Ok then, if you want to go the whole hog, every road should be replaced with a motorway with crash barriers down the centre.

BrianD, are you opposed to having crash barriers on motorways? Is it not worth the cost if it saves a few lives, or saves someone living the rest of their life with severe injuries???

BrianD

I am not opposed to them per se, I just don't see the necessity. The number of accidents involving cross overs are insignificant at present. The money might be better spent on acute A&E facilities at a local hospital. The standard of driving in this country is so poor that the sod who might have gone accross the median will probably kill himself in some other manner.

As it happens, the NRA have bitten the bullet on this one and are retrofitting the barriers on m-ways. The cost doesn't seem to be huge. As I said earlier, it would be better if the money was spent on motorway service facilities so I can have a decent coffee and a leak when I head up the M1

sliabh

BrianD wrote:

As it happens, the NRA have bitten the bullet on this one and are retrofitting the barriers on m-ways. The cost doesn't seem to be huge. As I said earlier, it would be better if the money was spent on motorway service facilities so I can have a decent coffee and a leak when I head up the M1

I think most of us would rather see you taking a leak by the side of the motorway than see a car coming through the hedge for us from the other carraigeway!

BrianD

I think we should also have a cage constructed over the M1 near the airport. This would prevent aircraft (oe parts of them) falling onto the motorway. Yoi probably have as much a chance of a plane dropping on you than a car coming through the median.

BTW if the service facility was there I would be more likely to be alert (coffee and rest), a likelyhood that I wouldn't speed (boot down all the way to Dublin so I can get home and have a leak) and less likely to distract other motorists (me taking a leak on the hard shoulder). All in all, ten times out ten a better investment than m-way barriers!

Victor

There are actual proposals for a service area south of Swords.

BrianD

North of Swords I hope! I understand that Treasury Holdings have a site somewhere along the route. However, these services will be built where opportunistic property developers can buy up land instead of some sort of ordered way that the NRA can implement that would assist the motorist.

mackerski

BrianD wrote:

North of Swords I hope!

I'm guessing it's just at the south end of Swords - there's a projected junction more or less level with the Little Chef, which I understood to be intended to service some of the retail activity along the motorway at that point. Not a bad spot for some services, if that is the plan.

Dermot

Victor

BrianD wrote:

North of Swords I hope! I understand that Treasury Holdings have a site somewhere along the route. However, these services will be built where opportunistic property developers can buy up land instead of some sort of ordered way that the NRA can implement that would assist the motorist.

No, south. Access to a motorway is resticted and I imagine any wanting access would need appropriate approval.

"Oh look, thats Ray Burkes old house across the road."

BrianD

It's a terrible spot for services! It's only about 5 mins from existing services so I am still going to have to "yellow light" it when I'm heading south!

pedro ferio-vti

Only seen this thread now, would've replied sooner. What if I told you that the driver who was reaching for his phone and caused this accident actually wasn't insured to drive the car he was in AND subsequently tried to flee the scene afterwards. Fortunately the other drivers involved caught him and in effect ended up sitting on him until the gardai came.

Apparently he was late for a football match and was speeding towards the ground when this tragedy happened. Sh1t like this really does make my blood boil, people often think insurance companies are out fleecing people left right and center which some are, but they rarely here about this sort of sh1te where because the guy wasn't actually insured to drive this particular car the Third Party will have to claim directly from her insurance company and recover the outlay from this moron directly........

I sometimes wonder why i'm getting ripped off with my car insurance until I read stories like this and I see what they're up against.