Another motorway crossover crash

Hagar

Is this experience in similar civil engineering projects or in a different field ?
Did peoples lives depend on the money saved?

impr0v

Hagar wrote:

The idea of saving money based on statistical possibilities of crashing through the median is sheer lunacy to say the least.

More hysteria.

The statistical chance of a plane dropping on the M50 while on approach to the airport is extremely low, but should the money still be spent to put the M50 underground so that all the vehicles using it are protected from this chance? It's the same principal.

The barriers are going to be installed, this has already been stated. They are not going to be installed now because they would have to be removed in 18 months and this would obviously be a serious waste of money.

Just to clear up the statistical element. There was one fatal crossover incident and that was when the priest and two others were killed in 2001, as a result of two joyriders racing. Before this date there were 90 million journeys undertaken on the M50, since then it would safe to state that there have been half as many as that again. That's one fatal incident for approximately 130 million journeys.

Private Joker

Firstly The NRA was not in existence when the M50 was built, therefore a lack of foresight can't be blamed on them.

Secondly the potential benefits of a central crash barrier are out weighed by the cost implications.

Before each project is undertaken a cost benefit analysis is done, which takes into account many factors including the reduction of accidents and if the numbers dont add up then the project doesn't go ahead. It's a harsh reality and a kick in the teeth for families of victims, but at the end of the day the cost to the exchequer has to be justified

edit: already stated by sliabh

BrianD

It has already been proven through statistical anlysis that it is more cost effective to invest the cost of barriers into Accident and Emergency rooms in hospitals along any route.

Many people refer to the presence of barriers on UK motorways. However, they are built differently to Irish projects. UK m-ways generally have 3 lanes in each direction and the central median is very narrow and the crash barriers are necessary in this incidence as it is the only thing that separates both carriageways.

Highways in the US have wide medians with no barriers similar to ireland.

Zaph0d

This is very simple. You just want to maximise the number of lifes saved (or injuries avoided) with your safety budget. Safety budgets cannot be infinite and the public accepts the idea that people are going to die as a result of car use.

The notion of cost justifying safety measures applies to any project that incurs a risk of people dying- not just civil engineering.

You don't want to carry out a safety measure that results in 2 lives being saved when there is another measure that could save 10 lives for the same money. A cynical or stupid person sometimes demands that a less efficient safety measure be implemented because it will be popular with the public.

It has been suggested, for example, that the UK government has spent public money on making railways safer when it could have saved more lives by spending the same money on road safety measures. There is a political temptation to spend money on accidents that make the headlines, the paradox being that these accidents are newsworthy precisely because they are rare.

Tarabuses

sliabh wrote:

The cost of road re-painting to provide dedicated right turn lanes on most of the risk junctions across the country is probably on the same order as putting crash barriers down the centre of the M50.

Since when did paint stop accidents? Practically every road in the country has road markings to keep vehicles apart and yet we still have more road deaths than we should, statistically.

Tarabuses

BrianD wrote:

I have no problem whatsoever! Do you really belive that the lack of barriers was the cause of their deaths??? OF COURSE NOT!

YES....if the barriers were there those particular vehicles would not have been involved in a head on collision at a combined speed of up to 160mph (if your speculation about one car doing 90mph is correct). An accident on the same carriageway would not have been head on.

sliabh

Tarabuses wrote:

Since when did paint stop accidents? Practically every road in the country has road markings to keep vehicles apart and yet we still have more road deaths than we should, statistically.

What the NRA have done is paint a filter lane for turning right in the centre of the road with hatching around it. All the usual traffic is slightly deflected to the right for 50 to 100m away from the new lane.

So a vehicle turning right is not sitting in the middle of the road while they wait for a break in the oncoming traffic. This has been the cause of numerous accidents where someone approaching from behind doesn't realise the car is stationary and shunts it. In the worst cases the turning car is then propelled into the oncoming traffic causing a head on collision.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/4550625?view=Eircomnet

M50 smash dad pleads for safer driving
From:The Irish Independent
Wednesday, 1st December, 2004

A DISTRAUGHT father last night made a heart-felt plea to motorists to drive safely as members of his family fought for their lives following the weekend M50 pile-up.

Seven people, including boys aged 15 and 13, were injured after a car ploughed into two vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

Dubliner Larry Cawley spoke of the devastation caused to his family by the accident. His daughter Errin (22) and ex-wife Betty are in critical condition, while his son Evan (15) is now out of danger.

The family, with a young friend of Evan's, had just joined the motorway when the crash happened.

Pleading to drivers to take greater care, Mr Cawley said he was praying that his family would recover and be home for Christmas.

"I can't expect motorists to slow down to 40mph but they should drive safely and not take risks," he told the Irish Independent. He said that the horrific injuries to his family might have been prevented if barriers been in place at the scene of the crash on the busiest road in the country.

"I just want people to know how devastated this family is as a result of what happened," he said.

Fergus Black

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1205/rta.html

Woman dies in hospital after M50 accident
05 December 2004 18:36

A 22-year-old woman involved in last weekend's three-car pile-up on the M50 died in hospital last night

Six other people were injured in the crash which happened on the motorway between Blanchardstown and Finglas last Sunday.

She was the driver of a car which was driving northbound when a southbound car crossed the central reservation and crashed into her car and another car.

The dead woman was from Dublin

....

Victor

Maybe, just maybe, accidents like this get attention because suddenly the MPV driving, M50 driving, 97-octane, mobile phone using drivers suddenly can't accpet it might happen to them and go into denial?

Conspiracy

Penalty Points have failed miserably.

The government claims they are working, but they are not.
In the first year of penalty points, the government used figures to display how effective the new scheme was. The drop was accountable to a seasonal drop, and not any real drop. The road deaths rise, and then they say that people are getting careless.

Infact, nothing has changed at all. People are just more scared of getting caught by a garda who might use one of the 65 potential "offences" to threaten their driving licence and thereby their insurance. Fear fear fear.
More and more garda are recruited, and less and less appear on the streets - especially concerning traffic (freeflow & other PR stunts aside).

Cops work to a quota. They are no different to the salesman who waits till the end of the month to get the last few in. Because of the lack of garda prescence on the streets for the rest of the month, business will indeed be good at month end, and only a few hours are needed to get the targets.

People don't think they will get caught, and people are probably right !

I also find it a disgrace that a 40km road that takes 25 years to build, has no concrete borders between the northbound/southbound lanes (as it appears the EU paid for it). The same was done with the Drogheda bypass. Now they have to put one up there aswell, but only when the EU pointed it out and demanded it be sorted. So now, the government debates giving the contract out twice ! Yes twice !! In light of this terrible accident we speak of, they are considering on getting a border in asap - irregardless of the cost. Then, when the work on the third lane on each side starts, remove it, and then build it again !! More contracts for the boys again huh......?

Who benifits from the road building? The rich.
Who benifits from the penalty points? Apparently no-body.
Who benifits from the road contracts? The boys
Who will it cost to foot the bill since it wasn't done before? The taxpayer.

Will there be a change of attitude from people driving irresponsibly to one of people driving carefully? Probably not. Everyone still uses the mobile while driving. Some woman have admitted to spending 30 minutes on a hand held phone while driving around dublin. I've certainly seen many situations (not just women) over the past number of weeks - and it's bloody dangerous out there on the road.

Our attitude needs changing,
Our licencing & testing system needs changing.
Our Garda need to get their arse onto the road (Mandatory 1st years garda service on traffic duty) .
Our government need to stop playing with the traffic issues and deal with it once and for all.

I am really so sick of hearing about this daily for years now.

BrianD

Sad to hear that woman died from her injuries sustained from the collision on the M50.

I see Ivor Callely is calling for safety barriers on the M50 to be fitted within "weeks" even if they are only temporary!! Is this guy for real?? Talk about not being able to see the wood from the trees! Perhaps Mr Callerly might make a call for a reduction in the blood alcohol limit with rigorous random breath testing. Now that would make a difference to the carnage on our roads. Don't insult the travelling public with your lazy calls for safety barriers - do something that actually makes a difference!

Looking at the barriers that have retrofitted onto other m-ways, I wonder what difference they would have made in this case. The only difference would probably have been that the injuries and fatalities would have taken place in the south bound lane.

I wonder the NRA have data on the number of cross over incidents that take place each year on Irish motorways?

GreeBo

What is the point of a median if there is no barrier?

BrianD

It separates the two carriageways and prevents head on collisions from overtaking which would occur if the both carriageways were adjacent to each other.

GreeBo

BrianD wrote:

It separates the two carriageways

to what end?

BrianD wrote:

prevents head on collisions from overtaking which would occur if the both carriageways were adjacent to each other.

surely just the hedge does this?

sliabh

[QUOTE=BrianD]It separates the two carriageways[/QUOTE]

GreeBo wrote:

to what end?

So that when you are overtaking you don't cross the median into the oncoming traffic lane. This is the major safety benefit of dual carraigeways and motorways.

GreeBo

sliabh wrote:

So that when you are overtaking you don't cross the median into the oncoming traffic lane.

so you only cross it when you are out of control and crashing?

sliabh

GreeBo wrote:

so you only cross it when you are out of control and crashing?

Or as I have seen, doing a u-turn to avoid a tail back

Conspiracy

I heard something about the driver that crossed over onto the wrong side of the road.

Allegedly, he was weaving through the traffic on his own side of the road at high speed - one weave went wrong - and he weaved right across through the centre?

Any one hear anything about that?

GreeBo

sliabh wrote:

Or as I have seen, doing a u-turn to avoid a tail back

so basically it doesnt stop you from crossing at all?
In fact a continuous white line would serve the same purpose?

Conspiracy

The whole point politically appears to be that the eu paid for said concrete border to be installed and it wasn't .

The same stunt was pulled on the new Drogheda moterway, and when the EU inspectors looked at the road, they questioned where this concrete divider was.
It had been paid for, and was never put in.

To make it worse, a motorway won't be classified as a motorway unless these concrete borders are in place from a time period in the not so distant future.

Perhaps we should start getting used to calling the M50 the N50 then?

sliabh

GreeBo wrote:

so basically it doesnt stop you from crossing at all?
In fact a continuous white line would serve the same purpose?

Well have you ever tried going at 70mph on tarmac to a grass median and keeping control of the car or maintaining your speed to allow you to overtake?

GreeBo

sliabh wrote:

Well have you ever tried going at 70mph on tarmac to a grass median and keeping control of the car or maintaining your speed to allow you to overtake?

just once, but man was I wasted...

So it stops you from crossing over on purpose (except for your example of people pulling a U-ey) but does nothing in the event of you loosing control (like you might do if one wheel hit the grass median....)

My point is that there are two arguments on this thread
1) That the money should be spent on educating drivers (The Conspiracy Theory, if you will )
or
2) The money should be spent on the barrier (The GreeBo Theory)

If your argument is (1) then a white line would do the trick and you would all be happy to drive 3 feet from the cars going in the other direction.
If your argument is (2) then a strip of grass and a bush doesnt really cut it and needs to be replaced, whether it be armco or (to borrow a phrase from Mr Izzard) a fúck off block off concrete.

Tarabuses

I am surprised, GreeBo, that you did not receive a response to your message. I received a lecture from Sliabh, earlier in this thread, extolling the virtues of paint after I asked the question "Since when did paint stop accidents?"

It seems that you will never convince some people that hedges and chicken wire are no better than paint if a vehicle is out of control.

Victor

Tarabuses wrote:

It seems that you will never convince some people that hedges and chicken wire are no better than paint if a vehicle is out of control.

Said paint (ghost islands) can give vehicles (including those nominall in control / stopped) the space and time to avoid other vehicles.

BrianD

Tarabuses, you need to understand rather quickly that hedges and chicken wire are not there to provide any form of barrier against a collision. It's ridiculous for people to even bring up the notion that they are.

In regard to the EU money conspiracy, so far as I understand there were no barriers required because of the width of the median was such that they were not required. In any case, the NRA have undertaken to retrofit barriers so the arguements for and against are no longer valid. The barriers are being installed for no other good reason other than public "hysteria" on the subject. This investment will have the same impact on road injuries/deaths as the NCT - a good idea but doesn't make much if an impact on the statistics.

Greebo can you stop the selective out of context quoting please.

Tarabuses

BrianD wrote:

Tarabuses, you need to understand rather quickly that hedges and chicken wire are not there to provide any form of barrier against a collision. It's ridiculous for people to even bring up the notion that they are.

BrianD, there is no need for you to continue the lecturing. I am quite aware of the fact that hedges and chicken wire do not provide any form of barrier. Isn't that what I have been trying to convince you of in my previous messages?

What, therefore, are the barriers to avoid collisions such as that which started this thread?

BrianD

The answer is very simple. There are no barriers as none were required when these roads were built. To be frank, they are still not required. These barriers make no meaningful contribution to road safety.

How do we stop these cross over accidents? Getting drivers to modify their driving behaviour would be a start. None of these cross overs were accidents but the results of deliberate actions by a driver.

Having said that, I don't know the exact number of injuries, fatalities or property damage that occurs because of cross over incidents. It would be interesting if there were some stats available.

GreeBo

BrianD wrote:

Greebo can you stop the selective out of context quoting please.

Excuse me? Where?

BrianD wrote:

they(barriers) are still not required. These barriers make no meaningful contribution to road safety.

BrianD wrote:

How do we stop these cross over accidents?

Ok, now if you cant see a simple lack of logic in your two above statements then I think I might stop trying to argue with you...
The answer to how we stop cross over accidents is...(wait for it)....barriers!! :eek: