Another motorway crossover crash

BrianD

Once more for the hard of hearing:

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

Tarabuses

BrianD wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that the drivers deliberatly drove their vehicles across the median and into oncoming traffic? I very much doubt it (certainly no reports suggesting this that I have seen).

Assuming that the actions were deliberate is that not even more reason to protect the innocent motorists on the far side of the hedge who do not even have a chance of seeing what is happening on the other carriageway?

BrianD

Read what I said please - "as a result of deliberate actions of the driver". This can be a result of travelling at excessive speed, reaching down to pick up a mobile phone from the passenger footwell, etc. etc.

There is no justification for the barriers on a cost benefit analysis. The number of incidents is too small and the money would be better off spent in a manner that might reduce the overall injury and death rate. Again the arguement is largely irrelevant now as we are getting them anyway due to political reaction to "public hysteria" on the matter.

Alun

How many barriers do you see on ordinary two lane national roads where traffic (in theory at least!) can also be approaching each other with a combined speed of 120mph, and a lot closer to each other than they would be on a motorway or dual carriageway?

GreeBo

How many bridges do you see without side walls/rails?

Alun

GreeBo wrote:

How many bridges do you see without side walls/rails?

Your point being what exactly?

I was merely pointing out the apparent paradox that people appear to think that it's self evident that M-ways and dual carriageways should have crash barriers yet happily drive along national roads every day of the week with the same combined closing speed and much less space between them without a worry in the world.

GreeBo

My point being that if we were to follow BrianD's suggestions we wouldn't need these walls, we should spend the money educating people not to fall off bridges...

Drivers are less aware when they are driving at constant speeds on continuous roads such as motorways than they are on national roads, where there are many more "distractions".

MrPudding

Is it Sweden that has barriers on most main roads? I can't remember but read somewhere that a European country rolled barriers out on any road where there was a risk of traffic meeting headon above a certain speed. Armco where possible and steel cable where not.

There seems to be a major difference of opinion on whether or not these barriers are needed. I lean towards the "are needed" camp, it just seems like common sense to me. At the same time, like BrianD has said, I would like to see some figures to see if they are actually worth installing. I know that from a subjective point of view they are worth installing but I would like to look at it objectively.

MrP

sliabh

MrPudding wrote:

At the same time, like BrianD has said, I would like to see some figures to see if they are actually worth installing. I know that from a subjective point of view they are worth installing but I would like to look at it objectively.

Some figures were provided earlier which five 3 cross over crashes on the M50 with one fatality (now 2 with the death of the passenger last week). This is in over 90 million journies. So it would seem that this is a very rare type of accident and the expense of putting in barriers for two years (until the M50 upgrade works start) is not really justified.

Chipboard

The NRA have been under pressure for years to put proper barriers along the median of the M50. I remember a debate on the radio after the last big crash on the M50 around 3 yrs ago (the one where the priest was killed). The guy from the NRA was speaking on the Last Word. When he was challenged on the barrier topic he said the reason that they didnt install them was because a car which left the carriageway would hit them and be deflected back into traffic. So the NRA believe its safer to crash through the barrier into oncoming traffic than to be deflected back into traffic which is travelling in the same direction as you - HOW STUPID IS THAT.

Another reason he said they werent needed was because the median was wide enough to allow a person to regain control of their car and drive back onto the carriageway (I'd really love to try that at 60 mph on wet grass) and a third brilliant reason for not installing them was that other countries such as America dont have them. Well I drove a few thousand miles in Nevada, California and Arizona last May and I have news for ya buddy; in America the median between the carriageways is approx 100 yards wide, it dips down and comes back up again and it full of wild brush, so you probably wouldnt make it though it if you tried.