NRA fool on Prime Time (re: Crash Barriers)

BrianD3

Anyone see tonight's Prime Time? It was about the lack of crash barriers on motorways. The head of safety from the NRA was on defending their policy of using strips of grass, chicken wire and bushes in place of motorway crash barriers :rolleyes:

It was a pity that Mark Little was interviewing him. Little's interview technique consisted of interrupting and butting in and not much else. A decent interviewer would have taken the NRA guy's points apart but Little was just useless. Idiot.

The NRA guy's main point was that barriers can make things *more* dangerous. Because a vehicle hitting a barrier can bounce back into the traffic on its own side of the motorway and cause an accident. Or the actual collision with the barrier can put the vehicle's occupants at risk.

So let's see - given the choice between hitting a deformable metal barrier at 70 mph at a shallow angle, or crossing over the median and hitting another vehicle head on travelling at 70 mph in the opposite direction, which would you choose? Seems like the NRA guy would choose the latter.

Also, it's strange how Ireland is the only EU country that uses the chicken wire approach to road safety - in other countries it is considered "best practice" to utilise barriers.

BrianD3

mike65

Did'nt see tonights inteview but I've heard that guy speak a few times on this issue and he always gets it wrong! Someone really should tell him. Did you ever notice how on roads there's barrier where a bridge support is within striking distance? If ARMCOs are good enough for a lump of concrete why not lumps of high speed metal?

Mike.

Silvera

saw the report and interview.
agree that Little didn't push that NRA guy very much :mad:

it seems the NRA/Govt will cut any corners possible to save money.

I, like most people, am convinced that every motorway (and dual carraigeway) should have crash barriers installed - end of story !

I can recall of at least 3 people being killed on the Naas dualcarraigeway in the last 8 years in 'cross over' accidents.
(and barriers were fitted to small stretches AFTER the accidents !)


Wasn't there a story in the media, a few months ago, that the govt had said it will be installing armco barriers on all motorways (or will it just be on the M1 as the NRA guy seemed to suggest) ?

mike65

Originally posted by Silvera
Wasn't there a story in the media, a few months ago, that the govt had said it will be installing armco barriers on all motorways (or will it just be on the M1 as the NRA guy seemed to suggest) ?

Yep, it came in the aftermath of a crash on the M 50 which killed two I think (car went through median).

Mike.

Calibos

A few weeks ago on the american show "Worlds greatest car chases" or similar they showed helicopters eye footage of a pursuit. The Beemer being chased lost control, spun across the median and just missed a car coming in the other direction on the carriageway. If that person had have been a millisecond later the beemer would have creamed them, as it was the beemer spun across their lane just feet behind them. Anyway the beemer ended up in a ditch, the occupants jumped out and over tthe back wall of some houses. Up till now I had assumed this was American or British footage seeing as this was "Worlds greatest car chases" on Sky1. The I heard the voice of the chopper pilot........"Garda O'Brien, de occupants have fled over the back wall of de house to yer left.......etc etc." Bloody Irish footage!!

Don't even be fooled into thinking that the chickenwire is a safety measure, its for the nice median rose bushes to grow on! I've seen it with my own eyes, beemers go through it like a hot knife through butter!

Doctor J

It was embarrassing. How can a pig-headed moron like that get into a position where he can make decisions which mean death to people like you and I? That guy needs to be ousted from his job... and fast

Big al

The NRA board is politically appointed, there is a teacher two hoteliers solicitors etc on it and no road engineers, if there are any road enginees reading this please go to your local FF cuman and join up!

BrianD3

How can a pig-headed moron like that get into a position where he can make decisions which mean death to people

Yep, it's extremely worrying that this guy is the Head of Safety in the NRA. He didn't give one good reason why the NRA uses the chicken wire approach and dismissed the comments of renowned safety expert Murray Mackay. He actually sounded pretty clueless and as if he didn't have much understanding of the physics and forces involved in collisions.

Also, the suggestion that drivers could regain control of their vehicles after straying onto a wide median was ludicrous. Let's say the median is 15 metres wide. If a car crosses it at an angle so that it's effectively ~30 metres wide, at 70 mph this gives a driver approx 1 second to regain control before he's on the other carriageway. Now imagine that it's dark and the grass is wet and slippy etc. How can any normal driver be expected to regain control in this situation?

BrianD3

Doctor J

Indeed, a car hitting a stationary fence at 70mph will have a less detrimental effect that two cars meeting head on at a combined speed of 140mph. Even if a car bounces back into it's own lane, the cars behind will have more time to stop as the crashed vehicle will generally be travelling in the same direction and give the other drivers more time to take avoiding action. A car travelling through a median gives the other drivers no time to react and, even if there is time to react, they're still heading towards the accident scene at 70mph.

Even taking into consideration that a driver might indeed have 15m to regain control of an out of control (otherwise, why would it be on the median?), 15m goes by very, very quickly at 70mph. 15m makes f*ck all difference if the car has had a mechanical failure/punture/driver injury/skid etc. So why would a car cross the median other than these circumstances?

Victor

I support barriers, but on many non-urban freeways in the US and Canada they do just have grass strips, although they do seem to be wider than the NRA 9m standard.

Originally posted by Doctor J
Even taking into consideration that a driver might indeed have 15m to regain control of an out of control (otherwise, why would it be on the median?), 15m goes by very, very quickly at 70mph. 15m makes f*ck all difference if the car has had a mechanical failure/punture/driver injury/skid etc. So why would a car cross the median other than these circumstances?

Remember, you are unlikely to be crossing at 90 degrees, so it might actually take 100metres to cross to the other carriageway.

Villain

Saw Prime Time, this guy seems to think the EU are wrong and the NRA are right!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Doctor J

Originally posted by Victor
Remember, you are unlikely to be crossing at 90 degrees, so it might actually take 100metres to cross to the other carriageway.

Fair enough, but what's the stopping distance of a car travelling @ 70mph? Now, what's the stopping distance of a car travelling on wet grass @70mph? Cars generally don't cut into the median unless something is wrong, which means there's less chance of the driver being capable of sorting it out, regardless of how long they have to regain control.

K2

the same fool must have been on rte radio the other morning. It was pointed out that the barriers used in the eu are designed so cars do not bounce back into traffic and it was also calculated that it would be cheaper to put in barriers as the actual land required would be reduced as there would be no need for the wider median (and the oh so expensive chicken wire). It was also said that the nra is working on usa studies from the 50's.:rolleyes: Maybe somebody should tell them this is the 21st century and things have moved on in the last 50 years.

NeRb666

The wide central reservation is there so that extra lanes can be added when required. i.e. 10 years ago.

unkel

Originally posted by K2
the same fool must have been on rte radio the other morning

That's where I heard it driving on the Naas Road outbound - the ignorant fool made my blood boil :mad:

How does a person like this get involved in a role like this? Clearly he was completely clueless and incompetent in the area of safety. How can he have passed the interview for the role?

Or was he appointed through political nepotism as still seems to happen in this country

Originally posted by mike65
Yep, it came in the aftermath of a crash on the M 50 which killed two I think (car went through median)

IIRC two cars were chasing each other when one went through the median into the path of a young priest killing both occupants and the priest

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by unkel
IIRC two cars were chasing each other when one went through the median into the path of a young priest killing both occupants and the priest

replace 'chasing' with 'racing' and I believe that the driver of the car that killed the priest had exceeded 150mph.
On this NRA theme look here.

Andrew Duffy

The priest was chaplain in my secondary school way back when. He used to drive one of those old high Renaults (was it called a Renault 4?), so if he was in that I doubt he suffered.

BrianD3

I remember that crash well. The young lads were driving a modded 80's Corolla, the priest was driving an Opel Vectra.

BrianD3

tricky D

This ignorant muppet is clueless. This stuff is around Inter Cert physics level.

A car in trouble which stays on the correct side of the median will strike other cars at low relative velocities compared to on the other side at high rel vels. The grass will barely slow it down and is more likely to further reduce control. A typical comparison would be a crash at relative velocity of say 20 mph if kept on same side. Compare this to relative velocity of say 120 mph if median is crossed. Collision at 6 times faster is 36 times the damage (energy released being proportional to velocity squared).

Also the ignorance of the basics of safety feature design is incredible, almost criminally negligent imho. The ARMCO barriers are not primarily designed to bounce vehicles back into the traffic though they sometimes do. The horizontal member isn't designed to fail, the vertical members are. The horizontal member is designed to keep the vehicle on the original line of the armco in as many scenarios as is reasonably possible and slow the vehicle down more gently. This generally good for collision angles up to 30 degrees.

Of course these are the bunch whose computer model predicts that putting the Luarse thru the Red Cow will make little or no difference. Remember a computer model is only as good as its assumptions which are made by this shower of humans.

BrianD3

Well put, tricky D.

Another thing is, even where there are barriers they're often not maintained properly. Eg the Mullingar bypass - the Armco is severely damaged in at least two places from vehicles hitting it. It's been like this for months. No point having the barrier if it's not maintained. If another vehicle hits it in a spot where it's already damaged (unlikely, but could happen) a crossover is almost inevitable.

BrianD3

ando

Originally posted by Doctor J
It was embarrassing. How can a pig-headed moron like that get into a position where he can make decisions which mean death to people like you and I? That guy needs to be ousted from his job... and fast

I was thinking the exact same thing.

In my opionion, there should not be any grass at all in the median. It should be all tarmac as a car will have more grip on tarmac than grass, a hell of a lot more grip. For instance in Formula one they have gotten rid of some of the gravel traps and replaced them with tarmac as it is more suitable to slow the car down asap. As for the chicken wire... I really cannot grasp how idiotic and inept the Nra guys are for installing that. I fully support the crash barrier's and for the life of me I cannot understand how he thinks its more dangerous to have them installed. Hmm, hit a car going in same direction... or hit a car head on at equilivent to 140mph... hmm, hard decision

P_Doddy

Is this not typical of this coutry!! Having the NRA without a single person on it who know's anything about roads or road safety.

Do these people get paid for being on the NRA?? I'd say it's a political group ... who you know etc etc!

Crash barriers are a must! it doesn't take a brain genious to figure out that 2 cars travcelling ta 70mph opposite to them will crash with a combined speed of 140 mph. As regards the car 'bouncing back' into the same lane ... then as a guess if all the other cars are travelling at 70mph as well and the car that 'bounces back' from the barrier has its speed reduced to say 40mph from the crash .. then the impact speed will be 30mph as they are both travelling in the same direction!!

Just my 2 cents!

P

Seth Brundle

Just looking through the NRA.ie site I came accross the following:-
I was going to make the important bits bold but I think the whole lot says it all.
The new roads, constructed to best practice standards, help to reduce road accidents and fatalities. In particular, motorways and dual carriageways are safer because the possibility of head-on collisions is almost eliminated. We estimate that approximately 50 lives per year will be saved when the 900km of motorways/dual carriageways listed in the National Development Plan are completed.
As well as providing new, safer roads, the NRA has an extensive road safety programme that aims to reduce the number and severity of accidents occurring on the existing network of National Roads. (article taken from here)
If you search their site (manually or using the crappy search facility [try search for crash & barriers]) you'll find pretty much nothing possibly indicating the height of their knowledge on the issue of building proper motorways )

NeRb666

They need barriers on both sides, especially since they seem to be obssessed with putting up signposts wherever they can fit them. Too late for the unfortunate person who was killed on the M50 last night when he hit a lamp post.

I remember an episode of Drive (whatever happened to that?) a few years ago where they got some expert on from England who basically said that motorway safety here is a joke. What the hell is wrong with these NRA fools. Maybe they think they're working for the National Rifle Association and their job is to make the body count as high as possible.

Victor

Originally posted by kbannon
If you search their site (manually or using the crappy search facility [try search for crash & barriers]) you'll find pretty much nothing possibly indicating the height of their knowledge on the issue of building proper motorways )

Thats what consultants are for (the NRA employs relatively few staff, most route design is by councils and actual design by consultants)!

But more seriously, you have a number of levels in the NRA - (a) the board (50% of whom would have some clue about roads) who are there to oversee general policy, (b) general management and admin staff (who are there to run the NRA and need to know about running an organisation, nothing about roads) and then (c)the engineers and technical staff (no doubt some better than others). Group (c) needs to deal with penny pinching by group (b) who need to deal with penny pinching by group (a) who need to deal with penny pinching by Department of Transport civil servants, who need to deal with penny pinching by Department of Finance civil servants, who need to deal with penny pinching by government - who want the most road, for the least money - because that is what is popular (Fianna Fáil is a populist party). You, the people, elected the government.

Separately, a motorway without crash barriers is safer than the equivalent section of two- or four-lane, single carriageway route.

Silent Bob

There's more to road safety than just cars, you know.

Armco's in their current form are basically fatal to motorcyclists.

Armco style barriers that are much safer for motorcyclists and at least as safe as an armco for cars have been developed but aren't really used anywhere.

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by Victor
Thats what consultants are for (the NRA employs relatively few staff, most route design is by councils and actual design by consultants)!

The NRA homepage states:- The Authority's primary function, under the Roads Act 1993, is 'to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads'. For this purpose, it has overall responsibility for planning and supervision of construction and maintenance works on these roads.
If they can't do it they shouldn't pretend they can!

Gerry

Originally posted by Victor
I support barriers, but on many non-urban freeways in the US and Canada they do just have grass strips, although they do seem to be wider than the NRA 9m standard. Remember, you are unlikely to be crossing at 90 degrees, so it might actually take 100metres to cross to the other carriageway.

Yeah, but they are quite a fair bit wider than 9m, and normally have a dip in the middle of them. Anywhere where they didn't have the land for a big median strip, I normally noticed a concrete barrier between the carraigeways. On a side note, it seems the american police use the median strip for u-turns quite a bit, I saw a cop coming towards me from the opposite direction, I then see a cloud of dust in the median strip in my rear view mirror, followed about 20 seconds later by the cop overtaking me at about 110mph

Andrew Duffy

This article is quite reasonable:

http://www.nra.ie/News/PressReleases/d946.HTML.html

The NRA gets an awful hard time; lots of motorways all over Europe have no centre barriers. There's even single-carriageway motorways on mountain passes in places. I think their biggest crime is building substandard junctions to save money rather than getting better value out of contractors.