Ireland says NO to safer barriers

carsQhere

There was a vote at the CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) in Stockholm last Thursday which could have seen a new standard for crash barriers that was motorcycle friendly. Ireland, via the NSAI, voted against.

Original FEMA statement on the vote is on the FEMA web site at http://www.fema-online.eu/ and is quoted on the MAG Ireland site.

I think the NSAI has some explaining to do.

From MAG Ireland web site: http://www.magireland.org/2011/campaigns/ireland-says-no-to-safer-barriers/

MAG Ireland is disappointed to bring you news that Ireland has voted against a standard which would have meant an end to the use of lethal wire rope safety barriers on Irish roads.

At the CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) meeting in Stockholm on Thursday 16th June 2011, the delegation from the NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland) voted against the draft proposal for standard EN1317-8. MAG Ireland will be issuing a full statement on this in due course.

As a founder member of FEMA, The Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Associations, MAG Ireland would like to draw your attention to the following statement by FEMA in response to this vote.

The original article is on the FEMA web site (click here) and the text reads as follows;

CEN misses historic opportunity to save European motorcyclists’ lives by turning ready-to-be-voted guardrail standard into mere technical paper

On Thursday, June 16, CEN’s technical committee on road equipment (TC226) held its annual meeting in Stockholm. The draft standard for motorcyclists protection systems which was ready for vote, was turned into a mere Technical Specification by the United Kingdom, Germany, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland. FEMA expressed great disappointment and thanks those who have worked hard in preparing what could have become a milestone in the history of motorcycle safety.

The Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Associations (FEMA) is sad to announce that its efforts to get adopted the draft standard for motorcycle-friendly guardrails have not been successful. Despite the commitment of several CEN delegates and technical experts throughout the preparation process, the draft proposal for an EN1317-8 was not put for formal vote. Worse: despite the adopted resolution 319 calling for a European Standard, TC226 committee turned the proposal into a Technical Specification, to the extreme satisfaction of some stakeholders, who feared that such a standard could have completely changed the parameters of the European road restraint system market.

EN1317-8 proposal was based on the Spanish standard, which has proven efficiency records: neither fatal nor seriously injured accidents ever since the installation of approved protective guardrails. Out of the 14 represented Member States, 6 only voted in favour of the proposal: France, Belgium, Norway, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, of course.

FEMA’s General Secretary, Aline Delhaye, who has actively participated in the preparation of the draft since 2008, says: “I can only acknowledge CEN/TC226 decision with great regret. I believe CEN members missed an historical opportunity to make the history of motorcycle safety. What will be done with this Technical Specification is a mystery to me. I have my doubts about the legitimacy of the arguments put forward by those who voted ‘no’ to a European Standard. But there we are.”

Though very disappointed, FEMA members will of course keep on working at improving statistics, supporting research projects improving protection systems and testing requirements, drawing awareness, and calling for the European standard on road restraint systems (EN1317) to take motorcyclists into account by integrating the technical specification as part 8 of EN1317.

Spacedog

-why are the old barriers so dangerous for bikers?
-what is the proposed new design?
-why did the NSAI say they rejected the new design?
-what would be the total cost of replacing all existing infrastructure with the new design?
-that are the patents, exclusive rights, contract restrictions to implementation of the new design?

Del2005

Spacedog wrote: »

-why are the old barriers so dangerous for bikers?

Are you blind? High tension metal wires and poles will slice anyone thrown against them in half, if their lucky.

-what is the proposed new design?

Look at the link from FEMA

-why did the NSAI say they rejected the new design?

For some reason the NSAI don't have any info about rejecting a potential life saving standard on their site yet

-what would be the total cost of replacing all existing infrastructure with the new design?

Who cares, a road death cost €3m. They are supposed to be about safety not cost, the law makers worry about deaths v's cost. Also they don't have to replace it all straight away. They just need to make all new roads up to spec and retrofit old ones when able.

-that are the patents, exclusive rights, contract restrictions to implementation of the new design?

If it becomes EU standard then who ever owns the patents would be coining it in. They would have their design licensed for use in every EU country.

antiskeptic

Spacedog wrote: »

-why are the old barriers so dangerous for bikers?

I've not quite understood this myself. Colliding with cheese-wire barrier can be seen as problematic - but no more so than colliding with Armco (or rather more likely, sliding along the road into the vertical steel pillars onto which Armco is bolted. Ouch!)


I'd imagine too that striking cheesewire is a darn sight more car-driver friendly than hitting Armco

-what is the proposed new design?

+1

I'd be curious about a design which is strong enough to prevent a car/truck crossing over onto an opposing carriageway but is biker friendlier.

-why did the NSAI say they rejected the new design?

-what would be the total cost of replacing all existing infrastructure with the new design?

I'd imagine your first question is answered by your second. When all is said and done, life-saving expenditure (whether put into the health service, airplane manufacture, food safety, crash barriers) is a bang-per-buck business.

Replacing the countries crash barriers simply to reduce the risk to a relatively small number of road users (whose overall risk-quotient is high and who chose to engage in a high risk activity) doesn't strike me as likely to float high on the list of priorities.

I'm speaking as a veteran mtorcyclist and a citizen of a cash-strapped country.

Thinkingaboutit

The wire barriers are said to provide only a saving when installing them, no cheaper for maintenance. They are utterly lethal for motorbike riders, and can also be more harmful for cars in certain types of collisions. Sad, stupid decision.

Run_to_da_hills

My advice is to anyone on a motorbike is to drive on the hard shoulder when these cheese graters are in place, I use to before they were replaced along the M50 with concrete barriers.

If you get pulled and it goes to court you can testify that the road is unsafe for motorcyclists.

Cuddlesworth

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

My advice is to anyone on a motorbike is to drive on the hard shoulder when these cheese graters are in place, I use to before they were replaced along the M50 with concrete barriers.

If you get pulled and it goes to court you can testify that the road is unsafe for motorcyclists.

I'd rather not. Too much debris and its on the side nobody checks.

Run_to_da_hills

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'd rather not. Too much debris and its on the side nobody checks.

Depends on how far you are in behind the line, the further in you are asking for trouble.

antiskeptic

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

My advice is to anyone on a motorbike is to drive on the hard shoulder when these cheese graters are in place

,

What kind of improvement to your safety are you envisaging by habitually driving in the hard shoulder?

Whilst having no problem doing so in the odd awful tailback, I couldn't abide the inevitable punctures that come with habitual use of the hard shoulder (especially not given a personal policy of replacing a tyre once it's been punctured)

I use to before they were replaced along the M50 with concrete barriers.

If given the choice of being flung in the direction of either, I'd go for the wires every time. I don't think you're appreciating the effect a collision with a concrete wall would have on you

If you get pulled and it goes to court you can testify that the road is unsafe for motorcyclists.

In my (erm..extensive) experience, those bored-to-death judges down at the district court love nothing better than a head that sticks it's head so blatantly up over the parapet. It's a rare event they get to blow a target so cleanly out of the water..

Paparazzo

I'd pick the concrete wall ahead of the cheese wire. If you're moving at 120kph and come off, you'll be sliding down the road, you won't be going straight into the concrete barrier. Where the cheese wire is a series of metal stakes in the ground, you don't have a hope. If you were designing something to cause maximum damage to a motorcyclist, it'd be hard to come up with something better than the cheese wires.
I read before that the cost of repairing the cheese wires actually makes it more expensive than armco in the long run.

EvilMonkey

The cheese wire is bad but so is a single armco barrier. I never understood why people complained about the wire but didn't really complain about single armco barriers where if you side under into a poll you wouldn't be getting up any quicker than going into the wire. The only acceptable barrier is one that you cant slide under like a double/triple armco or the concrete jersey type barrier they used on the new motorways. I haven't seen one of these safer barriers so cant say if they are any better (unless its those used in oval racing in America with foam between the wall and barrier).
I wouldn't like to crash into any tbh.

Tigger

Spacedog wrote: »

-why are the old barriers so dangerous for bikers?
-what is the proposed new design?
-why did the NSAI say they rejected the new design?
-what would be the total cost of replacing all existing infrastructure with the new design?
-that are the patents, exclusive rights, contract restrictions to implementation of the new design?

So yer first post in here it to argue that it's ok that one of the most dangerous thongs a biker can hit is a safteh barrier?

Nice

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

If given the choice of being flung in the direction of either, I'd go for the wires every time. I don't think you're appreciating the effect a collision with a concrete wall would have on you

I don't think you have really thought this through...

clearly hitting concrete or armco is not going to be a lot of fun, but it will only be lethal at certain angles. Typically you would expect impact to be at a fairly shallow angle which would give you an impact, but allow you to start sliding along it, so, some of your energy is absorbed in the impact and the rest bleeds off with friction between the road surface and the barrier. If it is concrete or motorcycle friendly armco, there is a good chance there will be no further impacts, just sliding.

For the wire barriers you will hit a post irrespective of your angle of impact. Added to this, the act of sliding along the wire is likely to be highly injurious in and of itself.

I would take concrete or armco any day before wire.

MrP

RosieJoe

Cheese wire, may only be a simulation but, no Thanks! :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta6UaMiu114

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEWy2XnZrfk

This one shows the difference an extra piece of railing would make to an Armco barrier. Would make a huge difference!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCZkhZv-bII

Dorsanty

Yeah so far I'm going with the concrete being the best of a bad lot. Make sure you always have your best gear on!

Our current armco is fine for cars but a rider will go under and impact an upright. The wire will not only have the upright problem but you'll could get tangled up in it and snap and twist plenty of body parts. A second level of armco railing would be great but I don't see that being implemented.

Sally Briard

Just to clarify.... from Right To Ride

On Thursday, June 16, the CEN (European Committee for Standardization) technical committee on road equipment (TC226) held its annual meeting in Stockholm. The draft standard for a road restraint protection system for motorcycles (EN1317-8) was on the agenda.

At the meeting, the committee chose to opt for a Technical Specification (aka an experimental standard), which seems to have caused consternation amongst some motorcyclists.

Over the previous months, representatives from various countries raised legitimate concerns about the Spanish protocol, because they felt that there were problems with the testing procedures for motorcyclists hitting crash barriers, the relevance of rider positions when crashing, the types of barriers and so forth. However the committee recognised that in the absence of something better, it was a starting point.

There was the general consensus within the Working Group 1 to develop the Spanish protocol and focus initially on the sliding configuration because the experience already gained with similar testing on a national basis would allow a European standard to be developed more quickly.

Also, Part 8 is intended primarily for the testing of motorcyclist protection systems to be added on to barriers. Generally speaking, the Motorcycle Protection System (MPS) will be a separate product, even though it is tested as a complete system along with the barrier.

At the meeting on June 16th, rather than reject the proposed draft, the committee decided to accept it as a Technical Specification (TS 1317-8) as an interim solution. Thus the committee did not vote “no” to a European Standard.

The convenor of CEN/TC 226/WG1 explained that the plan is to undertake inter-laboratory testing, to ensure that the test procedures are understandable and that when identical tests according to the protocol are performed by different laboratories in different countries, the results obtained are the same.

According to the CEN secretary, the TC226 committee expects to have this standard ready and approved within the next two/three years.

Just so you know...;)