Any crash barrier can always be safer. I have often thought why roads with a lot of room on the sides don't have a grassy slope so if a rider goes sliding it will be a bit softer and by the time they get to the barrier they would have slowed down a fair bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
Do all of them need to be made safer?
Silly queation, if one barrier is going to be made safer and other barriers are neglected then the key word is that if someone crashes and is seriously injured or killed.
As a CFA member I get to go to quite a few MVAs. I honestly shake my head at some of them and wonder how the hell they managed to do what they did. It just reinforces the belief that some people just shouldn't drive.
WRBs, love them or hate them, have certainly done their job in helping to prevent vehicles from crossing into on-coming traffic. As alluded to in the report, the posts are the real hazard to us. If a rider is already on the deck & sliding, it is a case of trying to thread the needle between posts to prevent hitting one. THIS is where our efforts should be directed. They won't go away so lets make them safer.
and this one from Sweden suggest that WRBs may have the effect of reducing the speed that riders travel because they feel less secure on these roads...
The Eurorap study is a good one because it champions secondary rail systems to improve safety on all crash barriers. Systems such as Bikeguard, Moto. Tub and Plastrail which uses 70% recycled plastic from the French company Solidar. Sorry couldn't find any info on this product.
At the moment there are trials of material taking place in Victoria. They've all been placed in high motorcycle usage places - the problem is that no one has actually hit them yet (as far as is known).
Trials in progress include:
• 9 sites treated with barrier protection (including on guard rail and wire rope barrier)
• 4 sites treated with motorcycle friendly products (including frangible signs and posts)
• additional sites treated with 'Rubrail' - metal sheeting under guard rail