Crash barriers on M50

M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Dreadful picture on the front of the Times today of the horrible accident on the M50 yesterday - two people still critical - caused yet again by a lack of crash barriers, so that an out-of-control motorist can cross to the opposite side of the M50 and hit oncoming traffic.

Does someone have to die before something is done about this?

RTE News says:

This is LONG overdue in my opinion.

The NRA are saying they don't want to put in barriers on the M50, when they are about to commence work on a 3rd lane, but should we really have to wait 15 months for improved safety?
 
M50

horrible accident on the M50 yesterday - two people still critical - caused yet again by a lack of crash barriers
Click to expand...

Accidents are not caused by lack of crash barriers. Accidents are caused by drivers.
 
Re: M50

Accidents are not caused by lack of crash barriers. Accidents are caused by drivers.

Yes. But in this case the particular type of accident was indeed caused by a lack of crash barrier.

If there had been one, undoubtedly we would not be talking about it now.
 
Re: M50

Accidents are not caused by lack of crash barriers. Accidents are caused by drivers.
Click to expand...

Of course, Rainyday.

However, international guidlines for over 10 years have required crash barriers on all new motorways.

See also here:



Crash barriers save lives. They should be implemented on the M50. Full stop.
 
.

Accidents are not caused by lack of crash barriers. Accidents are caused by drivers.
Click to expand...

Rainyday using an NRA argument without even blushing. Lovely.

Edit: I of course meant National Rifle Association, not National Roads Authority :eek
 
Re: M50

I was driving from Kerry to Dublin yesterday, and was shocked at the way some people drive. I'm surprised that there isn't much more death and carnage on the roads.

It wasn't even so much speed, but driving within a foot of the car in front at 60+ mph, or doing some pretty hair-raising blind overtaking.

We don't need crash barriers, what we need is a police force that will take such lunatics off the road, permanently. Unfortunately they're too busy collecting tax.
 
Re: M50

We don't need crash barriers, what we need is a police force that will take such lunatics off the road

Something like this?
 
Re: M50

It wasn't even so much speed, but driving within a foot of the car in front at 60+ mph, or doing some pretty hair-raising blind overtaking.
Click to expand...

This is true.

However, accidents WILL happen, and the NRA should try to minimise the effects by intelligent road design such as crash barriers.

I am not saying this will solve all road traffic problems - of course it won't - but it will save some lives.

Motorways are the safest roads, but when accidents DO happen, they can be worse due to the high speeds. Lack of crash barriers means that cars travelling in opposite directions hit each other at combined speeds of 140mph plus.
 
Re: M50

Yes, clubman, something like that. Unfortunately, not this:

Drink driving and speeding will be specifically targeted by the new traffic corps.
Click to expand...

Again the emphasis is on speeding. Sounds like they are enhancing their tax collection techniques rather than trying to increase road safty. I wonder how many tail-gaters or lunatic overtakers they will catch?

(Can't believe people still drink and drive! I would have thought they were a dying breed.)
 
Re: M50

I have friends who have on occasion drank and drove. I also know of work colleagues who have in the past done the same. They might be a dying breed but I'm always amazed at how many people in their 20's and 30's still drink and get behind the wheel of their car.
 
'Accidents'

Accidents is a misnomer. Car crashes are ALWAYS caused by someone or something.

Yes, of course I'd like to see better crash barriers on the M50 & elsewhere (though it is interesting to note that it is the M50 that seems to be of most interest to the 'chattering classes'). A good friend of mine was seriously injured a few years ago when she was shunted over into the opposite carraigeway before being hit.

But this only treats the symptom of the problem, not the root cause. The root cause is driver behaviour.
 
Let's get these Canadian lads around to get the job done in record time -<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->[broken link removed]<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->This shape is known as the Jersey (Idiot) Barrier<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->But they are not a panacea -<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->
 
Re: 'Accidents'

"Accidents is a misnomer. Car crashes are ALWAYS caused by someone or something"

So, someone is driving along the M50 (or any motorway) and runs over some waste material which fell off a truck in front. This causes them to lose control of their vehicle and cross over into oncoming traffic and you think calling it an accident is a misnomer ? It's an accident. Maybe they could have been going slower, but you can't cater for all possible accidents which might beset you. If you did you would never set off on any journey.

Should the NRA hold off installing crash barriers until all truck drivers have been fully educated in the skills of loading their vehicles safely ? And all caravan towers have been educated also ? And all people driving to the landfill with stuff oozing out of their cars too ?

Or maybe the NRA should do what they should have done years ago and installed such barriers to prevent cross-overs in the event of an accident or incident beyond driver control and beyond reasonable driver expectation.

z
 
Re: M50

Again the emphasis is on speeding. Sounds like they are enhancing their tax collection techniques rather than trying to increase road safty. I wonder how many tail-gaters or lunatic overtakers they will catch?
Click to expand...

I agree - there is too much emphasis on speeding, and too little on other, more dangerous driving practices.

Not to mention totally inappropriately low speed limits like 40mph on a dual carriageway, and 50 mile stretches suddenly becoming 30mph then going back to 50; 70mph on a motorway suddenly becoming 60, etc.

And which roads do the Gardaí police? :mad

It practically amounts to entrapment!

In England they have a sensible "30 mph limit ahead in 2 km" warning signs for such areas.

A pity they don't borrow this idea over here...
 
Funny that most Irish do not wish that the law be stringently enforced until their rights and sensibilities are affronted. I only wish there were an effective way for the private citizen to report scofflaws such as being able to send a picture of the offense from a mobile phone camera (for free) to the Garda. I would be one snap-happy cyclist!
 
Re: 'Accidents'

No, it's not. It's a crash caused by a truck carrying material which was not properly secured.

As explained above, I would like to see better crash protection, but this is treating the symptom, not the cure. I'm somewhat amused by the Minister's recent discovery of this issue. I presume this Minister must belong to the other Fianna Fail, not the one that has been running the counry for the last 8 years.
 
Crash barriers

Crash barriers are in the news because both politicians and newspapers have identified an easy topic. The fact is that less than 1% of road deaths seem to arise from the kind of accident that these barriers would prevent, but they will cost millions to install.

No one would be against crash barriers were money no object. But it is. The money could be better used to save lives in all number of less photogenic ways: garda patrols outside pub carparks would probably save dozens of lives per annum, cameras to catch traffic light jumpers would be just as beneficial as barriers and a lot cheaper - compile your own list. But it wouldn't make for good press releases.

d
 
Re: 'Accidents'

How about an accident caused by mechanical failure? or a tyre blowout? (The car just passed the NCT) or a heart attack? or a tree blown down across the road? Are these 'accidents'?

You are suggesting that every accident is preventable?
 
Re: Crash barriers

The Nov 17th NRA is interesting.

What is being called into question is whether it is acceptable to delay the M50 deployment until after the 3rd lane is added.

Surely they can put in the barriers now and leave them, and just build the new lanes around them? Sounds simplistic, maybe, but surely they can put the barriers in along the whole motorway, then put in the 3rd lane in stretches?
 
Re: 'Accidents'

You are suggesting that every accident is preventable?
Click to expand...
In theory, Yes - For each of the examples you give, trace back the root cause and see what would have been required to prevent it - Like better maintainance for the mechanical failure, or even better manufacturing, or better design. Or better diet for the heart attack. Or better placement of trees in relation to the roads.

I'm not saying that it is ALWAYS practical to do this. I am suggesting that a narrow focus on crash barriers is missing the important point of looking at the most common root cause - driver behaviour. Probably because it is a lot less challenging to blame the barriers than for us as individuals to accept that we need to change our driving habits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register