Crash barriers on M50

[XXXAnother PersonXXX]

Re: 'Accidents'

okay, I'll play along with this!
What if the heart attack was the result of an unknown, undetected genetic defect?

How would you suggest 'accidents' would be better named?

 

[sunnyday]

Re: 'Accidents'

Rainyday
you've reached a new low today in my opinion. I just hope none of the relatives/friends of the people fighting for their lives today read your views on "accidents".

 

[rainyday]

Re: 'Accidents'

What if the heart attack was the result of an unknown, undetected genetic defect?

Well if you really want to play silly buggers, I'll join in. The cause of such 'accident' is a lack of research into heart attacks. How long do you want to keep this up for?

Hi Sunnyday - I too hope they don't read this thread. I wouldn't want to be so insensitive. I have no knowledge of Sunday's incident on the M50.

However, until we address root cause (driver behaviour), there are going to be lots & lots of other relatives/friends grieving & mourning too.

 

[car]

accidents

My mother used to say there is no such thing as an accident.
However, the only way to rule out all possible accidents is to not drive. If an animal runs out on to the M50 and you swerve to avoid, lose control and crash through the median, is this an avoidable accident?
If you dont swerve, then hit it, then lose control and crash through the median, is this an accident?
Take to the next level, if the driver was going at a reasonable speed where he could have swerved to avoid the animal then the car on the other lane that he swerves into then loses control and drives through the median, is this an accident?
If the driver was going slow enough to stop because he sees the animal ahead (presuming open road on the M50 and travelling at less then 30mph), so he brakes to a full stop in the fast lane of the M50 which is just about the worst thing he can do as anything coming behind has to be doing a similar speed to stop and on a clear day, that aint going to happen, so is anything resulting from that an accident?
RD is right, the argument can go on ad infinitum, all accidents are preventable. But theyre not all foreseeable due to the human factor. They will happen. The only foolproof method of avoiding them is not to go on the roads. Everything else is just damage limitation.

 

[zag]

Re: 'Accidents'

rainyday - your assertion that driver behaviour is a (the ?) root cause of fatalities may well be correct.

If nobody drove there would never be any fatal car crashes.

But people do drive.

If you look at it long enough it is possible to reduce every event to its root causes and it is pretty hard to dispute that the driver behaviour of . . . well, driving . . . puts people at risk of fatal accidents.

It is only fair to expect that individuals do what they can to mitigate the risks involved in their own behaviour. It is also fair to expect the relevant authorities to do what they can to mitigate risks involved where they can. They spend large amounts of money building these roads - why is it not reasonable to expect them to help make them *even* safer ?

How would you define an accident ?

z

 

[Monsieur Bond]

Re: accidents

Accidents will happen

True.

I think the important point (which is being lost here) is that the NRA are committed to providing crash barriers on the M50 and have budgeted for this, but intend waiting until the M50 three lane extension is in place in 2006 and install crash barriers as part of this program.

The NRA accept that crash barriers are a good idea as they can save lives and/or limit the damage of crashes. They are not the answer to everything - there are discussions on the safety of the existing design with respect to motorcyles for example - but they are better than nothing.

The Minister of State for Transport, Ivor Callely, wants the NRA to bring forward the implementation of the crash barriers on the M50 for safety reasons.

I, for one, think this is a very good idea.

 

[elderdog]

Off Topic

I see that AAMs pet Troll has had a good afternoon

Nice to see someone have a bit of fun on a Monday in late November

 

[rainyday]

Re: accidents

Just in case anyone is any doubt - I never said that crash barriers were a bad idea. I even said they were a good idea.

However, they also provide a kind-of comfort blanket. My brother was delighted when he got his first car with ABS brakes in the 80's as he reckoned he could now plan to drive even faster and steer through his skids.

We also need to address driver behaviour.

 

[Max Hopper]

I nominate misadventure ('death by misadventure' is how the Coroner describes drug overdoses).

 

[davido]

On reading the story in last night's Evening Herald, the case was estimated to be driving at 90mph, swrving in and out of lanes and when the "driver" lost control, the car flipped over the median and landed on top of a car in the opposite side of the road. If the car flipped up in the air like that, I wonder if barriers would have made a difference anyway. The accident was horrific and it again highlights the sorry state of the way many people drive in this country.

 

[Bobby]

the car flipped over the median

Because it hit a great big manhole protruding from the ground. The NRA's arguement used to be that the central median gave you the opportunity to recover control, so what's the idea of the bloody great manhole? add a bit of excitement??

 

[rainyday]

That's right Bobby - It is all the manhole's fault - though I was thinking about another word ending in 'hole' in relation to the driver.

 

[Bobby]

That's right Bobby - It is all the manhole's fault

I've read my post above again, and can't quite see where I said that.
Keep digging.

 

[soc]

Rainyday, I'm with you on this one...Crash barriers won't solve the problem - solving the problem starts with the driver. Money would be much better spent employing gardas to PERMANENTLY patrol Motorways. The number of offences I see committed everyday on the M50 is unbelievable!

The fact that someone can travel over an entire width of the median and into oncoming traffic is a pretty good sign that the driver who caused the accidents was NOT doing 70mph and probably not concentrating on driving either!

If people think that installing crash barriers would solve the problem and increase safety, then what about the 60mph roads that have NO median??? We've all travelled on them at some point... they only have a tiny white line painted on the road, separating oncoming traffic. Now, 60mph is only 10mph less than the speed on the motorway... and ALOT more accidents happen on those roads than motorways. Perhaps focus should be put on improving these roads...

I will bet money on it that the recent accidents on the motorway are down to driver incompetance.

soc

 

[rainyday]

I guess it might help if our leaders started leading by example on this issue. As long as we have Ministers cars being driven at 20 mph over the limit and Ministers being interviewed on camera by RTE sitting in the front seat of their Merc with no seatbelt while the car is driving round town, it is unlikely that we will have any real culture change in Ireland.

 

[Monsieur Bond]

the car flipped over the median


Because it hit a great big manhole protruding from the ground. The NRA's arguement used to be that the central median gave you the opportunity to recover control, so what's the idea of the bloody great manhole? add a bit of excitement??

I agree with Bobby - while obviously weaving at 90mph is reckless and dangerous, the NRA state that the grass divide should be usable in cases where a driver loses control and gives time to stop the car or correct the trajectory.

So having a manhole cover not flush with the ground is a pretty bad idea.

I am not condoning the driver's alleged activities, but saying that proper safety controls would have potentially lessened instead of exacerbating the seriousness of the accident.

 

[daltonr]

The fact that someone can travel over an entire width of the median and into oncoming traffic is a pretty good sign that the driver who caused the accidents was NOT doing 70mph and probably not concentrating on driving either!

Oh, I don't know about that. Have you ever tried braking on GRASS at 70MPH? GRASS!!!!! are you kidding me?

The NRA actually believe that GRASS is a suitable surface to use in a braking area between 70MPH cars. You'd have to wonder why silverstone isn't surrounded by the stuff wouldn't you???

GRASS!!!!!!

What were they smoking?

Oh, hang on.....Now I understand.

-Rd

 

[soc]

... and while we are at it - let's just shoot all the deer and other animals that may stray onto the motorways... (we've all been on those motorways that have signs warning us drivers of deer possibly making an appearance on the motorway)

... actually come to think of it - maybe they should stick another sign up... BEWARE OF ONCOMING CARS! :rolleyes

soc

 

[crugers]

actually come to think of it - maybe they should stick another sign up... BEWARE OF ONCOMING CARS!

Now you hit the nail on the head!
I don't want crash barriers on motorways for the purpose of encouraging me or deterring me!
I want them on the motorway to stop those crazy bastards who can't control themselves!

there are discussions on the safety of the existing design with respect to motorcyles for example - but they are better than nothing.

That is debatable! For cars they will work. If you are on a bike they will work a little like the manhole cover... Deadly!

 

[daltonr]

I want them on the motorway to stop those crazy bastards who can't control themselves!

Yes, and I think this might be the point that Rainyday was missing.

If I'm not the cause of the accident, but my death/injury
could have been avoided by building a divider, then I'm really not too concerned about philosophical debates about how the accident could have been avoided.

I'm concerned with how the fall out from the accident could have been minimised.

Of course if I'm dead I'm not too concerned about anything, but I'm sure someone would care.

Bad Drivers kill people, but if better roads can make it harder for them to kill me, then I'm for better roads.

-Rd