Was stuck 2 hours in a nose-to-tail a few weeks ago. A truck full of about 50 very fat pigs had overturned and the porkers (not in police uniform on this occasion) were running amuck all over the grass median evading capture by the hapless driver and his mate. This entertainment was to good to pass up and many carts and buses full of passengers had pulled off the road on to the shoulder or the median itself to watch the proceedings. No police on this one, definitely a "too hard" assignment!
|
|
I know this'll never happen, because it would cost far too much and is far too sensible, but the problem of "rubbernecking" would be solving if tall, slatted, fencing was erected in the central reservation making it impossible to see what was going on in the other carriageway until you were at least level with or past the incident.
|
|
Excelent idea. It has been done on short stretches elsewhere.
|
This is one of my pet hates and almost as bad as the middle lane muppets.
I was on the M26 the other day, fairly light traffic when a guy in a Polo estate saw a car parked on the other carriageway hard shoulder.
His speed dropped from 60+ to about 40 in order that he could "safely" keep his eyes on the opposite lane. I went passed with horns blaring and he looked at me as if I was mad. He was obviously totally oblivious to the fact that he had done anything wrong.
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
I know this'll never happen, because it would cost far too much and is far too sensible, but the problem of "rubbernecking" would be solving if tall, slatted, fencing was erected in the central reservation making it impossible to see what was going on in the other carriageway until you were at least level with or past the incident.
Or another idea, and what happens on the autoroutes in France, is having a bush/hedge/plants down between the central crash barriers. This will block all the rubberneckers from seeing what's up the other side. It also has the added benefit of being easy on the eye and it stops idiots with their full beams on blinding you at night.
|
|
Again agreed. The French really have planned Autoroutes properly. We should have the same rest stops as well. I mean what more do you need than somewhere to stop, wander about and use the bog? Dont understand tho why so many vehicles catch fire on the autoroutes. One trip down south about two years ago looked like the Luftwaffe had bombed the Dunkerque evacuation. Burnt out cars (and coaches) about every 50km
|
I know this'll never happen, because it would cost far too much and is far too sensible, but the problem of "rubbernecking" would be solving if tall, slatted, fencing was erected in the central reservation making it impossible to see what was going on in the other carriageway until you were at least level with or past the incident.
This fencing was originally put in place to stop drivers being dazzled at night.
|
|
In Germany rubbernecking is a specific offence and is bookable as is not filtering in when told to do so (lane closure etc). They enforce this with cameras. So no reps pushing in at the front!
|
|
|
Hmm... but any form of permanent screening means that the first you know about the about-to-overurn-into-your-carriageway tanker is when it DOES, bursting through that screen - and then yours. I'd rather be able to see what's about to jump the Armco... its not as solid as it looks - anything over car size and a more acute angle than about 75 deg and it'll be coming soon to a carriageway near you! Easier to take evasive action if you can see it coming!
|
|
and you think you are going to get sufficient notice that this is going to happen to take evasive action?
|
|
I'd bet that more accidents are caused by people suddenly slowing to view than could possibly be avoided by seeing somethign coming over the barrier.
|
|
|
|
The screening you observed on the M6 in Staffs were salvage sheets, about 4mX4m , these were placed to shield the fatalities from public gaze. They are only used for this purpose.
|
|
|
and you think you are going to get sufficient notice that this is going to happen to take evasive action?
Yep. Well, in fairness, who knows - but I\'d rather become aware of something on the far side of the Armco while its still there... part of hazard perception/scanning - and what your peripheral vision is there for! Not suggesting you\'ll always tbe able to avoid, but I\'d rather have the CHANCE to save my life!
There are more crossover accidents than people realise - okay, there are EVEN more \'rubbernecker\' shunts but they tend not to involve massive closing speeds the way crossovers do.
Just an opinion though!
|
Mark, my "last post" was supposed to be a reply to Phoenix...it doesn't fit where it is, can you perhaps shuffle it up?
Thanks
Neil
|
|
Neil, if you goto the top of the thread and click the \"view threaded\" button, you\'ll see that you post did indeed reply to Phoenix\'s. As for moving it up, that is impossible as your reply came after Mark\'s and Shoei\'s. However, I have added Phoenix\'s original message within your reply to show that you were replying to him. DD.
|
Phoenix,
I think that this sad case illustrates your point exactly. However I can understand the flip side and maybe the vehicles behind the accident saw this happening and had time to avoid.
What are the central reservations designed for? Are they purly there to divert a glancing blow? Or are they designed to crumple (liek a car's crumple zone) under full impact?
|
Good question, nicely proved by the photo in the link above. The central barrier is designed to deflect vehicles along its length or back onto the road it left. Its one continous length of steel and is supposed to act like a length of elastic, absorbing momentum as you scrape along it. If you look at the picture the barrier stayed in one piece but lost so many fixing posts that it dropped on the ground allowing vehicles over it.
It was never however designed to prevent armoured vehicles hitting it, this is well out of scope. Normally the barrier does a good job usually preventing even lorries leaping over it. It is known however for big SUVs to jump the barrier.
Modern barriers are now made of steel rope.
|
In that case shouldn't there be an overhaul of all the crash barriers on m'ways. Expensive I know but....
Also what would happen if there was a concrete barrier between the 2 armcos? Would this prevent vehicles passsing onto the opposite carriageway? If this was workable bushes could be planted to disguise the concrete therefore having a safer (less penetrable) divide, with the benefits of not seeing what's up on t'other side of the road.
(It seems that road users pay a lot of money towards a transport system that is not optimised for their use/safety.)
|
Thankfully I only have to do a minisucle amount of motorway driving now so I may be talking garbage but aren't we all missing something obvious here ?
If drivers are observing the highway code, driving at a safe speed and maintaining the appropriate stopping distances why on earth should anyone tail end anyone else on the motorway, rubber necking or doing anything else for that matter ? My understanding is that if you shunt someone from behind it's normally considered to be your fault for driving too close etc. - doesn't this apply on motorways ?
Isn't the easiest way to stop these incidents ensuring that you don't drive too fast and too close to the person in front ? In the final analysis it's in our own hands isn't it ?
I'll grant you that the above is easier said than done but it strikes me that most accidents are either caused or greatly exacerbated by driver behaviour. Barriers, fences, etc. etc, will do nothing to change that !
BTW before anyone accuses me of naivety or self righteousness, I've found myself in similar situations in the past and it's always been because I wasn't really paying attention at the time or was in a hurry and getting stressed up. However, if you think about it, NOTHING is more important than your life so think on everyone.
|
|
Minisucle ?? I think I've invented a new word :-)
|
>> and you think you are going to get sufficient notice that >> this is going to happen to take evasive action? Yep. Well, in fairness, who knows - but I\'d rather become aware of something on the far side of the Armco while its still there... part of hazard perception/scanning - and what your peripheral vision is there for! Not suggesting you\'ll always tbe able to avoid, but I\'d rather have the CHANCE to save my life! There are more crossover accidents than people realise - okay, there are EVEN more \'rubbernecker\' shunts but they tend not to involve massive closing speeds the way crossovers do. Just an opinion though!
Neil,
I have never ever seen anything come over the central reservation towards me from the other carriageway. I have, however, often had to brake sharply to avoid rear-ending the last car in a queue of rubber-neckers...
|
CM - I don't know if it is even possible to build crash barriers that would protect against armoured vehicles crashing through them head on. I doubt that it is. I have no idea how much it would cost if it is possible.
... however, given that such incidents, though obviously serious when they do happen, are so infrequent, I can't believe that more lives could be saved by spending the money, if it is available, on something else.
|
|
My reply about barriers was slightly misleading. I said they were designed to push the car back on the carriageway. They are not. They are designed to go like elastic as described, prevent going into the other carriageway, but not to bounce the car back into the carriageway it came from. They kind of stretch and gather up the car slowing it down. Stretch gather or not, they still wont stop armoured cars bouncing around the road. I bet that didnt even come into the engineers thinking.
|
Fair point about the tanks.
However the tanks themselves weighed 8070kgs and perhaps the barriers should have coped with them as they should be designed to stop a 40t lorry.
|
|
You would think they would handle then yes, BUT. The Barriers are designed at a certain height for lorries and cars. The centre of gravity will hit at or below barrier hieght (lorry cabs have low centres of gravity) Anything that carried its mass above the barrier height will hop over. I would put tanks, armoured cars and loaded lorry trailers in the above. Lorries that jack-knife and hit them trailer first tend to go over.
|
I've often wondered why they build the two carriageways of motorways next to each other. Surely it would be much safer to have them hundreds of yards or even miles apart. This would also allow a hard shoulder alongside lane 3 ; plus better access for emergency services.
Just my madcap scheme for the day ;-))
|
So what are the chances of the driver of the vehicle that allegedly caused the lorry to swerve coming forward? Surely, following their manoeuvre, signal, mirror sequence they would have realised what they had just caused.
(OK, so I am assuming the lorry driver is telling the truth)
|
I've often wondered why they build the two carriageways of motorways next to each other. Surely it would be much safer to have them hundreds of yards or even miles apart. This would also allow a hard shoulder alongside lane 3 ; plus better access for emergency services. Just my madcap scheme for the day ;-))
I think that you might be right when you say that it is a madcap scheme, although good in principle.
Planning permission would not accept it (except on the M6 thru the Lake District), environmentally unsensitive to ruin 2 places rather than just the one, maintenance (can you imagine contra flows if they were miles apart), but basically cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
