Median Cable Guardrails-good or bad?

[Terry Shea]

[This post is not made as a moderator and does not reflect the opinion of the staff.]
You are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to back it up.

I totally agree here.

Opinions should only be expressed when they are based on solid facts. Facts are made solid when they have evidence backing them up. If you can't express your opinion and back the facts it's based on up with sources, then you're damn right, I don't want you to express your opinion. If I wanted opinions based on gut feelings and superficial thought about the subject, I'd go talk to random people in the supermarket about it. But this is a road forum; we're supposed to be informed about what we're talking about.

The fact is, you're basing your opinion on certain things you assert to be true, yet when I question your assertions, you're not providing anything to make me believe they are true.

Definitions of opinion from dictionary.com

1.    a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.    a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Based on the definitions and Scott5114's rule, then no one can express an opinion.

And if posts can only be expressed based on facts, than the whole Clearview thread should be deleted as the "Clearview is ugly" is an opinion but cannot be backed up by facts as beauty is truly the eye of the beholder.  (i.e. subjective)  The same can be said about positive statements on photos posted or linked to by members of the forum.

^^^^
The above are assertions (not opinions) backed up with facts.

____________________________________________________


If I were an admin, I'd state is thus, "Anyone can state their opinion, but if you want to debate it (i.e. prove that it is true), then you must have facts to back it up."

IMHO The real problem here is that Terry doesn't seem to accept that people disagree with him.  (Oh, I'm sorry Scott5114, I shouldn't have said that.  I gave an opinion without facts to back it up.)

EDIT
__________________________________________

And, finally, I'm not trying to undermine what I think Scott5114 is trying to do.  (keep the discussion civil and under control)  I am putting out the case that the way he said it has dire consequences.

Yeah, but I don't see where it's been established that any net lives will be saved.  They're talking about saving 13 lives a year from crossovers, but they haven't factored in the fact that simply running into one of the posts could cause a fatality or the fact that, like the van in the video, a vehicle can be thrown back across traffic, turned upside down and end up facing in the wrong direction, which could result in numerous fatalities in each such instance.

if the vehicle has enough momentum to bounce back into its own direction of traffic, then by definition of the conservation of momentum it has enough to cross into the other lanes.

it may, of course, be your opinion that physics works differently.  doesn't make it so in reality.

You know I haven't made any assertions that any particular vehicle would or would not cross over completely, or that any particular vehicle would or would not bounce back off the cables.  There is no way you can make that claim with any certainty unless you are God, and you are certainly not God.  You don't know the speed the vehicle was traveling, the exact direction the vehicle was traveling when it hit the barrier, the composition of the median, the width of the median, the depth of the median or a multitude of other factors that determine whether or not the vehicle would have crossed over.  We can tell from the video though that the van did indeed bounce back across lanes of traffic, so apparently it can and has happened. 

Like I said before, I don't care if you disagree with me but keep the disagreement civil and stop with your bullying tactics already.  Earlier you even locked the thread because you didn't want me to respond to your babbling drivel.

[US71]

Like I said before, I don't care if you disagree with me but keep the disagreement civil and stop with your bullying tactics already.  Earlier you even locked the thread because you didn't want me to respond to your babbling drivel.

(puts on Moderator's hat)
HOLD!
Yes, let's keep it civil. BUT I am going to ask that you back off the "I'm being bullied" commentary. I see no one bullying... only trying make sense of what you have written. Even I am having problems keeping up
(takes off Moderator's hat)

[Terry Shea]

[This post is not made as a moderator and does not reflect the opinion of the staff.]
You are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to back it up.

I totally agree here.

Opinions should only be expressed when they are based on solid facts. Facts are made solid when they have evidence backing them up. If you can't express your opinion and back the facts it's based on up with sources, then you're damn right, I don't want you to express your opinion. If I wanted opinions based on gut feelings and superficial thought about the subject, I'd go talk to random people in the supermarket about it. But this is a road forum; we're supposed to be informed about what we're talking about.

The fact is, you're basing your opinion on certain things you assert to be true, yet when I question your assertions, you're not providing anything to make me believe they are true.

Definitions of opinion from dictionary.com

1.    a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.    a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Based on the definitions and Scott5114's rule, then no one can express an opinion.

And if posts can only be expressed based on facts, than the whole Clearview thread should be deleted as the "Clearview is ugly" is an opinion but cannot be backed up by facts as beauty is truly the eye of the beholder.  (i.e. subjective)  The same can be said about positive statements on photos posted or linked to by members of the forum.

^^^^
The above are assertions (not opinions) backed up with facts.

____________________________________________________


If I were an admin, I'd state is thus, "Anyone can state their opinion, but if you want to debate it (i.e. prove that it is true), then you must have facts to back it up."

IMHO The real problem here is that Terry doesn't seem to accept that people disagree with him.  (Oh, I'm sorry Scott5114, I shouldn't have said that.  I gave an opinion without facts to back it up.)

EDIT
__________________________________________

And, finally, I'm not trying to undermine what I think Scott5114 is trying to do.  (keep the discussion civil and under control)  I am putting out the case that the way he said it has dire consequences.

Yeah, but I don't see where it's been established that any net lives will be saved.  They're talking about saving 13 lives a year from crossovers, but they haven't factored in the fact that simply running into one of the posts could cause a fatality or the fact that, like the van in the video, a vehicle can be thrown back across traffic, turned upside down and end up facing in the wrong direction, which could result in numerous fatalities in each such instance.

if the vehicle has enough momentum to bounce back into its own direction of traffic, then by definition of the conservation of momentum it has enough to cross into the other lanes.

it may, of course, be your opinion that physics works differently.  doesn't make it so in reality.

You know I haven't made any assertions that any particular vehicle would or would not cross over completely, or that any particular vehicle would or would not bounce back off the cables.  There is no way you can make that claim with any certainty unless you are God, and you are certainly not God.  You don't know the speed the vehicle was traveling, the exact direction the vehicle was traveling when it hit the barrier, the composition of the median, the width of the median, the depth of the median or a multitude of other factors that determine whether or not the vehicle would have crossed over.  We can tell from the video though that the van did indeed bounce back across lanes of traffic, so apparently it can and has happened. 

Like I said before, I don't care if you disagree with me but keep the disagreement civil and stop with your bullying tactics already.  Earlier you even locked the thread because you didn't want me to respond to your babbling drivel.

IMHO The real problem here is that Terry doesn't seem to accept that people disagree with him.  (Oh, I'm sorry Scott5114, I shouldn't have said that.  I gave an opinion without facts to back it up.)

the facts are available for anyone who wants to scroll up this thread some.  I think that, while Scott's not being completely rigorous in his proclamation, his standards are sufficiently well-defined for anyone to see what he is getting at, and carry on intelligent discussion.  If someone wants to be intentionally obtuse then no amount of lawyerly care will prevent that from happening.

let's just go with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  Noting that Terry Shea is being disagreeable for the sake of disagreeable - not exactly an audacious observation.  Attempting to rewrite Newtonian mechanics?  Literally, out of this world.

No, look in the mirror bub.  I haven't made any assertions about physics.  I haven't disputed any laws of physics.  You seem to have mis-read Newton though as your argument seems to be that every time an apple falls from a tree it plunks someone on the head.  Wrong!   Everytime a vehicle enters a median it's not going to cross over and everytime a vehicle runs into these cables, you can't say definitively  that it would have crossed over.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly know that.

Why are you so hostile anyway?  You can disagree with me all you want, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it.  Don't attempt to speak for me anymore.  Don't misrepresent what I've stated.  Capice? 

[Terry Shea]

This dude doesn't seem to be bouncing back much.

Deceptive use of a frozen frame.  At 01:12 and 01:13, I am willing to bet that the car is, indeed, bouncing back.

besides, you're unhappy that the van is bouncing back, and now you're unhappy that this car isn't.  Make up your mind! 

Well thank you, but Scott wrote that, not me.

[agentsteel53]

Well thank you, but Scott wrote that, not me.

oops!  sorry about that 

well, at least we have people unhappy for different reasons.

[US71]

Everytime a vehicle enters a median it's not going to cross over and everytime a vehicle runs into these cables, you can't say definitively  that it would have crossed over.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly know that.

Are you saying then, that since not every car will cross the median there is no need for cable barriers? What about those who DO cross the median? Are they SOL?

I am trying to understand, but it is becoming difficult.

[agentsteel53]

You know I haven't made any assertions that any particular vehicle would or would not cross over completely, or that any particular vehicle would or would not bounce back off the cables.  There is no way you can make that claim with any certainty unless you are God, and you are certainly not God.  You don't know the speed the vehicle was traveling, the exact direction the vehicle was traveling when it hit the barrier, the composition of the median, the width of the median, the depth of the median or a multitude of other factors that determine whether or not the vehicle would have crossed over.  We can tell from the video though that the van did indeed bounce back across lanes of traffic, so apparently it can and has happened. 

I don't know what God has to do with anything; I was merely speaking in terms of statistics, which is how traffic engineers make their determinations.  Yes, this van could have been one an exceptional case, but nobody works in fear of exceptional cases (except maybe the TSA).  

On average, the median barrier stops transgressions into the opposite lane and reduces the severity of the worst kinds of accidents.  If I wanted to verify it for myself, I'd have to look at a hundred more incidents, not just one van.  Luckily, I don't contest the reports nearly so badly.  

[Terry Shea]

Your vehement objection to these on Michigan roadways is...because they're ugly?  Because of all your claims, the only thing that can be proved substantively is that "Terry Shea thinks they are ugly".

No, I'm saying they're dangerous and costly!  Cars that would have gone into the median unscathed are going to hit them and become damaged.  Do you actually doubt that?  If so why not try it yourself and prove me wrong.

I do doubt it.  Based on your posting history, I know you think gubbermint interference is the worst thing ever, but if you'd leave the parties alone and venture over to the east side of the state, you might change your tune.  Specifically the stretch of US-23 between Ann Arbor and Brighton that was plagued with head-on crossover collisions, often fatal, median or not.  They installed the cables, and now you rarely have those types of accidents on that stretch.

How many such accidents were along that stretch and how long have the cables been in place?  That may very well be a good spot for them, but I don't see why they have to be put everywhere such as along I-96 between Lansing and Grand Rapids (although there are none in the metro areas themselves where they could definitely be used).

Well at least part of my suspicions have been confirmed that some of the backlash here against me is indeed because I happen to be a conservative who believes in The Constitution regarding free speech.

[Terry Shea]

Another misconception.  These barriers are not constructed in the middle of the median.  They're often just a few feet off from the shoulder and are often constructed on both sides of the roadway.

Based upon personal observation, cable barriers are often constructed a few feet off the shoulder on one side of the highway or the other, but not both sides. I've seen this along I-40 in Oklahoma.  Now, along I-40 in east central Arkansas, the barriers are almost all down the center of the median, not to one side or the other.
In neither case are there barriers on both sides of the highway. I'm about 15 miles from I-40 in Oklahoma. If you wish, I'd be happy to verify this info and snap a few photos

Actually I should have said both sides of the median, not roadway.  Several spots do have them constructed on both sides of the median.  Other spots you'll see them alternating between sides.  But they all seem to be just a few feet off from the shoulder.  Ih aven't really seen any right in the middle.

[hbelkins]

Well at least part of my suspicions have been confirmed that some of the backlash here against me is indeed because I happen to be a conservative who believes in The Constitution regarding free speech.

Straying off topic...

Well, I happen to be pretty conservative as well, but there is no First Amendment right to post in this forum, nor are there any First Amendment violations taking place if the moderators choose to act in a certain way here. The First Amendment gives you the right to start your own forum, not to be able to post unfettered on another person's forum.

H.B., former journalist who still counts his master's-level "Law & Ethics of the Press" class as one of his favorites of all time and has that textbook boxed up somewhere at his dad's home...

[agentsteel53]

No, look in the mirror bub.  I haven't made any assertions about physics.

yes you have, your entire argument about what the van has done is an assertion about physics.  You have taken one potentially exceptional case, misinterpreted it, and attempted to generalize from there.  I don't know for 100% sure if the van would've stopped harmlessly in the median.  You don't know for 100% sure if the van would've crossed over.  I can, however, tell you that it is significantly more probable that the van would've gone across, as opposed to stopped harmlessly.  

I haven't disputed any laws of physics.

you have attempted to claim that because we do not know if something would've occurred, we cannot claim that it probably would have (unless we're God, yade yada, if you don't want people speaking for each other, you sure have chosen poorly in whom to speak for!)  If I drop an egg off the counter, and you catch it, will you tell seriously say that there's no way we could know whether or not it would've hit the ground?  

You seem to have mis-read Newton though as your argument seems to be that every time an apple falls from a tree it plunks someone on the head.  Wrong!   Everytime a vehicle enters a median it's not going to cross over and everytime a vehicle runs into these cables, you can't say definitively  that it would have crossed over.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly know that.

I have never once claimed that every time a vehicle enters a median it will cross over.  I did claim that if it hits the cables with sufficient force to bounce back it - with good probability - had enough momentum to cross over.  Go re-read the topic.

Why are you so hostile anyway?  You can disagree with me all you want, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it.  Don't attempt to speak for me anymore.  Don't misrepresent what I've stated.  Capice? 

see above in re: who is misrepresenting whom.  I'm hostile because your very first post in this topic was utterly hysterical (and not in the "funny" sense, I mean in the "think of the children!" sense) and not at all conducive to rational discussion.

[Terry Shea]

The problem is they're putting them up where no such hazard exists

So are you saying a vehicle crossing the median into the path of another vehicle isn't a hazard? 

No!  They don't cross over!  They get stuck in the median which is recessed and covered in several inches, if not feet of snow at this time of year.  They have to have a wrecker pull them out.  Total cost: about $50.  What do you think the estimate is for the car in the freeze frame pic?

[Terry Shea]

Well, here is a place where there are cable guardrails, but they are at least 30 years old and rusty. If you so much as tap these cables, they'll snap, not to mention the posts are made of wood. They are also along a road that sits among a 10 foot cliff. This road is literally just a walk down the street from me:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=39.913892,-75.388151&spn=0,359.98866&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.913862,-75.388258&panoid=VhCOdA4ajYWmjCwxB32PBw&cbp=12,285.86,,0,5.17

Interesting.  So they have to be replaced every so often, eh?  I wonder why MDOT didn't tell us about that?   

[agentsteel53]

Well at least part of my suspicions have been confirmed that some of the backlash here against me is indeed because I happen to be a conservative who believes in The Constitution regarding free speech.

well, fudge, you figured us all out.  we're all hideous communists.  okay guys, take off the Wall Street masks, game's over.  you too, Edward M. Liddy ... I mean scott5114.

[agentsteel53]

Interesting.  So they have to be replaced every so often, eh?  I wonder why MDOT didn't tell us about that?   

because they assume the reader is intelligent enough to realize that damn near everything has to be replaced every so often. 

[agentsteel53]

What do you think the estimate is for the car in the freeze frame pic?

probably less than if he went in the drink. 

[InterstateNG]

The problem is they're putting them up where no such hazard exists

So are you saying a vehicle crossing the median into the path of another vehicle isn't a hazard?  

No!  They don't cross over!  They get stuck in the median which is recessed and covered in several inches, if not feet of snow at this time of year.  They have to have a wrecker pull them out.  Total cost: about $50.  What do you think the estimate is for the car in the freeze frame pic?

A radio personality in Jackson died recently when her car traveled into the median on I-94 out near Chelsea and struck an embankment, which caused the vehicle to go airborne and overturn.

An actual event.  Not poisoning the well because "Moron DOT" spent some money.

Loathe as I am to use someone's untimely demise to prove a point on an internet forum about roads.

The assumption is also made that one can just go into the median and come out unscathed and have no problems with one's suspension/exhaust/alignment/undercarriage/etc.

[Brandon]

Interesting.  So they have to be replaced every so often, eh?  I wonder why MDOT didn't tell us about that?   

They have to replaced every so often as they (like any other part of the road) do wear down and wear out in the elements.  Thrie beam and W-rail needs to be replaced as well.  Even reinforced concrete jersey barriers can rust over time.

[Terry Shea]

Everytime a vehicle enters a median it's not going to cross over and everytime a vehicle runs into these cables, you can't say definitively  that it would have crossed over.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly know that.

Are you saying then, that since not every car will cross the median there is no need for cable barriers? What about those who DO cross the median? Are they SOL?

I am trying to understand, but it is becoming difficult.

Please, re-read what I (and others) have stated previously.  I'm saying that I believe more studies need to be done or should have been done before this was implemented.  Apparently the only studies that have been done focus only on the crossover aspect.  There is no information available about how many additional cars will be damaged because of the implementation or how many people will be killed from running into the barriers or being bounced back into traffic.

They're talking about saving 13 lives per year from cross-over accidents, but how many deaths will these cables cause?  The van in the MDOT video demonstrates a very dangerous situation created by the cable barriers.  Meanwhile we have upwards of 1000 traffic fatalities in Michigan each year.  I think rather than spending $40,000,000 for something that we don't know whether it will save net lives or cost net lives we could find far less costly programs to save a greater number of lives, such as keeping drunk drivers off the road which accounts for about 35-40% of Michigan highway fatalities.  Especially since a horde of Michigan state troopers were just laid off.  How do you rationalize spending $40,000,000 for an unproven system when you could use that same amount of money (or far less even) to keep more state troopers on the road to get the drunks off the highway.  I don't get it.  The following link was used as my source for the traffic death info:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/HistoryAtAGlance_82570_7.pdf

[US71]

The problem is they're putting them up where no such hazard exists

So are you saying a vehicle crossing the median into the path of another vehicle isn't a hazard?  

No!  They don't cross over!  They get stuck in the median which is recessed and covered in several inches, if not feet of snow at this time of year.  They have to have a wrecker pull them out.  Total cost: about $50.  What do you think the estimate is for the car in the freeze frame pic?

And what if there is no snow? Then there is still a risk of crossing over. Or do you simply plan to have snow covered medians 24/7/365?

[Terry Shea]

No, look in the mirror bub.  I haven't made any assertions about physics.

yes you have, your entire argument about what the van has done is an assertion about physics.  You have taken one potentially exceptional case, misinterpreted it, and attempted to generalize from there.  I don't know for 100% sure if the van would've stopped harmlessly in the median.  You don't know for 100% sure if the van would've crossed over.  I can, however, tell you that it is significantly more probable that the van would've gone across, as opposed to stopped harmlessly. 

I haven't disputed any laws of physics.

you have attempted to claim that because we do not know if something would've occurred, we cannot claim that it probably would have (unless we're God, yade yada, if you don't want people speaking for each other, you sure have chosen poorly in whom to speak for!)  If I drop an egg off the counter, and you catch it, will you tell seriously say that there's no way we could know whether or not it would've hit the ground? 

You seem to have mis-read Newton though as your argument seems to be that every time an apple falls from a tree it plunks someone on the head.  Wrong!   Everytime a vehicle enters a median it's not going to cross over and everytime a vehicle runs into these cables, you can't say definitively  that it would have crossed over.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly know that.

I have never once claimed that every time a vehicle enters a median it will cross over.  I did claim that if it hits the cables with sufficient force to bounce back it - with good probability - had enough momentum to cross over.  Go re-read the topic.

Why are you so hostile anyway?  You can disagree with me all you want, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it.  Don't attempt to speak for me anymore.  Don't misrepresent what I've stated.  Capice? 

see above in re: who is misrepresenting whom.  I'm hostile because your very first post in this topic was utterly hysterical (and not in the "funny" sense, I mean in the "think of the children!" sense) and not at all conducive to rational discussion.

No, look in the mirror bub.  I haven't made any assertions about physics.

yes you have, your entire argument about what the van has done is an assertion about physics.  You have taken one potentially exceptional case, misinterpreted it, and attempted to generalize from there.  I don't know for 100% sure if the van would've stopped harmlessly in the median.  You don't know for 100% sure if the van would've crossed over.  I can, however, tell you that it is significantly more probable that the van would've gone across, as opposed to stopped harmlessly. 

I haven't disputed any laws of physics.

you have attempted to claim that because we do not know if something would've occurred, we cannot claim that it probably would have (unless we're God, yade yada, if you don't want people speaking for each other, you sure have chosen poorly in whom to speak for!)  If I drop an egg off the counter, and you catch it, will you tell seriously say that there's no way we could know whether or not it would've hit the ground? 

You seem to have mis-read Newton though as your argument seems to be that every time an apple falls from a tree it plunks someone on the head.  Wrong!   Everytime a vehicle enters a median it's not going to cross over and everytime a vehicle runs into these cables, you can't say definitively  that it would have crossed over.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly know that.

I have never once claimed that every time a vehicle enters a median it will cross over.  I did claim that if it hits the cables with sufficient force to bounce back it - with good probability - had enough momentum to cross over.  Go re-read the topic.

Why are you so hostile anyway?  You can disagree with me all you want, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it.  Don't attempt to speak for me anymore.  Don't misrepresent what I've stated.  Capice? 

see above in re: who is misrepresenting whom.  I'm hostile because your very first post in this topic was utterly hysterical (and not in the "funny" sense, I mean in the "think of the children!" sense) and not at all conducive to rational discussion.

You're the one not discussing this rationally.  There is no way you could possibly know if that van would have crossed over or not.  And I see nothing funny about my first post.  If you disagree so be it, but there is no reason for you to be so hostile towards me.  There is no reason for you to have locked up thread in an attempt to not allow any more discussion on the matter.  There is no call for your insults and innuendos. 

[Terry Shea]

Interesting.  So they have to be replaced every so often, eh?  I wonder why MDOT didn't tell us about that?   

because they assume the reader is intelligent enough to realize that damn near everything has to be replaced every so often. 

Do you have anything meaningful to add to this conversation or are you just going  keep adding your condescending, hostile, childish remarks to derail the thread?

[US71]

I am putting a 24 hour lock on this topic. It seems to be turning into an insult festival. We will resume tomorrow and see if cooler heads can prevail.

Thank you.

[US71]

OK, everyone please read these "Rules of the Road":

#1 No Insults /name calling (!)
#2 No Drama (ie: no more "I'm being persecuted")
#3 No Waffling (changing your opinions simply to prove someone else wrong)
#4 Please cite your sources
#5 You are welcome to express your opinion, but please do not "shout down" another poster.

S'awright? S'awright! 

[agentsteel53]

And I see nothing funny about my first post. 

you are arguing against something I have not claimed.  Please read what I have actually said and respond to that in a sensible manner.