Guardrails Lawsuit - Arkansas

[M86]

http://www.4029tv.com/news/4029-investigation-guardrails/31000958

This is just crazy.

And to the guy that says "We don't know"... Yes, you need to know!  This is why AHTD needs a huge overhaul.

[Brian556]

The company that makes these is out of Dallas. Apparently they make a slight design change in order to reduce cost, and pocket the difference. Typical corporate greed.

It's not good that the State of Arkansas is going to "wait and see if they need to be replaced". That really makes them sound bad, considering that multiple incidents of these guardrails penetrating vehicles is proof that they are faulty, at least in my opinion.

I generally am from the school that feels that people should know how to drive, and that roads shouldn't have to be "baby-proofed".

However, in this case, the state did not get what they were paying for. They were cheated by this company.

[US71]

The company that makes these is out of Dallas. Apparently they make a slight design change in order to reduce cost, and pocket the difference. Typical corporate greed.

It's not good that the State of Arkansas is going to "wait and see if they need to be replaced". That really makes them sound bad, considering that multiple incidents of these guardrails penetrating vehicles is proof that they are faulty, at least in my opinion.

I generally am from the school that feels that people should know how to drive, and that roads shouldn't have to be "baby-proofed".

That's almost like saying we don't need airbags if we know how to drive correctly.  But there are idiots out there. I've had friends hurt by some of these idiots.If we don't need safety features, then we need idiot testing.

[seicer]

And unexpected incidents that make safety features all the more necessary.

I suppose we could go back to the days when cars had no crumple protection, air bags and seat belts that had no tension. And watch as a minor crash can cause the driving column impale the driver!

[Bobby5280]

In the news video via the link in the top post the highway fatality spotlighted in the report occurred because the driver was run off the road by someone else. He wound up being run into one of those cheaper/dangerous guardrails. There's so many distracted or inattentive drivers on the road these days. A week ago one of my girlfriend's female friends was killed just outside Boise City, OK in a head on collision with a truck on US-287. Apparently the truck driver was reaching for a bottle of water and veered his truck into the oncoming lane. Tragic. The sad thing is even if you're driving very smart and defensively you can still get killed by other drivers.

This has me wondering if DOTs around the country are going to go back to tapering guard rail ends into the ground like they were doing years ago to prevent drivers from being impaled by them.

IMHO, the people who decided to cut corners/costs on those guard rails and pass them off like nothing changed ought to be charged criminally over it.

[NE2]

I'd make a joke about truck trarffic at Boise City, but no.

[Scott5114]

This has me wondering if DOTs around the country are going to go back to tapering guard rail ends into the ground like they were doing years ago to prevent drivers from being impaled by them.

The problem with these "Texas twist" style guardrails is that they tend to cause rollover accidents when struck, which is nearly as bad.

[Brian556]

The original version of the Trinity guardrail head worked just fine. It is the new slightly cheaper version that is the problem. Also, there are other vendors for guardrail ends.

I do think these are needed on high speed roadways.

I do, however, think that it is ridiculous to require break away sign posts on low speed residential streets. Not only do signs on residential streets practically never get hit, the 2 inch diameter pipe that was used before was weak enough to give way without injuring the occupants of a car.

[US71]

The original version of the Trinity guardrail head worked just fine. It is the new slightly cheaper version that is the problem. Also, there are other vendors for guardrail ends.

I do think these are needed on high speed roadways.

I do, however, think that it is ridiculous to require break away sign posts on low speed residential streets. Not only do signs on residential streets practically never get hit, the 2 inch diameter pipe that was used before was weak enough to give way without injuring the occupants of a car.

Fort Smith generally uses U channel posts. The only "breakaways" I've seen here are at I-540.

[M86]

Question.  How does AHTD not know where these guardrails could be?  Do they not keep logs and records of what's installed?

[Scott5114]

It could be impossible to tell the difference between the new and the old on paper. If the vendor changed the heads while keeping the same model number and price, AHTD may have had no idea at the time that they even changed. Even if they did, they may not have foreseen a reason to inventory old and new separately.

[seicer]

That's the case it seems with other states - such as Kentucky. I came across an article several weeks ago where it was pretty much admitted the state had no idea where those faulty guardrails were - and that they would all need to be examined. What a mess.

[bjrush]

File a FOIA request and find out what they have for their guardrail projects

But if they did have these documents, I dont see them lying about it. After they approved the equipment submittal they should've only received the product that was approved. Thats why there is a lawsuit, because someone didnt deliver what they said they would

[AHTD]

Question.  How does AHTD not know where these guardrails could be?  Do they not keep logs and records of what's installed?

Here's how this works....

In areas where guardrails are necessary, we specify Type I or Type II end treatments. Type I end treatments are those that simply turn down into the ground. Pretty simple.

Type II end treatments are a different story. The spec for Type II "simply" states an end treatment must absorb an impact. There are about four or five companies that manufacture Type II end treatments - each of their designs are proprietary and approved by FHWA.

So when we spec a rail that requires a Type II end treatment, the contractor is free to select from any of the four or five manufacturers. We DO KNOW where all of our Type II end treatments are located, we just don't know how many of them were installed using the end treatment in question.

Equate this to the paint we use for pavement markings throughout the system. There is an FHWA spec for the paint. Several manufacturers sell paint products meeting that spec. We know where the paint is located, but we can't tell you which manufacturer's paint is where.

Unfortunately the TV clip doesn't bother to share any of this with the viewer except the statement that we don't know where the end treatments in question are located.

The product in question has yet to be proven unsafe - meaning tests are still in progress and we are awaiting the results. AHTD can't perform these tests. It's up to the manufacturer with FHWA oversight. And that is in progress.

If this product is proven to be unsafe and is removed from the approved list, then we will manually inventory the Type II installations and replace where necessary.

[kphoger]

I love it when someone on a forum actually has the answer to a question instead of blowing smoke.

[Scott5114]

Good to see you back, AHTD.

[M86]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1505.cfm

And welcome back AHTD! 

[AHTD]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1505.cfm

And welcome back AHTD! 

Thanks, everyone! Been busy around here.

And thanks to M86 for posting that link. We knew it was coming out but were somewhat embargoed from saying anything about it when making our last post in this thread.

[US71]

Question.  How does AHTD not know where these guardrails could be?  Do they not keep logs and records of what's installed?

Here's how this works....

In areas where guardrails are necessary, we specify Type I or Type II end treatments. Type I end treatments are those that simply turn down into the ground. Pretty simple.

Type II end treatments are a different story. The spec for Type II "simply" states an end treatment must absorb an impact. There are about four or five companies that manufacture Type II end treatments - each of their designs are proprietary and approved by FHWA.

So when we spec a rail that requires a Type II end treatment, the contractor is free to select from any of the four or five manufacturers. We DO KNOW where all of our Type II end treatments are located, we just don't know how many of them were installed using the end treatment in question.

Equate this to the paint we use for pavement markings throughout the system. There is an FHWA spec for the paint. Several manufacturers sell paint products meeting that spec. We know where the paint is located, but we can't tell you which manufacturer's paint is where.

Unfortunately the TV clip doesn't bother to share any of this with the viewer except the statement that we don't know where the end treatments in question are located.

The product in question has yet to be proven unsafe - meaning tests are still in progress and we are awaiting the results. AHTD can't perform these tests. It's up to the manufacturer with FHWA oversight. And that is in progress.

If this product is proven to be unsafe and is removed from the approved list, then we will manually inventory the Type II installations and replace where necessary.

That seems like it would be tedious, manually checking all the Type II's. Yeah, it may need to be done, but seems like it will be a major pain in the butt.