Median Cable Guardrails-good or bad?

[froggie]

Now that's just ludicrous!  I can't post documentation that doesn't exist, either because it was simply overlooked by those making the studies or because they are deliberately trying to hide other factors (sound familiar?).  

Hence why the management has suggested one should not make claims that one cannot back up with facts or studies...

Apparently you have no idea what winter driving is like in a state such as Michigan.

It's not much different than winter driving in Minnesota or Upstate New York.  At least with me, you haven't proven your point.

[Brandon]

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".

Heh.  They're lots of things on the road that are ugly.  Cable guardrails aren't that ugly when you look at them, and they do their job really well (granted they're not jersey barriers, but still).  If we want to talk about ugly, there's a Clearview thread somewhere around these parts.

[Terry Shea]

When it gets below about 25 degrees or so salt and chemicals either don't work or at least become much less effective.  You slow down and do the best you can, but inevitably somewhere, sometime you are going to slide and leave the roadway.  No big deal.  You call a wrecker and get pulled out. 

Now we're faced with running into these cable barriers, which will certainly cause damage and may very well throw us back into traffic under far less than ideal driving conditions.  I'd much rather just get pulled out of the median.

I don't think you'll ever have an ideal solution that suits both high-speed and low-speed situations. But for the former, it sure is nice to have something that would impede momentum, yet not be so expensive to install. You're probably aware of the rollover crash which happened last night. You'd be hard pressed to argue that a barrier wouldn't lessen momentum, much less prevent the vehicle in question from going airborne (the chances being greater rolling or careening up a slope). Unfortunately, we won't know in this instance what could've been since a barrier wasn't present at the site of this accident, but just the idea that lives could be saved should outweigh any costs and inconveniences related to lower-speed slideoff damage. For that, I'm willing to have cable guardrails installed.

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.

[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.   And like the van in the video they can very well careen off the barrier back into lanes of traffic.  Please people, read the whole thread so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.

[Terry Shea]

Now that's just ludicrous!  I can't post documentation that doesn't exist, either because it was simply overlooked by those making the studies or because they are deliberately trying to hide other factors (sound familiar?).  

Hence why the management has suggested one should not make claims that one cannot back up with facts or studies...

Apparently you have no idea what winter driving is like in a state such as Michigan.

It's not much different than winter driving in Minnesota or Upstate New York.  At least with me, you haven't proven your point.

What claims have I made?  That cars that come into contact with the barrier are going to be damaged?  I think that's rather obvious.  Do you really doubt it?

That vehicles that hit the barrier may bounce back into traffic?  We have a nice video courtesy of MDOT that shows a van that did just that.  It's on it's roof and facing in the wrong direction too.

[hbelkins]

No, I'm saying they're dangerous and costly! (snip) Please people, read the whole thread so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.

I think they are reading and the consensus is they disagree with you.

[Scott5114]

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

[mightyace]

[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.

[Brandon]

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

He's also not falling into the body of water next to him.  It looks like the cables are doing their job.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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! 

[InterstateNG]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.  The van probably never even got a vehicle width off from the shoulder.

really? well that seems like a planning mistake - twice as much cable as needed!  Or twice as much pole, at the very least, if the cables are to be threaded down either side of the pole as opposed to through the middle the way they did it in the old days.

I'm mainly used to median barriers in California, where they are indeed right down the middle of the median.  Nowadays they tend to be W-channel railing attached to wooden pickets, but back in the day a lot of them were cable.

[mightyace]

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.

Fair enough.  I was being "intentionally obtuse" to get the clarification you said.  (It's a common debating technique called "exaggerating to make a point.")

I realize that what you said is likely what Scott wants and I wanted to be sure of it.

So, thanks.

_________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, back on topic.

I haven't said anything because I don't know enough of how well these things actually work.  And, I'm interested to know given that they are going up here in MiddleTN.  (Including on Saturn Parkway a.k.a. TN 396 which I take nearly daily)  I've also seen them along I-71 just north of Louisville, KY.  In both the TN and KY installations I've seen the wire is just inside of the left shoulder.

After some thought, I can say that the cable guardrails are better than the median in the sense that they reduce the number of variables.  If a vehicle hits a cable guardrail, we can have a much better idea of what might happen versus a vehicle entering the median since medians vary from place to place and even from one spot to another.  For example, who knows if there is a bump or hole underneath the grass and/or snow of the median?

[Brandon]

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.  The van probably never even got a vehicle width off from the shoulder.

These barriers are intentionally not placed in the middle of the median, but off to one of the sides.  I seem to recall an article (don't remember where off hand) that mentioned that cable gaurdrail placed nearer one of the two shoulders was far more effective than being placed in the middle of the median.  IIRC, it had something to do with stopping the vehicles and preventing a vehicle from jumping over the barrier.

[agentsteel53]

These barriers are intentionally not placed in the middle of the median, but off to one of the sides.  I seem to recall an article (don't remember where off hand) that mentioned that cable gaurdrail placed nearer one of the two shoulders was far more effective than being placed in the middle of the median.  IIRC, it had something to do with stopping the vehicles and preventing a vehicle from jumping over the barrier.

interesting; wonder how that works!  are there two barriers?

I seem to recall every place I've seen them having only one.  But I've never driven a non-interstate freeway in rural Michigan!

[agentsteel53]

Fair enough.  I was being "intentionally obtuse" to get the clarification you said.  (It's a common debating technique called "exaggerating to make a point.")

I realize that what you said is likely what Scott wants and I wanted to be sure of it.

So, thanks.

so I figured.  We are not lawyers here, and as I mentioned, even the best lawyer would lose an argument with a four-year-old.

[US71]

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

[mightyace]

interesting; wonder how that works!  are there two barriers?

I seem to recall every place I've seen them having only one.  But I've never driven a non-interstate freeway in rural Michigan!

The installations on Saturn Parkway are only on the westbound lanes.

However, IIRC, the ones on I-71 are on both sides of the road.  (Maybe hbelkins can confirm or correct me on this one.)

BTW The installations on Saturn Parkway are four wire and I thought the ones on I-71 are two, but I'm not sure in that case.

My brother said that they should have used five wires here and put the notes of song on the installation.  

(Five is the number of lines on a musical staff)

[Ian]

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

[agentsteel53]

upon a bit of thinking, off-to-one-side might make sense if the transgressing vehicle is tipping over its side. 

If it hits the near barrier, it has a better chance of bouncing off and returning to its own lane of travel, as opposed to it hitting a middle barrier that it may very well vault over - reason being that the vehicle is expected to be less tipped over when it has just left the lane, then when it has already traveled half the width of the median.

If it hits the far barrier, then here is hoping it has stopped tumbling sufficiently to bounce off of that barrier and return to the median. 

I have no idea what the exact math is in this scenario, but I will assume whoever decided the "off-to-one-side" configuration has done it out.

[Fcexpress80]

Washington State DOT is replacing cable barriers on I-5 at milepost 199 (Marysville) northward with the more standard Jersey barriers.  There have been at least two separate fatal accidents on this stretch of freeway where vehicles broke through the cables and collided head on with oncoming vehicles.  Despite assurances that cables are effective barriers by WSDOT, they finally gave in to public pressure and are replacing them on this stretch of roadway.  They also lowered the rural speed limit at 70mph to the urban 60mph on this stretch due to traffic generated by an Indian casino and a new outlet mall.   

[Terry Shea]

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

No, and I didn't say vehicles would bounce back every time.  He did suffer quite a bit of damage though didn't he?  Now obviously some type of guardrail system was needed in this instance (although I would question the design of the roadway), so I don't have a problem with such a barrier in this instance.  The problem is they're putting them up where no such hazard exists and a vehicle driving in Michigan winter weather which would normally slide off into the median and suffer no damage is now going to suffer the same type of damage this vehicle did.  This happens on practically a daily basis around here during the snowy months and after even a mild overnight winter storm you're likely to see dozens of vehicles in the median the next morning.

[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?