AARoads Forum

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151--222435--,00.html
What do you think?  Personally I hate them.  They're ugly and I doubt they're going to save lives.  In fact I'm pretty certain they'll end up killing more people than they'll save.  What happens when a motorcyclist hits a cable at high speed?  Severed limbs?  Decapitation?  What happens when the cable snaps and goes through a vehicle and/or a body in the vehicle?  Most vehicles that go into the median aren't going to cross all the way over into oncoming traffic.  Now this same scenario creates the increased risk of bouncing off the barrier and back into traffic every single time a car leaves the inside lane, not crossing all the way over the median into oncoming traffic once in a blue moon.

And here in the wintertime cars end up in the median during bad weather quite frequently.  It was no big deal before, you simply had to get towed out.  Now each instance is going to cause severe damage to their vehicles along with the risk of being thrown back into traffic, during hazardous conditions no less.  I think insurance rates are going to skyrocket and they're already way too high.  I think this was a total waste of $40 Million on MDOT's part and I think they were quite irresponsible in implementing this w/o gathering all the facts and/or getting everyone's input.

the ones that get shredded are the ones that are going fast enough that they'd have entered the opposite lanes of traffic and gotten smashed anyway.  better they expire without bringing other vehicles into their own mess.  

want to not get cut to ribbons in the median?  stay out of the median.  

(try drinking less.)

Wisconsin had been installing these along many freeway medians in response to numerous cross-over crashes. I would be in favor of them if they save lives.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 10:58:43 PM
the ones that get shredded are the ones that are going fast enough that they'd have entered the opposite lanes of traffic and gotten smashed anyway.  better they expire without bringing other vehicles into their own mess. 

want to not get cut to ribbons in the median?  stay out of the median. 

(try drinking less.)

You missed the point completely.  This is going to cause more vehicles to become involved in more accidents.  Probably well more than 99% of the vehicles entering the median stay in the median and don't cross into oncoming traffic.  Now every single vehicle that would have simply gone into the median unscathed otherwise, is going to be extensively damaged and is going to be bounced back into traffic out of control.  They may have tire damage, they may very well be on slippery roads and they may very well end up going into oncoming traffic in the wrong direction anyway.  Check out the video on the MDOT page!  Check out the van that was supposedly saved from going across the median into oncoming traffic.  Now they don't know that the van would have crossed all the way over the median, but look where the van is located!  It's on its roof and it crossed 2 lanes of traffic!  That doesn't sound like a very safe scenario to me.

And obviously you're not used to driving in Michigan in the wintertime with winter storms, freezing rain, blizzards and what have you.  Cars are going to go into the median and they'd simply need to get towed out.  Now they're going to to incur damage and will become a hazard to other vehicles when the re-enter the freeway out of control...and quite possibly on their roof like the van in the video.

a car that, in the absence of the cable, ends up in the median and stops is going to be a car that drifts harmlessly into the new cable.  The cars that get shredded are the cars that would go screaming into opposite-direction traffic.  Honestly, I'd rather have one car shredded than two.

as for cars that are bouncing back - they will remain traveling forward with respect to the direction of traffic that they intersect, as opposed to backward (much higher relative velocity at time of collision!) if they go into the opposite direction traffic.

it's a lot easier to avoid a car skidding at 50mph away from you than skidding at 50mph towards you.

Not only is the van in the video upside down, it's also facing the wrong way.  :pan:

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 11:24:52 PM

it's a lot easier to avoid a car skidding at 50mph away from you than skidding at 50mph towards you.

It's impossible to avoid a car coming at you from the side or across your path.  But yeah, let's cause 99% more accidents by eliminating 1% of the accidents.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 15, 2009, 11:31:44 PM
Not only is the van in the video upside down, it's also facing the wrong way.  :pan:

that it is.  And, regardless of its orientation, what direction was it traveling in before it came to a stop?  To turn a van around is trivial.  To turn around its direction of motion is difficult proportional to its initial velocity.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 15, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
It's impossible to avoid a car coming at you from the side or across your path.  But yeah, let's cause 99% more accidents by eliminating 1% of the accidents.

It certainly is impossible.  Goodness knows I've never done it.  Not once.  In 480,000 miles on the road, every time a car out of control came at me from the side, I took my hands off the wheel, foot off the gas, and said "well, Lord, you've clearly put me in a position beyond my capability to correct" and allowed myself to get into the wreck without a fight.  Perhaps I screamed like some sort of an infant.

every single last damn time.  

Yep.  Quite sure that's how it happened.

Wouldn't it be easier to put up a jersey barrier, but then, it looks ugly in rural areas.

Quote from: Hellfighter on December 15, 2009, 11:48:59 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to put up a jersey barrier, but then, it looks ugly in rural areas.

the chains are a lot cheaper, which is why the state seems to want to go with them.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 11:52:26 PM
the chains are a lot cheaper, which is why the state seems to want to go with them.

It's cheaper to install, plus cheaper to repair than conventional guardrail. The whole point is to prevent much deadlier head-on collisions.

They wanted to install them in the Netherlands, but I think the plans were canceled after pressure from the national motorcyclist association. They're used extensively in Sweden to my knowledge. That's a place with bad winter weather too.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 11:37:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 15, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
It's impossible to avoid a car coming at you from the side or across your path.  But yeah, let's cause 99% more accidents by eliminating 1% of the accidents.

It certainly is impossible.  Goodness knows I've never done it.  Not once.  In 480,000 miles on the road, every time a car out of control came at me from the side, I took my hands off the wheel, foot off the gas, and said "well, Lord, you've clearly put me in a position beyond my capability to correct" and allowed myself to get into the wreck without a fight.  Perhaps I screamed like some sort of an infant.

every single last damn time. 

Yep.  Quite sure that's how it happened.

And how many head on collisions have you avoided?  You know you could try arguing from a factual/logical basis rather than your "I'm right because I say I'm right" sarcastic nonsense.  If a car is coming straight at me head on I can turn the wheel/swerve and avoid it.  If a car is coming straight at me from the side I can swerve and it's still going to hit me. 

And yes, a car careening off the barrier that gets turned in the other direction probably won't immediately have it's momentum shifted in the other direction, but it can still result in a head on collision and at 70 mph or more it really isn't going to matter much.  Dead, deader or deadest is inapplicable.  When you're dead you're dead.

Quote from: Hellfighter on December 15, 2009, 11:48:59 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to put up a jersey barrier, but then, it looks ugly in rural areas.

These are ugly too.  I don't see a need for either.  If they're really concerned about reducing traffic deaths they should go back to a 55 mph speed limit (and no I'm not for that).  But once again I don't see how these are going to reduce traffic deaths and they are certainly going to increase accidents overall.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 11:24:52 PM
a car that, in the absence of the cable, ends up in the median and stops is going to be a car that drifts harmlessly into the new cable.  The cars that get shredded are the cars that would go screaming into opposite-direction traffic.  Honestly, I'd rather have one car shredded than two.

Look again at the van in the video.  Does it look shredded?  No (other than the roof being somewhat caved in from landing on it)!  So I guess this must have been one of those vehicles that drifted "harmlessly into the new cable"...crossing 2 lanes of traffic, on its roof and facing in the wrong direction.  I'm betting the occupants of the van (and any traffic behind the van) would much rather have had the van simply enter the median and get stuck.

Your claims are devoid of any proof.

Personally, I'm in favor of any kind of median barrier that prohibits police officers from whipping through the median to do a U-turn to ticket some poor soul who is driving at a safe speed but is in excess of an arbitrary posted limit determined by politicians instead of engineers.  :D

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 16, 2009, 09:57:02 AM
Look again at the van in the video.  Does it look shredded?  No (other than the roof being somewhat caved in from landing on it)!  So I guess this must have been one of those vehicles that drifted "harmlessly into the new cable"...crossing 2 lanes of traffic, on its roof and facing in the wrong direction.  I'm betting the occupants of the van (and any traffic behind the van) would much rather have had the van simply enter the median and get stuck.

I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either it has enough momentum to travel the width of one median, or it does not.  The only thing the cable determines is whether that distance is covered straight across, or out and back again.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 16, 2009, 09:38:33 AM

And how many head on collisions have you avoided?  You know you could try arguing from a factual/logical basis rather than your "I'm right because I say I'm right" sarcastic nonsense.

and you could argue based on the laws of physics of this universe.  What's your point?

QuoteIf a car is coming straight at me head on I can turn the wheel/swerve and avoid it.  If a car is coming straight at me from the side I can swerve and it's still going to hit me.

Yes, gravity attracts cars to each other.

QuoteAnd yes, a car careening off the barrier that gets turned in the other direction probably won't immediately have it's momentum shifted in the other direction,

About the first mathematically valid thing you've said all day.

Quotebut it can still result in a head on collision and at 70 mph or more it really isn't going to matter much.

do me a favor and do out the math for me on that one.  Your reality fascinates me; I'd like to see it in equation form.

QuoteDead, deader or deadest is inapplicable.  When you're dead you're dead.

Leave statistics alone.  You're already making a mockery of physics.  You're allowed to show complete ignorance on precisely one scientific field per topic.

QuoteWhat do you think?  Personally I hate them.  They're ugly and I doubt they're going to save lives.

Experience elsewhere, not just in Texas (http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5609-1.pdf) but also in several other states (including Minnesota, which also has a winter), shows that they do save lives...

QuoteWhat happens when a motorcyclist hits a cable at high speed?

Here's what FHWA had to say (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/crt/lifecycle/cable.cfm):

Some motorcyclists have expressed concerns over cable barriers. Researchers in the United Kingdom, however, found little difference between crashes into cable median barriers and other barrier types. According to the data, most riders are separated from their motorcycles soon after leaving the pavement and are sliding on the ground by the time they reached the barrier. The data also did not show that cable barriers cause extraordinary injuries.

Here in Florida, we had crossover accidents (almost always fatal) on I-95 in my county almost weekly. And that's not an exaggeration. Northerners trying to make the 18+ hour drive in a single day would fall asleep, drift into the median, and hit oncoming traffic at full speed. The state has been actively working to put in median barriers. Some parts they used real guardrails, some places they put up the chains, some parts they put up Jersey barriers. Crossover accidents aren't an issue anymore here.

The cables don't bounce cars back into traffic, they're designed to grab the car so it stops in the median. I saw it happen once. A car went full-speed into the median, hit the cable, and the car stopped. If the chain hadn't been there, the car would have been coming directly at me.

Seeing the damage to the barriers from an accident isn't an uncommon sight, but I've yet to see a snapped cable. They're designed so that doesn't happen.

Motorcyclists are hosed no matter what they hit, cable or not.

Administrative Note (that's why it's in purple)–due to the contention that is occurring in this thread, you must cite your sources for all statistics and facts that you are attempting to post here, as demonstrated in this post. If you post without a source, moderation will be applied to your post. Thank you.

There is a MoDOT news release that shows in 2002, there were 24 crossover-related fatalities on I-70. In 2008, after cable barriers were installed, there was 1. Meanwhile, on I-44, prior to the cable barrier's installation, there were 25 crossover fatalities in 2006, whereas there were exactly zero in 2008 after the barriers were installed. [1]

MoDOT is using three-cable systems that cost $100,000 per mile to use.[2] They've installed about 550 miles of them at a cost of around $55 million. Oklahoma DOT is insisting on $125,000/mi systems that use four cables. Both meet the federal minimum standards, but ODOT says their four-cable systems are more effective against semis. There was a minor controversy when ODOT used stimulus money on the more expensive barriers.[2]

Rather than disputing the barrier's effectiveness, which has been proven beyond all doubt, the question is whether it is effective enough to justify its cost. I'd say it is–although it cost $1.1 million to save each life in Missouri, that investment will continue to perform for years. And I sure would have no problem with the state spending a million to save me.
____
1. http://www.modot.mo.gov/newsandinfo/District0News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=29500
2. http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11576458

Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2009, 01:02:38 PM
Here's what FHWA had to say (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/crt/lifecycle/cable.cfm):

Some motorcyclists have expressed concerns over cable barriers. Researchers in the United Kingdom, however, found little difference between crashes into cable median barriers and other barrier types. According to the data, most riders are separated from their motorcycles soon after leaving the pavement and are sliding on the ground by the time they reached the barrier. The data also did not show that cable barriers cause extraordinary injuries.

Barriers (cable or regular) on a straight alignment are not that dangerous to motorcyclists that they require extra safety features, such as aluminum plates in the open sections between the poles (to prevent decapitation). However, it is recommended in curves, especially cloverleafs. This specifically applies to metal guardrails, and not to concrete jersey barriers of course. If a motorcyclist slides on a wet pavement, you don't want him slashed in half by a pole of a guardrail. This issue is less of a problem in the United States as jersey barriers are far more common than guardrails which are prevalent in Europe.

Motorcyclist-friendly guardrail:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joppen.nl%2Fimages%2Fnieuws%2Fvangrail.jpg&hash=81fc156a84e2dcdb9dc8457740a3484659a8819c)

I've noticed that IDOT has installed these along I-55 and I-80.  Now, I question the cost of them since the ones on I-55 from I-80 to Weber Rd (Exits 250 to 263) were replaced a year or two after installation due to the addition of a third lane in each direction with a jersey barrier in the median.  If the road needs widening, and will be widened soon to include a jersey barrier, should cable barriers be installed?

(Scott is right about effectiveness, my question is purely about replacement shortly after installation.)

how much of the cost could be recovered given that the cable was already manufactured and could, theoretically, be used in another location?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 16, 2009, 05:29:44 PM
how much of the cost could be recovered given that the cable was already manufactured and could, theoretically, be used in another location?

That provokes an interesting question.  Can the cables be reused if they are removed from one area?  Or is there some issue with the metal that would prevent that.

Quote from: mightyace on December 16, 2009, 08:18:58 PM

That provokes an interesting question.  Can the cables be reused if they are removed from one area?  Or is there some issue with the metal that would prevent that.

My guess would be that the cables would be fine, but the posts would have to be replaced. I see torn-up cable barriers along WV's I-64 east of Huntington all the time.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2009, 03:56:30 PM
Administrative Note (that's why it's in purple)–due to the contention that is occurring in this thread, you must cite your sources for all statistics and facts that you are attempting to post here, as demonstrated in this post. If you post without a source, moderation will be applied to your post. Thank you.

There is a MoDOT news release that shows in 2002, there were 24 crossover-related fatalities on I-70. In 2008, after cable barriers were installed, there was 1. Meanwhile, on I-44, prior to the cable barrier's installation, there were 25 crossover fatalities in 2006, whereas there were exactly zero in 2008 after the barriers were installed. [1]

MoDOT is using three-cable systems that cost $100,000 per mile to use.[2] They've installed about 550 miles of them at a cost of around $55 million. Oklahoma DOT is insisting on $125,000/mi systems that use four cables. Both meet the federal minimum standards, but ODOT says their four-cable systems are more effective against semis. There was a minor controversy when ODOT used stimulus money on the more expensive barriers.[2]

Rather than disputing the barrier's effectiveness, which has been proven beyond all doubt, the question is whether it is effective enough to justify its cost. I'd say it is–although it cost $1.1 million to save each life in Missouri, that investment will continue to perform for years. And I sure would have no problem with the state spending a million to save me.
____
1. http://www.modot.mo.gov/newsandinfo/District0News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=29500
2. http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11576458

I'm not saying that they don't prevent crossovers and deaths.  I'm saying that they will cause more accidents in total and involve more vehicles.  I think this is obvious because every time a vehicle comes into contact with the cable/post whatever there is going to be damage.  And certainly vehicles will be bounced back into traffic as the van in the video apparently was.  I'm not citing any statistics or sources because I don't believe any studies were done in this regard...the studies apparently only focused on the crossover aspect.

At any rate I'm just giving my opinion on this matter.  Apparently any opinion uttered that differs from the moderators here is treated in much the same way a communist country treats its peasants.

[Edited to fix coloring in quote, which I biffed in the original post. -S.]

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 16, 2009, 11:01:45 PM
I'm not saying that they don't prevent crossovers and deaths.  I'm saying that they will cause more accidents in total and involve more vehicles.  I think this is obvious because every time a vehicle comes into contact with the cable/post whatever there is going to be damage.  And certainly vehicles will be bounced back into traffic as the van in the video apparently was.  I'm not citing any statistics or sources because I don't believe any studies were done in this regard...the studies apparently only focused on the crossover aspect.

the reason the studies focused on the crossover aspect is because that is the sort of accident that leads to the most fatalities, damage, etc.  You're basically giving up incident-free median entries in exchange for median departures that are significantly reduced in the level of harm they cause.  On a scale of 1 to 10:

0 - entering the median and coming to a stop
1 - entering the median and crashing into the new cable fence, coming to a stop in the median with some damage
5 - entering the median, bouncing off the fence, re-entering your direction of travel
10 - entering the median, passing straight through, and heading into opposite-direction travel

basically you're incurring a lot more "oh, dang, gotta call the insurance company" scrapes at the expense of horrifying head-on wrecks.  Seems like a decent bargain to me.  

QuoteAt any rate I'm just giving my opinion on this matter.  Apparently any opinion uttered that differs from the moderators here is treated in much the same way a communist country treats its peasants.

I'll bet you've never actually been a resident of a communist country, peasant or otherwise.

Don't know if you're referring to me or not, but by requiring sources I'm attempting to encourage the members to do research and think about it before posting, thus raising the tone of discourse. If you want no moderation whatsoever, by all means, MTR is still available, but I think if you spend enough time around there you'd be happy to have moderation. The mod-free environment there directly results in Carl Rogers, Racist Roadsign Randy, and other terribly cool people like that.

Also, please note that our moderators often do not post in a moderation capacity. We like to join in on the discussion and express our opinions as much as you. Sometimes it can be misinterpreted. As a result whenever I speak as a moderator I try to color the words purple to help accentuate that fact.

That said, what is your source for the assertion that cable barriers cause bounceback? If that were a legitimate concern, I'm sure that a study would have addressed that. Or is that not what you meant by "they will cause more accidents in total and involve more vehicles"? Cable barriers are a legitimate safety feature, not like red-light cameras, which actually cause more accidents. I'm not seeing how cable barriers cause more accidents in total–can you source that claim?

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 16, 2009, 11:01:45 PM
I'm not saying that they don't prevent crossovers and deaths.  I'm saying that they will cause more accidents in total and involve more vehicles.  I think this is obvious because every time a vehicle comes into contact with the cable/post whatever there is going to be damage.  And certainly vehicles will be bounced back into traffic as the van in the video apparently was.  I'm not citing any statistics or sources because I don't believe any studies were done in this regard...the studies apparently only focused on the crossover aspect.

The MDOT's cable barrier brochure (linked on the website given in the initial post) states "The cable also absorbs most of the impact, preventing the vehicle from bouncing back into traffic."  Granted, there may be times where the vehicle might bounce back, but the vehicle will be 'caught' in the cables more often than not.

Another thing to mention is that the flexibility of the cable barrier system diffuses the impact felt by passengers of the errant vehicle (http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/improvements/cablebarrier.asp (http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/improvements/cablebarrier.asp)).  I would imagine that would be far more jarring if a vehicle ran into a guardrail or concrete barrier wall.


NDOT has been swayed by the reported effectiveness of cable barriers.  They are installed in no fewer than three separate areas along US 395 (north of Reno, on the Carson City Bypass, and south of Carson City).

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2009, 11:33:37 PM
Don't know if you're referring to me or not, but by requiring sources I'm attempting to encourage the members to do research and think about it before posting, thus raising the tone of discourse. If you want no moderation whatsoever, by all means, MTR is still available, but I think if you spend enough time around there you'd be happy to have moderation. The mod-free environment there directly results in Carl Rogers, Racist Roadsign Randy, and other terribly cool people like that.

Also, please note that our moderators often do not post in a moderation capacity. We like to join in on the discussion and express our opinions as much as you. Sometimes it can be misinterpreted. As a result whenever I speak as a moderator I try to color the words purple to help accentuate that fact.

That said, what is your source for the assertion that cable barriers cause bounceback? If that were a legitimate concern, I'm sure that a study would have addressed that. Or is that not what you meant by "they will cause more accidents in total and involve more vehicles"? Cable barriers are a legitimate safety feature, not like red-light cameras, which actually cause more accidents. I'm not seeing how cable barriers cause more accidents in total–can you source that claim?

How many times do I have to state the obvious?  A vast majority of vehicles that enter the median, stay in the median and incur no damage.  Now a vehicle that would have harmlessly entered the median unscathed is going to suffer extensive damage from the cables, the posts or both.  They may very well be flung back into lanes of traffic as the van in the video was.  Did you look at the MDOT video?  The van ended up on the opposite shoulder across 2 lanes of traffic, on its roof and facing the wrong direction.  And this is the video they're using to advertise the "safety" of such barriers.  That does not sound like a very safe scenario to me!  There is no evidence that the van would have crossed over to the other side w/o the barrier.  In fact most Michigan medians are quite recessed with soft, soggy, muddy ground, if not covered with 2 feet of snow, making crossovers or re-entries almost impossible. 

I've seen no study that addresses the bounce back factor or other concerns many people have.  That's why I started a thread asking for a discussion of this matter.  But apparently some moderators don't want a civil discussion of this matter to take place, and I know for a certain that one in particular has a personal vendetta against me.

What study do you have that shows that soggy, recessed medians are adequate to stop a car from crossing over? I can imagine it slowing down, but not stopping completely.

Quote from: roadfro on December 17, 2009, 03:10:43 AM
Another thing to mention is that the flexibility of the cable barrier system diffuses the impact felt by passengers of the errant vehicle (http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/improvements/cablebarrier.asp (http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/improvements/cablebarrier.asp)).  I would imagine that would be far more jarring if a vehicle ran into a guardrail or concrete barrier wall.

You just touched on part of the problem which seems to be a rather large misconception here.  Yes the cable barrier would be much less jarring than a regular guardrail or concrete barrier...but they aren't replacing such structures!  They're being erected where no barrier existed before and where none should be necessary.  In fact I drove between Lansing and Grand Rapids along I-96 last night and saw several instances where guardrails were left in place and new cable barriers butted up to them. 

If they simply wanted to replace guardrails with them I probably wouldn't have a problem with them, but they're erecting them in lightly traveled rural areas, many times along a straight roadway for apparently no other reason than to clutter up the landscape and waste more Michigan taxpayers money.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 12:51:44 PM
What study do you have that shows that soggy, recessed medians are adequate to stop a car from crossing over? I can imagine it slowing down, but not stopping completely.

Spend some time in Michigan.  Count how many times you find a car in the median that can't get out on it's own.  Actually that would be a futile quest now because most of the barriers have already been erected.  Once again, I'm sure no such study exists.  Once again, I'm sure you already know that, and once again you apparently don't want me to express my opinion. 

Let's just say I've been a Michigan resident for 51 years.  I know this state.  I know the highways.  I know the weather.  It's wet most of the time causing for soggy ground conditions, except in the winter time when it's often  covered in several layers of snow.  The medians don't get plowed out.  In fact the medians will accumulate an even greater amount of snow because the snow removal equipment will dump more snow into the median.  This brings up another point.  I wonder what the county commissions that are responsible for removing snow feel about these barriers.  That could be a real hindrance to them.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 12:48:56 PM
A vast majority of vehicles that enter the median, stay in the median and incur no damage.  

Do you have a source for thaT?

My county, Brevard County, FL, had 123 fatal crashes on our 70-some mile stretch of I-95 between 1994 and 2001, 1/3 of them being due to crossover accidents. That's about 6 fatal crashes per year that were crossover related in my county alone.

http://www.transportation.org/sites/aashtotig/docs/Florida%20DOT%20Presentation%20%28Keel%29%20%28June%202006%29.pdf
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/february/nw0216-1.htm

I couldn't find any more recent data, but it continued to be a significant problem until last year. 6 per year seems low to be for the past few years, but I don't have any actual data to back that up.

Maybe our medians are designed poorly here, or maybe it has to do with the fact that the grass is often slick with rain, but it's very rare to see a car stuck in a median here. They hit the median and then rocket into oncoming traffic. Why wouldn't they? What's so magical about medians that they cause cars to stop? Cars tend to rocket across the median into traffic. They've since put in a concrete barrier where they're widening I-95, traditional metal barriers south of that construction, and cable barriers in other places. The number of crossover accidents since has been zero. It has saved lives here (potentially including mine - I would have been hit once a few years ago if it weren't for a median barrier).

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 01:13:46 PM
I wonder what the county commissions that are responsible for removing snow feel about these barriers.  That could be a real hindrance to them.

one does not need to remove all the snow from the median.  Just over the paved section (maybe two feet wide past the innermost lane), and the new barrier should not interfere with that.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 01:13:46 PM
It's wet most of the time causing for soggy ground conditions, except in the winter time when it's often  covered in several layers of snow. 

the van in the video is sufficient counterexample to your implication that the snow and sog and mud is enough to stop a car from crossing the median entirely into opposing traffic. 

The van had enough momentum to travel halfway into the median, bounce off the rail (which saps some momentum) and travel halfway out of the median again.  Had there been no median, that van would've crossed completely.

indeed, there is a wreck in the video, and it is bad, but it is - with good probability - less disastrous than what would've happened had the van gone into the opposite lanes. 

[This post is not made as a moderator and does not reflect the opinion of the staff.]

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 01:13:46 PM
Spend some time in Michigan.  Count how many times you find a car in the median that can't get out on it's own.

You are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to back it up. Going to Michigan is financially untenable for me, and were I to do so it is unlikely I would be witness too many vehicles entering the median, unless Michigan drivers are completely incompetent. Which I am pretty sure they are not.

QuoteOnce again, I'm sure no such study exists.  Once again, I'm sure you already know that, and once again you apparently don't want me to express my opinion.

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. When I point this out you get defensive and accuse the moderators of being communists (which is an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, I might add). How do you expect to have a reasoned debate based on the facts if you refuse to prove that the premise of your argument is true?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 02:01:17 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 01:13:46 PM
It's wet most of the time causing for soggy ground conditions, except in the winter time when it's often  covered in several layers of snow. 

the van in the video is sufficient counterexample to your implication that the snow and sog and mud is enough to stop a car from crossing the median entirely into opposing traffic. 

The van had enough momentum to travel halfway into the median, bounce off the rail (which saps some momentum) and travel halfway out of the median again.  Had there been no median, that van would've crossed completely.

indeed, there is a wreck in the video, and it is bad, but it is - with good probability - less disastrous than what would've happened had the van gone into the opposite lanes. 

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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
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.

That seems like a deficiency in MDOT's implementation of the cable barrier, though, more than something endemic to the barriers themselves. OK generally constructs one cable barrier in the center of the median, more or less, though it may dodge to one side or another to avoid median obstructions like gantries, bridge piers, etc.

Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2009, 01:28:23 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 12:48:56 PM
A vast majority of vehicles that enter the median, stay in the median and incur no damage. 

Do you have a source for thaT?

My county, Brevard County, FL, had 123 fatal crashes on our 70-some mile stretch of I-95 between 1994 and 2001, 1/3 of them being due to crossover accidents. That's about 6 fatal crashes per year that were crossover related in my county alone.

http://www.transportation.org/sites/aashtotig/docs/Florida%20DOT%20Presentation%20%28Keel%29%20%28June%202006%29.pdf
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/february/nw0216-1.htm

I couldn't find any more recent data, but it continued to be a significant problem until last year. 6 per year seems low to be for the past few years, but I don't have any actual data to back that up.

Maybe our medians are designed poorly here, or maybe it has to do with the fact that the grass is often slick with rain, but it's very rare to see a car stuck in a median here. They hit the median and then rocket into oncoming traffic. Why wouldn't they? What's so magical about medians that they cause cars to stop? Cars tend to rocket across the median into traffic. They've since put in a concrete barrier where they're widening I-95, traditional metal barriers south of that construction, and cable barriers in other places. The number of crossover accidents since has been zero. It has saved lives here (potentially including mine - I would have been hit once a few years ago if it weren't for a median barrier).

Well that does sound awfully high.  According to the MDOT website they think they can save 13 lives per year in cross-over related accidents:
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9620-227502--,00.html
So I would venture to say that our medians are better designed to keep cars in the median, especially since you get no snow or ice storms there that far fewer cars should venture into the median and yet you get a lot more cross-over accidents.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:50:03 PM
According to the MDOT website they think they can save 13 lives per year in cross-over related accidents:
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9620-227502--,00.html
So I would venture to say that our medians are better designed to keep cars in the median, especially since you get no snow or ice storms there that far fewer cars should venture into the median and yet you get a lot more cross-over accidents.

Whoa, hold the phone! No snow or ice storms in Michigan, is that what you're saying? . I'm not sure otherwise what you are saying.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
So I would venture to say that our medians are better designed to keep cars in the median, especially since you get no snow or ice storms there that far fewer cars should venture into the median and yet you get a lot more cross-over accidents.

I'll buy that. Here's an example of a typical Florida median:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.205321,-80.713613&spn=0,359.972534&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.205469,-80.711139&panoid=YO97wJscvpe9mrs1fbodAA&cbp=12,327.93,,0,3.38 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.205321,-80.713613&spn=0,359.972534&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.205469,-80.711139&panoid=YO97wJscvpe9mrs1fbodAA&cbp=12,327.93,,0,3.38)

Notice how flat it is? In some parts of the state, they left vegetation in the middle to act as a natural barrier. I don't know why they didn't do that more, or make the ditch/trench in the middle deeper.

Here's another example of an even narrower, worse median, this one with a cable barrier that gets frequent use:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.449789,-81.086397&spn=0,359.945068&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.452107,-81.062827&panoid=7MFRlJNYc5fEHjiRFPOfFA&cbp=12,120.65,,0,5.28

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
[This post is not made as a moderator and does not reflect the opinion of the staff.]

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 01:13:46 PM
Spend some time in Michigan.  Count how many times you find a car in the median that can't get out on it's own.

You are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to back it up. Going to Michigan is financially untenable for me, and were I to do so it is unlikely I would be witness too many vehicles entering the median, unless Michigan drivers are completely incompetent. Which I am pretty sure they are not.

QuoteOnce again, I'm sure no such study exists.  Once again, I'm sure you already know that, and once again you apparently don't want me to express my opinion.

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. When I point this out you get defensive and accuse the moderators of being communists (which is an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, I might add). How do you expect to have a reasoned debate based on the facts if you refuse to prove that the premise of your argument is true?

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?).  But it's obvious that more cars are going to be damaged by these barriers.  It's also obvious that these barriers can fling cars back across lanes of traffic (again, see the video).  There is absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to express my opinion about them and there is no reason we shouldn't be able to carry on a civil discussion about the pros and cons.  If documented facts exist, great!  If there is no actual documentation, we can use other factors such as common sense.

Apparently you have no idea what winter driving is like in a state such as Michigan.  After getting even say 3 or 4 inches of snow over night (not an uncommon occurrence at all) you will no doubt see several cars in the median the next morning.  They do not cross over, they do not suffer any damage most of the time.  It's not that they're necessarily bad drivers.  It's just one of the hazards of living here and having to drive here under unfavorable winter conditions.  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.

Quote from: US71 on December 17, 2009, 02:55:53 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:50:03 PM
According to the MDOT website they think they can save 13 lives per year in cross-over related accidents:
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9620-227502--,00.html
So I would venture to say that our medians are better designed to keep cars in the median, especially since you get no snow or ice storms there that far fewer cars should venture into the median and yet you get a lot more cross-over accidents.

Whoa, hold the phone! No snow or ice storms in Michigan, is that what you're saying? . I'm sure otherwise what you are saying.

No, I was responding to a post from Florida and comparing the 2 scenarios.

Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2009, 03:00:14 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
So I would venture to say that our medians are better designed to keep cars in the median, especially since you get no snow or ice storms there that far fewer cars should venture into the median and yet you get a lot more cross-over accidents.

I'll buy that. Here's an example of a typical Florida median:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.205321,-80.713613&spn=0,359.972534&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.205469,-80.711139&panoid=YO97wJscvpe9mrs1fbodAA&cbp=12,327.93,,0,3.38 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.205321,-80.713613&spn=0,359.972534&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.205469,-80.711139&panoid=YO97wJscvpe9mrs1fbodAA&cbp=12,327.93,,0,3.38)

Notice how flat it is? In some parts of the state, they left vegetation in the middle to act as a natural barrier. I don't know why they didn't do that more, or make the ditch/trench in the middle deeper.

Here's another example of an even narrower, worse median, this one with a cable barrier that gets frequent use:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.449789,-81.086397&spn=0,359.945068&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.452107,-81.062827&panoid=7MFRlJNYc5fEHjiRFPOfFA&cbp=12,120.65,,0,5.28

Can't really judge the depth but they certainly do look narrow.  The only places we have medians like that are going through large metropolitan areas...and there aren't any of these cable barriers in metro areas.  There all in lightly traveled rural areas.

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".

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 03:15:18 PM
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 (http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Rollover-crash-at-M-6-closes-EB-I-96) 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.

QuoteNow 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...

QuoteApparently 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.

Quote from: InterstateNG on December 17, 2009, 03:38:46 PM
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. ;)

Quote from: rawmustard on December 17, 2009, 03:48:00 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 03:15:18 PM
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 (http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Rollover-crash-at-M-6-closes-EB-I-96) 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.

Quote from: InterstateNG on December 17, 2009, 03:38:46 PM
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.

Quote from: froggie on December 17, 2009, 03:50:40 PM

QuoteNow 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...

QuoteApparently 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.

QuoteNo, 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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkotv.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F11576458_BG4.jpg&hash=1e2274b5a89a081f866aa09c2c9ea5b120e25d91)

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

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
[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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 04:01:08 PM
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.

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 04:58:26 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
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!  :-D

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 04:08:43 PM

Quote from: InterstateNG on December 17, 2009, 03:38:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 04:58:26 PM
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?

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Brandon on December 17, 2009, 05:50:54 PM
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!

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 05:47:13 PM

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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
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 ;)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 05:56:22 PM
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.   :-D

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

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

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.

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.   

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkotv.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F11576458_BG4.jpg&hash=1e2274b5a89a081f866aa09c2c9ea5b120e25d91)

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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

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?  :confused: :confused: :confused:

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 04:58:26 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
[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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 05:28:36 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 04:01:08 PM
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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:05:20 AM

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)

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 04:58:26 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM[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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 05:28:36 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 04:01:08 PM
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 04:58:26 PM
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? 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 05:34:36 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
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!  :-D

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

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:26:37 AM
Well thank you, but Scott wrote that, not me.

oops!  sorry about that  :ded:

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

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:05:20 AM
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.  

Quote from: InterstateNG on December 17, 2009, 05:36:09 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 04:08:43 PM

Quote from: InterstateNG on December 17, 2009, 03:38:46 PM
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.

Quote from: US71 on December 17, 2009, 05:59:26 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 17, 2009, 02:38:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:34:58 AM

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...

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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.  

QuoteI 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?  

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteWhy 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.

Quote from: US71 on December 18, 2009, 10:52:41 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

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?  :confused: :confused: :confused:

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?

Quote from: PennDOTFan on December 17, 2009, 06:20:50 PM
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?  :) 

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:34:58 AM
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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:49:51 AM
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. 

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:48:22 AM
What do you think the estimate is for the car in the freeze frame pic?

probably less than if he went in the drink. 

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:48:22 AM

Quote from: US71 on December 18, 2009, 10:52:41 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

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?  :confused: :confused: :confused:

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.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:49:51 AM
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.

Quote from: US71 on December 18, 2009, 11:30:36 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:48:22 AM

Quote from: US71 on December 18, 2009, 10:52:41 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

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?  :confused: :confused: :confused:

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?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2009, 11:47:23 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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. 

QuoteI 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? 

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteWhy 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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2009, 11:47:23 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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. 

QuoteI 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? 

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteWhy 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. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2009, 11:53:23 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 11:49:51 AM
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?

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.

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!  :cool:

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 18, 2009, 12:33:58 PM
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.

From MDOT's Brochure (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_GuardrailSystemBrochure_300385_7.pdf):

QuoteCable guardrail reduces the severity of crashes, and is a very cost-effective safety measure when compared to other barriers. Cable barrier is designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing into lanes of oncoming traffic. The cable also absorbs most of the impact, preventing the vehicle from bouncing back into traffic.

Looks like bounce-back isn't a problem.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 19, 2009, 03:45:26 PM
From MDOT's Brochure (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_GuardrailSystemBrochure_300385_7.pdf):

QuoteCable guardrail reduces the severity of crashes, and is a very cost-effective safety measure when compared to other barriers. Cable barrier is designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing into lanes of oncoming traffic. The cable also absorbs most of the impact, preventing the vehicle from bouncing back into traffic.

Looks like bounce-back isn't a problem.

Look where the van ends up in the video.

There's exceptions to ANY situation.  Surely you don't believe that concrete or standard metal guardrail barriers are infallable...

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 19, 2009, 07:18:55 PM
Look where the van ends up in the video.

It flipped over somehow. It's hard to draw any conclusions from just that picture. With no footage of the incident happening, we don't know exactly what happened and can't judge how the guardrail functioned.

Though, judging by the fact that the people inside survived, it would seem the guardrail did its job. We can't absolutely say that without the guardrail the van would have veered all the way into oncoming traffic, but there's certainly a chance it would have, and if it did the result would no doubt have been fatal.

Now, for some previous issues...

QuoteWhat happens when the cable snaps and goes through a vehicle and/or a body in the vehicle?

If designed and installed properly, the cables won't snap.

QuoteMost vehicles that go into the median aren't going to cross all the way over into oncoming traffic.  Now this same scenario creates the increased risk of bouncing off the barrier and back into traffic every single time a car leaves the inside lane, not crossing all the way over the median into oncoming traffic once in a blue moon.

Just to point something out here, the guardrail isn't right up against the shoulder. Entering the median and not hitting it is still very possible, and likely probable for a minor temporary loss of control that only results in a little bit of veering before the motorist recovers and keeps driving.

QuoteNow each instance is going to cause severe damage to their vehicles along with the risk of being thrown back into traffic

Only if you're really veering off the road and hitting the barrier at a significant angle. A glancing blow will scrape and dent the side of your car real nicely, but not result in "severe damage". The people getting "severe damage" will be the people who have a significant risk of crossing into oncoming traffic if nothing stops them first.

QuoteI think insurance rates are going to skyrocket

Well, we'll see, won't we? Though somehow I don't think so. Consider that statistically, most accidents happen relatively close to home (http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/accident-locations.html) (i.e., on local streets, not the freeway), anyway - so any potential increase the median guardrails may cause is an increase in the minority of situations.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 19, 2009, 07:18:55 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on December 19, 2009, 03:45:26 PM
From MDOT's Brochure (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_GuardrailSystemBrochure_300385_7.pdf):

QuoteCable guardrail reduces the severity of crashes, and is a very cost-effective safety measure when compared to other barriers. Cable barrier is designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing into lanes of oncoming traffic. The cable also absorbs most of the impact, preventing the vehicle from bouncing back into traffic.

Looks like bounce-back isn't a problem.

Look where the van ends up in the video.

If the forces were high enough to put the van across its own roadway and on its top with the cable barrier, the forces would certainly be high enough to get the van into oncoming traffic without a barrier at all.  Most people would much prefer 20-30 MPH collision speed differentials to those of 100-120 MPH.

--Andy

Ontario used to install these but most have been replaced with a Ontario Tall Wall barrier or jersey barriers. I personally think they are dangerous compared to concrete or steel guiderail especially when placed in a narrow median which was the typical installation in Ontario.

Quote from: andytom on December 20, 2009, 03:13:18 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 19, 2009, 07:18:55 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on December 19, 2009, 03:45:26 PM
From MDOT's Brochure (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_GuardrailSystemBrochure_300385_7.pdf):

QuoteCable guardrail reduces the severity of crashes, and is a very cost-effective safety measure when compared to other barriers. Cable barrier is designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing into lanes of oncoming traffic. The cable also absorbs most of the impact, preventing the vehicle from bouncing back into traffic.

Looks like bounce-back isn't a problem.

Look where the van ends up in the video.

If the forces were high enough to put the van across its own roadway and on its top with the cable barrier, the forces would certainly be high enough to get the van into oncoming traffic without a barrier at all.  Most people would much prefer 20-30 MPH collision speed differentials to those of 100-120 MPH.

--Andy

Now how can you make such a statement?  There is absolutely no way we can tell if the van would have completely crossed the median or not.  We don't know how wide the median is, how deep the median is, what angle the van hit the cables at/would have entered the median at, what speed the van was traveling at, etc.  All we can tell is that the van crossed two lanes of traffic after bouncing off the cables and landed on it's roof, facing in the wrong direction, creating a very unsafe scenario.  It may or may not have crossed over w/o the cable barrier and that's all we can say with any degree of certainty because we simply do not have enough information to draw any valid conclusions.

And that's exactly my point regarding this entire matter.  We have not been given enough information by MDOT to determine if these devices are truly safe or not and whether or not they are worth the cost or not.  I still believe that 40 million dollars could be put to much better use to save lives.

no more bickering about the van.  any other discussion on the topic is greatly welcome (for example Joseph's post) but any further back-and-forth about this one example will be deleted.

congrats, Terry, you got the last word.  your prize will be put in the mail within 4 to 6 business days.

In a FWIW, Missouri uses cable barriers along I-44. They are 3 strands and sit in the middle of the median. They also appear to not be as tall as Oklahoma's barriers which, BTW, are sometimes on one side of the median or the other , or sometimes down the center of the median.

Perhaps someone can explain if cable barriers down the center of the median are any more or less safe than cable barriers that are NOT centered? Is there any evidence that one is superior to another?

Quote from: US71 on December 24, 2009, 09:15:45 PM
In a FWIW, Missouri uses cable barriers along I-44. They are 3 strands and sit in the middle of the median. They also appear to not be as tall as Oklahoma's barriers which, BTW, are sometimes on one side of the median or the other , or sometimes down the center of the median.

Perhaps someone can explain if cable barriers down the center of the median are any more or less safe than cable barriers that are NOT centered? Is there any evidence that one is superior to another?

Kentucky has installed these in a number of places with a high rate of crossover accidents. They may be closer to one carriageway or the other, or right in the middle. I've been told that the characteristics of the median, the curvature of the highway, etc., play a part in how the cable barriers are placed. If you drive along the stretches of I-64 near Huntington, WV and between Huntington and Charleston where they have been installed, you'll find in some places they will be adjacent to one carriageway for awhile and then will cross over the center of the median to be closer to the other carriageway. OTOH, where they have been installed along KY 4 (New Circle Road) in Lexington, they are adjacent to the inner loop where all the traffic flows clockwise.

I wish that NCDOT guy who posted to MTR a lot (John Lansford?) were here now. He did a lot of work involving cable barriers, if I remember correctly, and would be interesting to hear from in this discussion.

Speaking of cable barriers, Tennessee has installed them sporadically along I-40 between Nashville and Memphis. I could not see any compelling reason why they were installed at these locations and not in others, unless there have been crossover accidents at these specific places.

Texas has a few cables on I-20 and I-30 east of Dallas, but in a lot of places they have concrete jersey barriers placed right next to the passing lane of the route, not in the median but at the edge of the paved surface.

On my recent trip, I saw them on I-76/US 224 west of Akron toward I-71 and many of them were on both directions!

Looks like MDOT will consider changes after all (http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/MI-considering-cable-guardrail-changes).

I do not mean to bump a old thread.  I had an up close and personal view of a concrete jersey barrier on I-65 here in Birmingham and am sure glad it was there. 

Cable railguards were just installed on I-220 in the Jackson a couple years or so ago after a series of crossover accidents took place. One accident killed a 17-year old high school student when a driver going at a high rate of speed cross the median and hit his vehicle. I can't recall any crossover accidents since the rails were put in place.

Cable railguards are extensively used in Australia, esp in NSW.
They are sometimes used to guard deep ravines and are an alternative to steel guardrails.
Eg , Hume Hwy, Federal Hwy, Kosciuszko Rd, Pacific Hwy

I-20 has cable rails near the left lanes on both sides of the high in Vicksburg. However, there are gaps in between (though not continuously). I'm guessing the gaps are for emergency vehicles.

Quote from: Terry Shea on May 26, 2010, 04:35:59 PM
"The ground in the median can be too soft to hold up the rails, said Nick Schirripa, spokesman for MDOT's southwest region. And putting barriers in the median can let a car fly over the rails, he said."

So you do like ODOT (and probably every other DOT) does and mount the pylons on a narrow slab of concrete.
[/quote]

QuoteWell if the median is too soft there's no chance of a car crossing over, period.

Bullshit. If a car is going at a sufficiently high rate of speed it will not have the chance to stop sink in the mud. 

Where the hell is all this perpetual moisture making the medians the consistency of a bag of Stay-Puft marshmallows coming from, anyway? Did they intentionally build all the highways through a bog or something? Do special MDOT Molasses Division trucks go through every Thursday to top off the medians?

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2010, 05:43:41 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on May 26, 2010, 04:35:59 PM
"The ground in the median can be too soft to hold up the rails, said Nick Schirripa, spokesman for MDOT's southwest region. And putting barriers in the median can let a car fly over the rails, he said."

So you do like ODOT (and probably every other DOT) does and mount the pylons on a narrow slab of concrete.

The cable barriers along I-75 north of St. Ignace were all set in small concrete footings, much like you would do with a fence along your property.

I know that there are some spots on I-96 between Grand Rapids and Lansing where the median is essentially a marsh, but the median is also wider there so that the barriers aren't needed.

In my opinion, cable-stay median guardrails are good.  My reasoning is that at worst they prevent people from trying to make illegal U-Turn in the median.  My sister totaled her first car back in 2006 and my dad was involved in an accident earlier this year on I-10 near Tallahassee due to vehicles attempting to make a U-Turn in the median.

ALDOT has used cable-stay in a few spots on I-65 most notably in Butler and Cullman Counties.

Quote from: Terry Shea on May 27, 2010, 10:57:21 AM
Ever been to Michigan?  We get a lot of rain.  We get a lot of snow in the winter.  There's basically 2 seasons (not counting construction season); rainy season and snowy season.  During snowy season the ground is hard but it's covered by inches if not feet of snow.  In the spring it melts and rains like hell making the ground soft and muddy. 

Average Monthly Precipitation (Source: National Weather Service)

City	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Marquette, MI	2.04	1.35	2.24	2.35	2.66	2.74	2.64	3.01	3.42	3.03	2.60	1.95
Grand Rapids, MI	2.03	1.54	2.59	3.48	3.35	3.67	3.56	3.78	4.28	2.80	3.35	2.70
Detroit, MI	1.91	1.88	2.52	3.05	3.05	3.55	3.16	3.10	3.27	2.23	2.66	2.51
Oklahoma City, OK	1.28	1.56	2.90	4.28	5.44	4.63	2.94	2.48	3.98	3.64	2.11	1.89
Tampa, FL	2.27	2.67	2.84	1.80	2.85	5.50	6.49	7.60	6.54	2.29	1.62	2.30
Hilo, HI	9.74	8.86	14.35	12.54	8.07	7.36	10.71	9.78	9.14	9.64	15.58	10.05

Remember, this is precipitation totals in inches. That means snow is included in the total as its melted-down volume (which is what you're wanting, anyway, since this would be the amount of moisture that would be available to soften the median.

And what we see from this is...you're full of it. Michigan gets roughly the same amount of rainfall as Oklahoma does, but more evenly distributed (much of Oklahoma's rainfall comes in April through June). Detroit, the largest city in the state, gets even less precipitation than Grand Rapids and Marquette do. Meanwhile, if you compare Michigan to Tampa and Hilo, you see that really, it's not that much.

Also, your position requires (1) the car to be going slow enough when entering the median for the consistency of the soil to be a factor in significantly stopping it and (2) atmospheric conditions to cooperate. If for whatever reason Michigan receives less rainfall than normal, the safety record is going to deteriorate because you pinned all your safety hopes on something that is essentially twice as random as any slot machine.

A cable barrier is obviously going to be much more effective than an earthen median on its own, since it doesn't depend on the weather for it to work.

Quote from: Terry Shea on May 27, 2010, 05:17:33 PM
You may well have a similar amount of rainfall in Oklahoma, which certainly does surprise me, but you certainly don't have as humid an environment

Statistics for May:

Grand Rapids, MI (http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=19766&metric=false)
Average Morning Relative Humidity = 79%
Average Afternoon Relative Humidity = 50%

Oklahoma City, OK (http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=27206&metric=false)
Average Morning Relative Humidity = 84%
Average Afternoon Relative Humidity = 52%

Quotewith an area full of lakes, rivers, marshes, swamps and wetlands like we do here.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_lakes_in_Oklahoma

QuoteAs I stated before, this presented little to no problem in the past.  It's not uncommon to see dozens of cars in the median on snowy, stormy days.

That's because on your average snowy day people are not traveling at 70 miles per hour. When people slide into the median on an icy day they're normally doing, what, 40 mph tops?

QuoteNow vehicles which would have harmlessly stayed in the median with little to no damage are being ripped to shreds because the idiots who decided to install these decided to place them literally a couple of feet from the roadway instead of in the middle of the median.

They're "idiots", huh? Would you care to give us all your Michigan P.E. certification number? I've been critical of ODOT in the past, but only about things that I feel qualified to criticize, like layout of road signage. I know fuck all about bridge design so I'm not going to complain about their bridge designs since I really don't know what I'm talking about. I certainly don't call them idiots because I'm sure it's more of a case of poor quality control or ineffective management than flat-out idiocy.

QuoteDid you read the comments at the bottom of the WOOD-TV article? It's not just me, people here are overwhelmingly against these barriers being installed. [...] and it should be quite clear that the people here in this state don't want them here.

No. Comments on road-related news articles are generally made by people who are uninformed. Also, judging that an entire state holds some opinion from the comments on one article on a news site is a rather hasty generalization, since it has a self-selecting bias (only people who feel strongly one way or another against the cables are going to post there).

QuoteThat's why when I started this thread I specifically placed it in the Midwest/Great Lakes region and put Michigan in the Title of the thread.  I guess it was moved and the title changed for "political" reasons.

The moderation totally moved your thread because it's all part of the grand plan we have posted in the staff lounge to shame all of the Republicans into submission. Man, you should read it some time. We're just waiting for someone to make a Reagan reference so that we can all go through our elaborate 13-page script bashing him. I tell ya, we're gonna be in stitches when David Backlin reads that "tear down this wall" pun on Page 11.

QuoteIn fact I personally don't know even 1 person who is in favor of these barriers.

And how many of the people that you personally know are as involved with transportation as the people here? How many of them are P.E.'s? I don't know one person who is in favor of these barriers either, because none of them have ever thought about them before and can't be arsed to.

Terry: I live in the Greater Grand Rapids area, and I support their installation. Period. Now, you'll have to claim that all of Michigan except me doesn't want them, but I doubt I'm the only one in the state that wanted them. After all, no one forced MDOT to install them, so some people in Lansing wanted them.

The fact remains, it's cheaper to replace a bumper that's damaged from the cable barrier than to attempt to replace a life lost from a head-on collision. I say that with confidence because you can't bring back the dead, unless you're holding out on new medical technology on us.

I'm not sure I should jump in on this thread or not, but what the hey.  Here's my observations on what I've seen here and in person. 

First of all, I would agree that any cable barrier, standard metal guardrail, or concrete jersey barrier should not be installed immediately adjacent to a narrow left shoulder.  This makes any crash into that barrier block the left travel lane, and if installed on both sides of the median it's double the infrastructure and cost with virtually no added benefit. 

That said, a cable barrier should be in the center of the median.  If it's a narrow median, it's all that much more important to have it since the chance of crossover accidents is higher.  Whether a wide or a narrow median, the cable barrier will stop most if not all crossover accidents, the deadliest and most damaging.  Yes, there is a higher likelihood that vehicles entering the median will be damaged, but with the barrier in the center, only half of all such vehicles would hit it, the rest would stop short.  Soggy turf or snow can't be counted on to stop wayward vehicles since those conditions are not constant.  Even in wet and snowy areas, there's still a long time of the year where the ground is bare and either frozen or dry.

So again, a cable barrier (or any barrier) on both sides of the median instead of in the center is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  That doesn't mean cable barriers are universally a bad thing.  Also, anyone who can't keep their vehicle on the road in snowy weather really doesn't deserve much sympathy.  Hitting a nearside barrier, even at the types of speeds you should be driving in snowy weather, is going to be damaging, but going off the road isn't necessarily harmless either.  Sinking into soft dirt or running through a snowbank with who-knows-what hiding in the ground can lead to a busted radiator, torn fuel or exhaust lines, damage to the suspension, or even a broken axle.  Those things could be just as bad as busted fenders and bumpers, and that's only after you get un-stuck.  The stuck cars are abandoned until they can be pulled out, but the ones that crash at those speeds are usually able to keep going. 

The whole point though is that preventing fatal accidents, especially ones that can involve many innocent people, is justifiable even if it causes some more superficial damage to the vehicles of people who can't keep their own car on the road. 

The problem with putting cable barriers in the center of medians is when the center is substantially lower than the edges of the median. In such cases, the barriers have to be placed higher (closer to the pavement) to be effective.

I don't see why.  Most medians are a fairly gentle "V" shape in section, and except on steep hillside terraces where one direction of travel is physically much higher than another you wouldn't be able to launch a vehicle over anything.  I can see shifting the barrier a few feet to one side, just to keep it out of the drainage ditch, but it's not like there's a big ramp just waiting to launch vehicles into the air.  They could also just use taller posts if that's such a big deal. 

didn't I once say that any posting by Terry in this thread will be summarily deleted?

lemme get on that. 

This reached stalemate months ago.  Who resurrected the dead horse?!

okay, now the thread looks a little silly, with Scott expertly striking down an invisible fool, but we have to leave the f-bomb in there.  There's only eight of them on the entire forum, so each is a precious resource.