re: Interstate Cable Barriers

The should just say frick it and put up concrete barriers like Texas did on I-20 between Dallas and Shreveport. They look ugly as sin but no car is getting through that.

quote:

---

Concrete has no give and if you hit a concrete barrier at interstate speeds your odds of surviving decrease dramatically

---

Concrete barriers are not unsafe. You do realize that most points of contact with any median highway barrier running parallel to travel lanes are going to be a glancing blow and not a head on collision, right?

There is more give in the cables, but the main reason they are popular now because there aren't many other options for medians with a drainage swale, which is what most rural American interstate highways have.

I think they need to redesign them to be useful further from the highway. They are just too close, subjecting them to minor impacts. It's a good idea that needs to evolve.

Aesthetically, they look awful and are in disrepair in a lot of places. I wish we'd find something that can take a hit and look good.

Extensive research and crash testing has been done with cable barriers. The use of cable barriers are based on ADT, clear zone requirements, median width, crash history/severity, and a host of other things.

A lot of what you are spewing is simply garbage based on your bias as a motorcyclist. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

quote:

---

Extensive research and crash testing has been done with cable barriers. The use of cable barriers are based on ADT, clear zone requirements, median width, crash history/severity, and a host of other things.

A lot of what you are spewing is simply garbage based on your bias as a motorcyclist. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

---

You're entitled to your opinion and so am I. That doesn't make it garbage. As far as my opinion being based on a motorcyclists view, that is certainly part of it. As a point of reference the cable barrier systems are not allowed in Europe due to the hazard they present to motorcyclists.

Many of my statements are mirrored by the Federal Highway Administration:

LINK

"While cable median barriers have low installation costs, they can be to maintain due to the number of crashes that result in damage. Even though the cost of a crash is generally low, the system receives some damage from even slight hits, and needs to be repaired to provide optimum performance. Also, even low tension cable does not always go down on impact. It is more likely than high tension cable to go down after a hit."

A Kansas DOT official also questions their overall effectiveness here:

LINK

"“Cable barriers are not benign. They don’t solve all the problems and can in some situations create problems,” KDOT Secretary Deb Miller said Friday. “So our deliberations must center on whether they provide more benefits or create more liabilities. The question isn’t: Do we have the money? The question is: Is this the right strategy?”

Caltrans agrees:

LINK

"The California Department of Transportation used the cable rail system as their standard during the early 1960s, but abandoned it by 1978. The agency stated in its 1997 Cable Median Barriers Report that the cable barrier is "the least expensive to install, but it has had the worst accident experience and is the most expensive to maintain.""

For someone to state, as you do, emphatically, that cable barriers are without a doubt the only and best answer to highway safety demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

Spending of this type is a hallmark of our federal government. Low initial cost and high maintenance costs forever. An increase in safety in one metric, and a decrease in safety in many others.