Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

WRBs in Tas - what was actually said

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by TonyE, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. I've received the transcript from ABC Hobart of what was actually said.

    It's a little different from what was reported. :roll:

    ABC 936 HOBART Date: 05/09/2006
    MORNINGS Time: 09:35 AM

  2. It reads very diferently when you see the transcript.
    I have always known that jernos can get it very wrong, but that is some very major misrepresentation of what was said
  3. Hmmm, interesting.

    I can see his point - hitting those posts... they're very small, really. They have them near my mum's place. I can see how hitting them would really hurt a rider more than the wire itself. It'd be like being hit (possibly in the same spot) with a metal pole repeatedly. Ouch. :?

    I never thought that concrete would be safe, though it does make sense. We have big cement barriers down "the Parkway", and I was thinking today how dangerous it is. But the impact would be over a larger area of your body (unless you got pretty unlucky)...

  4. Sounds a hell of a lot more sensible than the news reports that were floating around...
  5. If you hit concrete at an angle you slide. When you come off it is very very unusual to hit a barrier at a 90 degree angle. Hitting concrete's not nice and it will hurt but you don't have that sudden impact over a small area that posts give that causes the really nasty inuries...
  6. Very different indeed to the material referred to in the other thread!

    Edit: However, as the other thread is about a newspaper article rather than this radio interview, I'm not sure how this is relevant...
  7. If you read the reports , that the Dutch parliament based there decision on ,
    you will see that the gaps between the wires are just as dangerous as the poles, ie Limbs can get caught between them , and according to the computer simulation, this can be upto a 80% fatality rate to motorcyclists, WRB's are not safe for motorcyclists unless they are completey covered and anyone saying any different needs to seriously study all the reports.
  8. Wasn't the article in the Merc. based on what they said on ABC radio? If so, then it is relevant and goes to the crux of the matter.
  9. you keep on saying that and I hear the same thing from other sources
    but what are the alternatives (practically) and is there a real solution?

    I was out on the Spur today and took a chance to look at the Armco through a few of the bends. My totally unscientific analysis was that the most likely accident for me, at that time was going too fast into a corner or a front/rear end slide. The first accident might involve panic, standing the bike up and hitting the barrier head on, or close too. Armco Vs WRB? I don't see the difference to me in that situation, I'm fairly well rooted.

    The latter? I am sliding and hit the evil looking posts that hold the Armco up. They look large and not very accomodating. Again, my unscientific analysis is that road side barriers are either Armco or WRB. Both look pretty bad options if you take it that the posts are the parts that do damage.

    Is there a real World analysis on this? Not studies using models and predictions, but actual crash data?
  10. thanks for finding that, I might just have to give the mockery a serve, typical bunch of losers stiring up trouble.

    reporters... journo's... just as bad as politicians, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

  11. try reading this
    armco is slightly better than WRB , less posts, you slide against the beam, without your limbs being caught in it
  12. Absolutely agree. Suggest you give those mockers a severe mocking. And don't take any mocking in reply - never ignore a mocker!!

  13. But that's not a real mocking - that's only a mock mocking. If you mock that then you'd be mocking mock mocking.

    In turn you'd probably be mocked for that which would then be a case of mocking mocking mock mocking.

    Easier to give the whole thing the bird... Then it would just be a mocking bird! :roll:
  14. Awesome, at last, some real information and not emotion. That's all I've been looking for, some data to back up the assertions and statements.

    Pity it doesn't reference 'real' crashes where there was a direct link between an injury and the WRB, but it's still damning evidence as to the safety of WRB's.
  15. CJ, whatever the barrier, if we hit it, then we're pretty well stuffed.

    With Armco, check it out where it's used at race tracks. They have twin rails or maybe more. I dunno, but the posts are covered. I'd love to see, say armco, but where the posts are exposed cover them with say large diameter poly pipe. I dunno how much it would cost. But then, why put a cost on "saving lives"?

    In the overall scheme of things, we don't rate. We represent two percent or less of the motoring public Thing is, the $70 mil that the government put into bicycle safety projects, how far would that go to say, line all WRBs and armco, particularly on roads that lots of riders frequent?

    And no, I'm not saying to deprive the cyclists of the dough, but rather, consider what that sort of funding could do for us.
  16. leading back to the motorcycle safety levy argument...