Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

highways.dot.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#31

Post by philwelch »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #20
philwelch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we can start improving car infrastructure right away because, on the types of roads that have guardrails, cars are like 98% of the traffic or more. And the rare roads that have both guardrails and sidewalks should probably have the sidewalks on the far side of the guardrails, at which point improved guardrails also protect pedestrians. Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motor…

Same argument works for banning pedestrians from streets that cars use though. What kind of world are we trying to make here.

We do ban pedestrians from the streets; that’s what sidewalks are for.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#32

Post by philwelch »

bscphil wrote: post #21
philwelch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we can start improving car infrastructure right away because, on the types of roads that have guardrails, cars are like 98% of the traffic or more. And the rare roads that have both guardrails and sidewalks should probably have the sidewalks on the far side of the guardrails, at which point improved guardrails also protect pedestrians. Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motor…

> Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). To me this sounds like the equivalent of permanently shutting down a public park because it's infested with disease carrying rats rather than trying to get rid of the rats.

You’re comparing motorists (who are the vast majority of US road users) to rats needing to be exterminated.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#33

Post by bscphil »

philwelch wrote: post #32
bscphil wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). To me this sounds like the equivalent of permanently shutting down a public park because it's infested with disease carrying rats rather than trying to get rid of the rats.

You’re comparing motorists (who are the vast majority of US road users) to rats needing to be exterminated.

No, I'm comparing America's car culture to a rat infestation; something that causes serious problems and is a problem in its own right. This has nothing to do with the moral standing of individuals drivers...

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#34

Post by kube-system »

ortusdux wrote: post #11

I've been wondering if the new Korean style rolling barriers would gain acceptance in the US and other countries. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/this-new-korea...

Looks expensive.

Part of the problem is that the US has a lot of roads. So often, the comparison that is made is not “which guardrail is the best”, but, “which places can we budget to install a guardrail?”

This is why even though the safety of cable barriers is disputed, the overall number of lives saved by them is usually said to be quite positive, because we can afford to install more of them. Hitting a shitty cheap guardrail (or cable) is usually better than hitting a vehicle head-on or hitting a bridge support.

Also, those end caps on that guardrail are not considered a safe design and aren’t really used in the US anymore because they spear vehicles when hit directly on the end.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#35

Post by philwelch »

bscphil wrote: post #33
philwelch wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re comparing motorists (who are the vast majority of US road users) to rats needing to be exterminated.

No, I'm comparing America's car culture to a rat infestation; something that causes serious problems and is a problem in its own right. This has nothing to do with the moral standing of individuals drivers...

Which is a ludicrous, fringe viewpoint that verges on trolling when you go out of your way to bring it up in a discussion about safety barriers for motorways.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#36

Post by frosted-flakes »

philwelch wrote: post #31
giraffe_lady wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same argument works for banning pedestrians from streets that cars use though. What kind of world are we trying to make here.

We do ban pedestrians from the streets; that’s what sidewalks are for.

Sidewalks don't mean you're not allowed to walk on the street. Streets are for everyone, including cyclists and pedestrians.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#37

Post by Silhouette »

philwelch wrote: post #16
ultrarunner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the U.S. we're struggling to get them to understand that bike lanes and sidewalks can't just randomly end mid-block and still be useful. While the idea seems ostensibly solid, and cars very much need containment, we still have much more basic needs before we can start optimizing car infrastructure.

No, we can start improving car infrastructure right away because, on the types of roads that have guardrails, cars are like 98% of the traffic or more. And the rare roads that have both guardrails and sidewalks should probably have the sidewalks on the far side of the guardrails, at which point improved guardrails also protect pedestrians. Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motor…

Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). I'm kind of surprised more states haven't done it yet.

But then you have the self-perpetuating problem of stigmatising cycling and promoting car use. Given the numerous advantages of promoting cycling for journeys where it's a reasonable alternative it seems quite understandable that governments wouldn't want to universally ban on-road cycling.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#38

Post by elihu »

ortusdux wrote: post #11

I've been wondering if the new Korean style rolling barriers would gain acceptance in the US and other countries. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/this-new-korea...

There was a recent story about one person who would presumably approve of this design: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33412702

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#39

Post by Swizec »

YZF wrote: post #25
at_a_remove wrote: post #14

So, that little slope probably saved my life once. I was trucking up 44 at a fairly moderate pace (I'm not a big speeder) around a curve when there was suddenly a car in my lane, so I jerked the wheel to the right lane ... where there was another car, I twitch back to the other lane and begin, well, hydroplaning or whatever it is when you have just a touch of rain to bring up the oil from the road. Brakes were not ef…

You weren't hydroplaning. Hydroplaning is when there's so much water your tires can't funnel that water out and you're driving on the surface of the water. You "just" lost traction. And yes the first rains of the season that bring up all the c*ap from the road are notorious for being slippery. In situations like that you can try to regain traction by making sure the wheels are pointing at the same direction you are t…

> You can also take lessons...

In my part of Europe (Slovenia) they now make you take a “safety driving” course within 2 years of getting your license. Skid plates, hydroplaning, all the fun stuff.

My sister got to do it. I missed the fun by a few years and instead practiced with lots of late night drifting fun on fresh snow (don’t tell mom :P)

Post reply on HN