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

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#51

Post by Silhouette »

philwelch wrote: post #44
Silhouette wrote: post #37

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). 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 pro…

It’s not a problem IMO. Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. Unfortunately that tiny minority of people are very outspoken about attempting to socially and physically engineer the world to cater to their preferences.

Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars

That depends on your criteria. For journeys where they are a viable option bikes are usually much cheaper, healthier, less dangerous, more efficient and cleaner than cars. Of course that doesn't include all journeys that people need to make but it does include many of them.

which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place.

Somehow I doubt their lack of utility is the reason that almost nobody in the US rides bikes on the road.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#52

Post by hoseja »

philwelch wrote: post #35
bscphil wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's correct nonetheless.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#53

Post by yarky »

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.

> would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else).

Wasn't this the same kind of argument we used in the past to justify slavery?

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#54

Post by mooneater »

I'm glad they are thinking through the details on barrier design.

Lets not forget that is only necessary because the automotive industry is barbaric to begin with. Let's recall why trains dont require advanced crash barrier design like this.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#55

Post by vwcx »

mooneater wrote: post #54

I'm glad they are thinking through the details on barrier design. Lets not forget that is only necessary because the automotive industry is barbaric to begin with. Let's recall why trains dont require advanced crash barrier design like this.

Your opinion on the barbarism of the auto industry will be considered heresy by many, but I applaud your ability to think outside the century of precedent that makes us feel that there are no options beyond what Henry Ford pushed on us.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#56

Post by dementis »

hammock wrote: post #40
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...

They ought to put those on the outside of Nascar tracks

That would just encourage more drivers to do what Ross Chastain did and probably make the race more about which driver can within the physical abuse of hitting the barrier.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#57

Post by tialaramex »

at_a_remove wrote: post #27
wffurr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad you came out of that OK. >> fairly moderate pace (I'm not a big speeder) But you were speeding, right? On a wet roadway with what sounds like poor visibility.

No. You should read what I wrote.

There is an important distinction to understand between a legal maximum speed and safe speed. The legal maximum may be lower or higher than the safe speed. In bad weather, such as icy conditions, heavy rain, fog, the safe speed may be far lower than legal maximum. Safe speed will also depend on your skill, car equipment and maintenance, and particulars of the road itself. A road with a 60mph legal limit may feel absolutely fine at 65mph on a quiet summer afternoon in a newly serviced BMW M3 driven by a 25 year old rally champion, yet be genuinely very dangerous at 55mph in freezing fog at 3am on a January morning in a car with bald tyres driven by my grandfather.

You should not drive at an unsafe speed, even though many drivers will do so especially when it's beneath legal limits. If you're losing steering authority, you either are going too fast, or you're somewhere you shouldn't be driving at all. The car is intended to operate with your steering wheel controlling where it goes, when that's not working you've stepped outside the intended bounds of operation.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#59

Post by throwaway22032 »

enriquto wrote: post #45
philwelch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a problem IMO. Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. Unfortunately that tiny minority of people are very outspoken about attempting to socially and physically engineer the world to cater to their preferences.

> Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars I find this point of view amusing because it is so contradictory to my personal experience. In my case, I started commuting by bike after years of being tired to spend an unpredictable amount of time stuck on traffic, looking through the window at cyclists merrily passing by. Since becoming one of these cyclists, I feel a bit of pity every time that I see people…

I mean, sure, yesterday I made a trip that was less than 10km.

It took around fifteen minutes. I'm a pretty quick cyclist and it would have taken over half an hour.

It was also 6 degrees C outside and raining.

I don't consider cycling particularly unsafe even on the road.

But, aside from it being pretty good exercise, it's objectively inferior for me to do it, unless the car infrastructure is unavailable or deliberately crippled.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#60

Post by wffurr »

at_a_remove wrote: post #27
wffurr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad you came out of that OK. >> fairly moderate pace (I'm not a big speeder) But you were speeding, right? On a wet roadway with what sounds like poor visibility.

No. You should read what I wrote.

Oh I read it. I just don't think you're telling the whole story. Speed is almost always a factor in crashes and near misses like this. The fact that stopped traffic caught you that much by surprise doesn't seem like a good sign.

Like I said, glad you're OK. Glad the barrier saved your life / reduced the damage. These barriers are a last resort. Terrifying to read just how many stories there are in this thread of people relying on them.

Better than barriers I would think is more driver training, higher standards for licensure, and more alternatives to driving. Safest way to travel is not in a personal car operated by an amateur.

Post reply on HN