Turnpike U-turn crash

[si_uk_lon_ok]

One of the points is that while it may be quicker in emergencies, by allowing people to use them they infact create emergencies. Typically 15% of accidents are serious or fatal, using a U turn not only is one of the most risky manoveres you can try as a driver, but when a crash occurs the chace of it being serious or fatal jumps to 30%. Interstates should be limited access, allowing through traffic to travel long distances across the USA. By allowing U turns you increase the amount of cars using these roads, which should really be using more localised roads.

The data is based on UK traffic counts and accident data I have used in my work, which is not avaliable online. While it is UK data the only real difference I see is that any traffic movements would be mirrored.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

One of the points is that while it may be quicker in emergencies, by allowing people to use them they infact create emergencies. Typically 15% of accidents are serious or fatal, using a U turn not only is one of the most risky manoveres you can try as a driver, but when a crash occurs the chace of it being serious or fatal jumps to 30%. Interstates should be limited access, allowing through traffic to travel long distances across the USA. By allowing U turns you increase the amount of cars using these roads, which should really be using more localised roads.

The data is based on UK traffic counts and accident data I have used in my work, which is not avaliable online. While it is UK data the only real difference I see is that any traffic movements would be mirrored.

Points well-taken.  Only emergency personnel, who ostensibly have been trained on the proper use of the gaps for U-turns, are supposed to use them on Oklahoma Turnpikes.

Unfortunately, I don't know if the ODOT compiles information on the number of U-turn accidents there have been since they modified the Turner and WR pikes, but you could go on further to expect the number would have dropped since it would keep anyone from turning around on the median anywhere on the road.

As said it's a trade-off, do you leave someone trapped in a car for an extra 15 to 20 minutes, or allow for the chance there might be an accident every now and then when you allow for emergency vehicles to make U-turns?

From the reports I've read, it sounds like the trooper was responding to an emergency call prior to being called off which would have been an appropriate instance to make a U-turn.

I do also see troopers make use of the U-turns for traffic enforcement which is also considered appropriate use.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:
As said it's a trade-off, do you leave someone trapped in a car for an extra 15 to 20 minutes, or allow for the chance there might be an accident every now and then when you allow for emergency vehicles to make U-turns?

I know it is radical, but I have seen people stop cars and walk/ run a hundered metres before. A police man does not need to drive every last yard if there is an emergency. The simple thing is that if there is U turns for emergency vehicles, unless they have gates or some other feature people will use them. Any traffic movement that involves near stationary vehicles pulling into fast moving traffic should be avoided at all costs, not matter who is attempting the move be they police or public.

[patric]

Sofar OHP's public statements have dealt with what may have compounded the accident rather than what caused it, so they may be thinking ahead to the inevitable lawsuit.
If it boils down to the OHP investigating itself, they may also be looking at a substantial ethics question, as well.

The periodic gaps in the Jersey Barrier could shave valuable minutes off the response time of vehicles responding to an emergency, but I do question non-emergency casual use by tow trucks or traffic enforcement that unnecessarily increase the chances of a catastrophic incident.

At the very least, I see a policy change on the horizon, and unfortunately nothing changes policy faster than bodies in bags.

[rwarn17588]

Question to anyone who knows: Was the spot where the accident occurred on the bottom of a hill?

[Jammie]

How sad.[]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Question to anyone who knows: Was the spot where the accident occurred on the bottom of a hill?

It would appear so based on the photo in Patric's first post.

[mspivey]

I'm not sure the policy (if there is one) is wrong. The Trooper made a mistake and he and another person paid the ultimate price. That doesn't mean a policy change is needed. How many turnarounds have been made safely?

As I read it the high speed chase was called off and he was to return to the Creek turnpike. This would make the turnaround a matter of convenience, not necessity. The whole thing is just too sad.

[rwarn17588]

Here's why I asked the question: If the trucker is on a downhill slope, it's darned near impossible to slow down much at all, even if you see a cop car with cherries flashing ahead.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by mspivey

I'm not sure the policy (if there is one) is wrong. The Trooper made a mistake and he and another person paid the ultimate price. That doesn't mean a policy change is needed. How many turnarounds have been made safely?

As I read it the high speed chase was called off and he was to return to the Creek turnpike. This would make the turnaround a matter of convenience, not necessity. The whole thing is just too sad.

If two people dying does not justify a policy change, I don't know what would change your mind.

This accident although dramatic and tragic is not at all unique. These u turns are a real death trap. They double the chance of a serious injury or death in an accident. I can't think of many things that do that and are still allowed.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by mspivey

I'm not sure the policy (if there is one) is wrong. The Trooper made a mistake and he and another person paid the ultimate price. That doesn't mean a policy change is needed. How many turnarounds have been made safely?

As I read it the high speed chase was called off and he was to return to the Creek turnpike. This would make the turnaround a matter of convenience, not necessity. The whole thing is just too sad.

If two people dying does not justify a policy change, I don't know what would change your mind.

This accident although dramatic and tragic is not at all unique. These u turns are a real death trap. They double the chance of a serious injury or death in an accident. I can't think of many things that do that and are still allowed.

True, but how many lives have been saved or will be saved by having a gap every 1.5 to 2.0 miles for a quicker emergency response so that a motorist doesn't bleed to death waiting for a first responder to go down to the next exit and double back?  

If you were pinned in your car in excruciating pain and flames just starting to come out from under the car, I doubt you'd be very happy to see an ambulance or fire truck pass you by in the opposing lane, knowing they have to make a 20 mile round trip before they can get turned around and get back to you.

Cars, in general, are dangerous in the wrong hands, but the only way to stop fatality auto accidents would be to ban cars, which wouldn't happen, and I'm not an advocate of it.

My brother was killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver just under six years ago, and I don't believe there's a need for a ban on alcohol.  Accidents will happen, people will make poor decisions at times, and knee-jerk reactions as a result aren't always a good idea.

Look, I'm not here to lampoon you, but a fair assessment would have to be made as far as how many accidents have happened as a result of U-turns through Jersey barriers vs. all other accidents on the turnpikes.  I'd be willing to bet it's a very, very small number.

[rwarn17588]

I'm with Conan on this. It's OK for authorized vehciles to use those angled holes. Just be damned careful when you do so.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

As I've said before. An Ambulance could stop, paramedic run over to the burning wreck and pull the guy out while the driver does the loop. People do have legs.

I'll try and find data for a wide variety of roads as to the percentage of crashes that involve U turn facilities, but the data I have will be limited to the UK. I've looked at one road in particular in my work. In it 5 of the U turn facilities have closed and lead to a drop in casualties on the road. Although the statistical impact is hard to assess as you typically need long periods of time to allow for the acumulation of data to allow for proper comparison as a fatal car crash is a relatively rare occurance.

The rough data on the road I looked at did see that U turns played a large role 50%+ in crashes on the small stretch the U turn effected. Be it people looking to make sure the car didn't attempt the move infront of them and get distracted, to incidents where cars meet directly and where cars have to swerve to avoid ill timed moves. Of course it could be more it is after hard for transport planners to interview the dead to see what they were actually doing and some people lie and claim it was sun and such like.

If you took your idea to one conclusion, then why have a barrier at all, what if I only had 15 seconds to live and he had to drive an extra half mile to the U turn. You can't create transport policy on what ifs and compelling stories about people you know. It has to be based on the best judgement of proffessionals using the best data they have to hand, because if they screw up people die plain and simple.

[Conan71]

The reason Jersey barriers were placed on the Turner and Will Rogers is they are on I-44 which is a major travel corridor through Oklahoma.  They were deemed necessary to cut down on a high rate of head-on collisions that were happening from drivers falling asleep at the wheel, hydro-planing on wet roads, and sliding across on ice or snow.  The medians were "peaked" which kept water from collecting in the middle and flooding the road.  This had an effect of launching vehicles when they went over the median.

In doing accident research you should have discovered by now that a direct-impact head-on collision where both vehicles are travelling at highway speeds of 55+ MPH is rarely surviveable.  IOW- the Jersey barrier has proven it's worth in cutting down on the least surviveable of collisions.

There is often a trade-off when it comes to safety.  You try to eliminate the most predominantly fatal dangers with the knowledge that there is still a much smaller chance for fatalities with whatever the changes are that you impliment.

If you have a crash and your car winds up stopped on the shoulder of say the west-bound lane of a highway, without a U-turn lane, first responders would be forced to either park on the shoulder of the east-bound lane and cross two lanes of traffic, scale a 2.5 or 3 ft. high barrier with heavy equipment and a stretcher and dodge another two lanes of traffic.  Or they stop in the inside lane, put more east-bound vehicles in danger and cross two more lanes of traffic on foot.  They would be required to keep running back and forth to make sure they had all the equipment they needed to extract you, stabilize you, and finally transport you.  Not safe or expedient at all.

This accident was a very, very rare occurance on Oklahoma roads.  Accidents are usually a combination and culmination of multiple factors happening at the same time...an unfortunate chain of events.

I believe I've read or heard that it's now believed that the truck driver swerved into the left lane.  It's possible he saw the lights on the OHP car slowing and saw the car moving toward the right preparing to make the U-turn. It's possible he didn't see a blinker for the confusion of the emergency lights, and assumed the patrolman was pulling off to the shoulder and he was doing what you should do when cars pull toward the shoulder and that's get in the left lane.  It's possible the patrolman had a blind spot and couldn't see the truck.  If the truck driver did swerve left as an evasive maneuver, it's possible that if he would have held his line in the right lane, we might not be having this conversation now.

It was an unfortunate chain of events that caused this, moreso than having U-turn cut-outs in a Jersey barrier.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

This is going to be really short as I'm away for the weekend very soon.

Interstates and limited access roads are on the whole extremely safe. The most dangerous part of the interstate is the junction where cars join and leave. Apart from that you are very unlikely to have an accident on one.

However unsignalised U turns on medians have on average 0.42 crashes a year. 30% of which are fatal or serious. (This is not US data). While the U turn may save time in a rare emergency it is much more likely to cause them than save them. Compare this 30% to 15% fatal/ serious for non U turn crashes.

I understand your arguement, but you are mistaken. I would recommend reading suburban nation, which looks at road design. In it, it shows that roads designed for fire trucks to go down quickly cause accidents due to them allow other road users to speed. The concept is roughly the same when applied to the U turn example, while designing a road to speed up the rescue of people you may be actually creating a much more dangerous road.

PS from your previous post cars almost never catch fire when they crash. That would be highly unusual.