Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Barrier design no substitute for safety

Letters

Steve Pate (NCE 25 July) is correct in highlighting a number of concerns in respect of the safety currently afforded to traffic management operatives by barriers on motorways.

However, I think his correspondence raises more fundamental concerns as to the methods of installing the advance signing rather than highlighting any particular 'design flaw' of concrete barrier compared with tensioned steel barrier.

No risk assessment can be justified that supports operatives crossing multiple high speed traffic lanes while carrying signs and frames. I believe current Health & Safety Executive and Highways Agency advice requires lane closures to be carried out under the protection of vehicles equipped with crash cushions.

The argument for using tensioned steel barriers to support this method of traffic management installation must therefore be flawed.

However, a possible solution might be to incorporate a socket in the top of the barrier so that a sign can be mounted and locked parallel to the barrier when not in use.

Mike Millar, chair Britpave technical committee, Mike.Millar@mowlem. com

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.