Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2020 December 16
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 15 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
December 16
editIncomplete sentence
editThe last sentence of M1 motorway#Lighting is incomplete. 79.180.68.135 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done!
- Oh, and by the way, while I was fixing the page, I realised how stupid and ridiculous the English motorways are. Not like our Scottish motorways, where the hard shoulders are wide, and our central reservations are not made of concrete. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Concrete step barriers are replacing the steel Armco barriers on motorway central reservations because they are safer. The somewhat contravesial smart motorways are necessary due to the higher traffic density we have at this end of the Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was always of the impression that metal was better, as it has the ability to deform under pressure, which I feel would absorb some of the impact. Concrete is rock hard, and so that would be worse, surely? 95.148.142.113 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The angle of impact (the angle between the direction in which the vehicle makes contact and the barrier) is critically important. If it is a sharp angle, the vehicle more often rebounds back to the road with a concrete step barrier, and the sides of the vehicle next to its occupants are then not or hardly deformed. The majority of transgressions leading to contact are at such a sharp angle. At the usually high speed on motorways with a safety barrier, a "head-on" impact with a steel barrier is about as deadly as with a concrete barrier; the deformation of the metal barrier absorbs only a relatively small amount of the energy. --Lambiam 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Every week there are at least two motorway crossover accidents resulting in an annual death toll of around 40 people. This fact shows that steel barriers are no longer adequate to cope with heavier lorries and growing traffic levels. Crossovers are among the most serious motorway accidents which, apart from the price in Slipformed concrete barriers offer an effective and long term economic solution to the problem of catastrophic crossover accidents". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind the fact that the same article also gives reasons why steel is better... 95.148.142.113 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's the best source anyway since it's a debate with various opinions mostly from COI parties (e.g. Corus Tubes seems to be a manufacturer of steel tubes and pipes, the other one was from the Concrete Paving association) and from 2002. At least when I tried, this is surprisingly hard to find good sources. Our article Concrete step barrier and [2] has some discussion but these aren't great sources. From a quick look, most research I found may have compared different types of concrete barriers or steel barriers but not between the two [3] [4] [5] [6]. (I wonder what it in this, I don't have access [7].) But I'm fairly sure Alansplodge and Lambian are right, and you're wrong. For modern urban motorway use, concrete barriers are better than steel barriers in terms of safety performance. There may be situations where steel is better like head on collisions but realistically head on collisions with barriers on motorways are rare. As Lambian and our Traffic barrier article mentions, the barriers are designed to ideally deflect vehicles in more ordinary impacts. Some sources suggest a high risk of rollover with concrete barriers although it seems to depend on design [8] [9] [10] and I think these decisions are as often the case, striking a balance between the various risks associated with different types of vehicles and collisions. Also this study which only looked at odds of injury did find concrete was the worst [11] (also mentioned here [12]), but that's only metric. One of the big problems with steel barriers seems to be it's poor performance in stopping a heavy vehicle from crossing the median means it's significantly worse in it's primary job on motorways. If you think a head on collision with a concrete barrier is an unpleasant experience, try a head on collision with a heavy vehicle travelling at 80 km/h in the other direction..... Concrete barriers are also more likely to survive a collision without requiring maintenance meaning less disruptive to traffic flow and less risk of injury or death to those who need to fix the things. Also from what I can tell this seems to be the consensus of most motorway engineers in a lot of the world. For other types of roads or highways, where different considerations apply, things can be different. This is probably also why it's hard to find comparisons. For most researchers, that debate was settled a long time ago. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Personal observation here: In the U.S., they have been moving away from steel barriers to separate oncoming traffic for years. Design standards for such barriers have changed at least twice; in the early years of freeways (motorways in the UK) the standard barrier was a cable barrier, but starting in the 1970s-1980s the trend shifted to replacing these with steel guardrails such as the design shown here. By the 1990s, those were replaced by concrete Jersey barriers in situations without a wide central median (called a reservation in the UK); you can still find cable barriers where the central median is wider than the roadways, but where there is basically no grassy area between the roadways, nearly all freeways built or re-built since the 1990s use Jersey barriers to separate oncoming traffic. I've been watching them rebuild I-40 here in Raleigh for several years, and while the prior road used steel guardrails, the new road (seen here) uses fairly tall concrete barriers. You still see steel guardrails used for the right-side where there's a downslope or something (if you go back up the road I show you about 100 yards, you can see them used there). --Jayron32 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is what you posted: "One of the big problems with steel barriers seems to be it's poor performance in stopping a heavy vehicle from crossing the median means it's significantly worse in it's primary job on motorways." 84.209.119.241 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do drunk or impaired drivers ever drive between freeway bridges and fall many feet? (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure if I'm reading your question correctly User:Sagittarian Milky Way, but in 1993, ten people (nine were American tourists) were killed when their coach (long-distance bus) went through a steel barrier and down an embankment on the M2 motorway in Kent. In 2001, the Selby rail crash was caused by a Land Rover leaving the M62 motorway, going down an embankment and landing on a main rail line; 10 were killed and 82 injured. The safety barrier protecting the bridge was too short to stop the car; the driver went to prison for falling asleep. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Driving at least roughly parallel to the lanes, but on the grass between carriageways, then the grass drops off where the freeway becomes made of multiple bridges, and you drive right between the bridges and fall onto an underpass or river or whatever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you mean. I don't think that would be possible in the UK as main roads are carefully risk-assessed.
- However, I did find: "A woman who died after a car she was in caught fire on the A21, is thought to have been trying to reach a place of safety between crash barriers, unaware in the dark there was a 50ft drop in between them". [13] Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vehicles can, of course, run off the road at any time - it would be prohibitively expensive to build barriers separating the road from the surrounding countryside. 78.145.28.23 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Driving at least roughly parallel to the lanes, but on the grass between carriageways, then the grass drops off where the freeway becomes made of multiple bridges, and you drive right between the bridges and fall onto an underpass or river or whatever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure if I'm reading your question correctly User:Sagittarian Milky Way, but in 1993, ten people (nine were American tourists) were killed when their coach (long-distance bus) went through a steel barrier and down an embankment on the M2 motorway in Kent. In 2001, the Selby rail crash was caused by a Land Rover leaving the M62 motorway, going down an embankment and landing on a main rail line; 10 were killed and 82 injured. The safety barrier protecting the bridge was too short to stop the car; the driver went to prison for falling asleep. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do drunk or impaired drivers ever drive between freeway bridges and fall many feet? (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's the best source anyway since it's a debate with various opinions mostly from COI parties (e.g. Corus Tubes seems to be a manufacturer of steel tubes and pipes, the other one was from the Concrete Paving association) and from 2002. At least when I tried, this is surprisingly hard to find good sources. Our article Concrete step barrier and [2] has some discussion but these aren't great sources. From a quick look, most research I found may have compared different types of concrete barriers or steel barriers but not between the two [3] [4] [5] [6]. (I wonder what it in this, I don't have access [7].) But I'm fairly sure Alansplodge and Lambian are right, and you're wrong. For modern urban motorway use, concrete barriers are better than steel barriers in terms of safety performance. There may be situations where steel is better like head on collisions but realistically head on collisions with barriers on motorways are rare. As Lambian and our Traffic barrier article mentions, the barriers are designed to ideally deflect vehicles in more ordinary impacts. Some sources suggest a high risk of rollover with concrete barriers although it seems to depend on design [8] [9] [10] and I think these decisions are as often the case, striking a balance between the various risks associated with different types of vehicles and collisions. Also this study which only looked at odds of injury did find concrete was the worst [11] (also mentioned here [12]), but that's only metric. One of the big problems with steel barriers seems to be it's poor performance in stopping a heavy vehicle from crossing the median means it's significantly worse in it's primary job on motorways. If you think a head on collision with a concrete barrier is an unpleasant experience, try a head on collision with a heavy vehicle travelling at 80 km/h in the other direction..... Concrete barriers are also more likely to survive a collision without requiring maintenance meaning less disruptive to traffic flow and less risk of injury or death to those who need to fix the things. Also from what I can tell this seems to be the consensus of most motorway engineers in a lot of the world. For other types of roads or highways, where different considerations apply, things can be different. This is probably also why it's hard to find comparisons. For most researchers, that debate was settled a long time ago. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind the fact that the same article also gives reasons why steel is better... 95.148.142.113 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Every week there are at least two motorway crossover accidents resulting in an annual death toll of around 40 people. This fact shows that steel barriers are no longer adequate to cope with heavier lorries and growing traffic levels. Crossovers are among the most serious motorway accidents which, apart from the price in Slipformed concrete barriers offer an effective and long term economic solution to the problem of catastrophic crossover accidents". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The angle of impact (the angle between the direction in which the vehicle makes contact and the barrier) is critically important. If it is a sharp angle, the vehicle more often rebounds back to the road with a concrete step barrier, and the sides of the vehicle next to its occupants are then not or hardly deformed. The majority of transgressions leading to contact are at such a sharp angle. At the usually high speed on motorways with a safety barrier, a "head-on" impact with a steel barrier is about as deadly as with a concrete barrier; the deformation of the metal barrier absorbs only a relatively small amount of the energy. --Lambiam 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was always of the impression that metal was better, as it has the ability to deform under pressure, which I feel would absorb some of the impact. Concrete is rock hard, and so that would be worse, surely? 95.148.142.113 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Concrete step barriers are replacing the steel Armco barriers on motorway central reservations because they are safer. The somewhat contravesial smart motorways are necessary due to the higher traffic density we have at this end of the Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, while I was fixing the page, I realised how stupid and ridiculous the English motorways are. Not like our Scottish motorways, where the hard shoulders are wide, and our central reservations are not made of concrete. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Witness Tree Protection Program
editThe National Park Service established The Witness Tree Protection Program in 2006, as part of the Historic American Landscapes Survey. This suggests that there must be something like a national witness tree registry. Is there? And, is there any relevant WP article? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Written histories and photographs of the trees are archived at the Library of Congress."[14] A search for "Witness Tree Protection Program" on the website of the LoC lists entries for 25 trees.[15] --Lambiam 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- More details here describing a number of trees, but not an actual list. Witness Tree Protection Program has yet to be written. It could be you. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
How do I Create a wiki Page for a Relative?
editI want to create a wikipedia page for a relative, per their request. I would like to know the steps I need to take to be able to do this. I have read a person needs to be "notable"; who decides whether they are notable or not? Who is allowed to write a page? How much does this cost? I would appreciate any and all information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjhart154223 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Have a look at WP:YFA. --Viennese Waltz 19:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The OP actually asked on the Help Desk page first, but they didn't respond yet. However, you've provided the right answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The bottleneck for such per request articles is almost always the notability requirement of three or more reliable sources, published independently of the subject and of each other, that are about the subject, rather than just mentioning them. No sources, no Wikipedia page. --Lambiam 21:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kjhart154223: Re:
How much does this cost?
- Editors are volunteers & "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (unless they've been banned). So, the answer is "nothing". But, please see: WP:SCAM. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:9907:139E:459:8414 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kjhart154223: Re: