I refer you to my previous message.

The stats shown by the BMF are interesting, they fail to take into account that the accidents would have happened anyway and would also have resulted in serious injury. Armco also has bolts that are not flush with the surface of the barrier. (are they in your country?) This causes tearing injuries similar to those described.

MAG Austria and the Danish are right to mount the opposition they did given that the application was at the roadside. MAG UK gave them their full support for this.

The protectors that MAG Austria are on about seem most suited to Armco applications and work extremely well. In all honesty the idea should have been implemented rather than the creation of wire ropes. It is probably possible to get one of these protectors sent to you, though they are quite large. I will arrange this if you wish. I must reiterate that you should concentrate your campaign on roadside applications only. You stand a better chance of winning your case. Also if you lose the argument on central reservation fitment, you could end up with them on the sides of roads as a matter of course.

Also be aware that there are a lot of differing opinions on this -- as you're already finding out!

Take care and good luck

Regards

Craig.
--Craig A Carey-Clinch.

ps. Testing items on dead bodies works rather well. This was done for motorcycle air bags in France, the results showing that air bags can break necks. Any use to you?

======================================================================

MAG UK, PO Box 750, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B30 3BA, England
craig@mag2.demon.co.uk or; bikers_mags@mmp2.demon.co.uk

MAG Ireland, PO Box 4491, B.A.C 18, Eire
Mail, David French; david_f@s3dub.ie

MAG UK Home Page: http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/mag.html
MAG Irl Home Page: http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/irl/magirl.htm
======================================================================