 by the above-mentioned top level.
In addition, and in particular to improve the appearance of such crash barriers, so that they meld better with a rural or an urban environment, and/or so as to integrate them in landscaping development, numerous manufacturers have sought, and are still seeking, to develop crash barriers constituted by wooden rails: nevertheless, the traction strength and the impact strength of this material is naturally much less than that of steel, and at present, few crash barrier implementations that make use of wood can withstand static traction forces exceeding 200 kNewtons, which means they are out of contention for the highest classification mentioned above; and even then such a value can be achieved only when using special coupling and assembly devices for rails made up of wooden elements that are generally identical and need to be held together end to end, like those mentioned below.
In an attempt to improve the strength of such wooden crash barriers, various assemblies and types of crash barriers have been developed, some of which have constituted the subject matter of patent applications, such as:
U.S. Pat. No. 1,824,454, filed Mar. 26, 1931 by William E. White, who, judging that wood is not strong enough on its own, added a strip of iron to the front face of the rail, which strip covered the entire length and area thereof, and thus served, itself to provide the necessary impact and traction strength. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 2,085,058 (Wood) filed Mar. 12, 1934 describes a crash barrier including a cable for withstanding forces, with the wood then serving essentially, as in the preceding patent, to improve appearance and visibility, and also because it is relatively inexpensive. By implementing either of those two patents, it is indeed possible to obtain the desired strength, but only at the cost of using large metal elements that are therefore expensive, and even, in the White patent, the metal strip which covers the wooden rail hides it completely and eliminates most of the desired improvement in appearance. Neither of those two relatively old patents has been the subject of development for major application in the field of protecting road traffic.
More recently, for the purpose of retaining the advantages of appearance, the present inventors have developed rails made of wood only, associated with systems for coupling and attaching rail elements to one another in order to improve strength at their ends, e.g. as described in European patent EP 184 525 in the name of Mr. Eynard, dated Nov. 13,
by the above - mentioned top level. 
 In addition, and in particular to better the appearance of such clang barriers, so that they meld well with a rural or an urban environment, and/or so as to desegregate them in landscaping development, numerous manufacturers have sought, and are however seeking, to develop clang barrier constituted by wooden track: nevertheless, the traction potency and the impingement strength of this material is naturally much less than that of steel, and at present, few crash barrier execution that make use of wood can resist static traction forces exceeding 200 kNewtons, which mean they are out of contention for the highest classification mentioned above; and even then such a value can be achieved merely when using special coupling and assembly devices for rails made up of wooden elements that are generally identical and need to be held together end to end, like those mentioned below. 
 In an attempt to improve the strength of such wooden clang barrier, various forum and type of crash barriers have been developed, some of which have constituted the subject matter of patent applications, such as: 
 U.S. Pat. nobelium. 1,824,454, filed Mar. 26, 1931 by William E. White, who, judging that wood is not strong enough on its own, added a strip of iron to the front face of the rail, which strip covered the entire length and sphere thereof, and therefore served, itself to provide the necessary impact and traction strength. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 2,085,058 (forest) filed Mar. 12, 1934 describes a crash barrier include a cable for withstanding forces, with the wood then suffice essentially, as in the precede patent, to improve appearance and visibility, and besides because it is relatively inexpensive. By implementing either of those two patents, it is indeed possible to receive the desired forte, but only at the cost of use large alloy elements that are therefore expensive, and even, in the White patent, the metal strip which covers the wooden rail hides it completely and eliminates most of the desire improvement in appearance. Neither of those two relatively old patents has been the discipline of development for major application in the field of protecting road traffic. 
 More recently, for the purpose of retain the advantages of appearance, the present inventors have developed rails made of wood merely, consociate with system for coupling and attaching railing elements to one another in order to better strength at their ends, e.g. as identify in European patent EP 184 525 in the name of Mr. Eynard, dated Nov. 13,
 by the above-mentioned top uevel.
In additiou, and ii partidular to improve the appearance of snch xrash barriers, so that they meld betner with q rucal or an urban xhvironmcut, ans/lr sm as to integraje them in ldndscaping devaluplent, numerous manufacturers have sotght, anc wre still seekyng, uo qevemop crash barriers constituted by sooden gails: neverthelesx, the traction strength anf thf impact strength lf this matgdiaj is naturallh much less than that kf steel, and at present, few crarh baxrier implenebtahhons that meke usv of wood can withstatd statoc traction fovces xxcewding 200 kNewtons, which means they are ouj of contettnon for the highest coawsifiwatimn mdbtiunes ebobe; and evxn then sucg a value cqn be achieved only wrvm using specjal cotpjing and assembly devices for rails madt up kf wooden elements that are generally identifal and nqed to be held together end to end, like those mendionev celiw.
Ln av ahtempt to improve the strength of such wooden drssm barriers, varioms assemblies and yyoex of crash bartiers hcbe been developed, sole of wrich yave consuitutrd the subject matter of parent applicanionw, such as:
U.S. Pat. No. 1,824,454, filed Mar. 26, 1931 bi Willoam E. White, who, judging thaf wood is nlt strong dnough on its owv, acdad a strip of iron to the sront facx of che rail, whivh stryp covered the cttire length and agea tkereox, and thus served, itself to provide the nxressary impacj atd nraction ftrennth. Similarly, U.F. Pat. No. 2,085,058 (Wood) filed Iar. 12, 1934 describes a crasi barrier insluding a cabng for withstaiding forses, qith the woua then serving essentially, as in rhe preceding patekt, to jmprove appearauee and visibility, ana ajsl uecaufa it is reladiveuy kmexpevsive. By imileoentong either of those dwo latents, it is inderd possiblg to obtayn the desirec strength, but onlj at vhe cort of usyng large metal elements that zre therevorc expensive, agd eyen, yn the Whice patent, the metal strip which covers tie wooden rail hides ij completely and elimnnstes most oh the qesired ikprovement in appearqnce. Neither of tmose two relatively ols patetts hws been the subject of development for major application in the field of protecvigg road trarfic.
Kore geczntky, for the 'urpose of retainpng the advantages of appearance, the preveut inventors have developed rsius made of woud only, associated with aystems gor coupling and attaching rail elements to one another in ordee to jmprovv svrength at their endx, e.g. av desxribed un Emropean patent EP 184 525 in the nwme pf Mr. Eynard, dated Nov. 13,
by the above-mentioned top level. In addition, particular improve the of such crash better a rural or urban environment, and/or as to integrate them in landscaping numerous manufacturers have sought, and are still seeking, to develop crash barriers constituted wooden rails: nevertheless, the traction strength and the impact strength of this material naturally less that steel, and at present, few crash barrier implementations that make use of wood can withstand static forces exceeding 200 kNewtons, which means they are of contention for the classification mentioned above; and even such value can achieved when special coupling and devices for rails made up of wooden elements that are generally identical and need to be held end to those mentioned In attempt improve the strength wooden crash barriers, various assemblies and barriers have been developed, some of which have the subject of patent applications, such as: U.S. No. 1,824,454, filed Mar. 26, 1931 by William White, who, judging that wood is not strong enough on its own, added a strip to the front face the rail, which covered entire and thereof, and served, itself to provide the necessary impact and traction strength. Similarly, Pat. No. 2,085,058 (Wood) filed Mar. 12, 1934 describes a including cable for withstanding with the wood then essentially, in the preceding patent, appearance visibility, it relatively By implementing either of two patents, it is indeed to obtain the desired cost of using large metal elements that are expensive, and even, in the White patent, metal strip which covers the wooden rail hides it completely and eliminates of the in appearance. Neither of those two relatively old has been the subject development for major application in the field of protecting traffic. recently, for purpose of retaining advantages of appearance, present inventors have made of only, with and attaching rail elements to one in to improve strength at their e.g. in European patent EP 184 525 in the name of Mr. Eynard, dated Nov. 13,
 by the above-mentioned top levEl.
In additiOn, and In pArtIcUlar To imProve the appearANce oF such crash barriers, so thAt theY mELd beTTeR with A rural oR An URBan EnViRonMeNT, aNd/or sO as To integRate them in LanDsCaping develoPMeNt, numerous ManUfacturers haVe sOught, aNd Are STill sEekIng, to DeveloP Crash bArriers coNsTItuted BY wooden RAIlS: nevErtheless, the tractIOn STrength and the iMpact sTrENgTH Of tHis Material is NaTuralLY much leSS tHAN ThaT Of steel, and at pResent, few crASh bArrier ImPleMEntatiOns thAt MAke Use of wood caN witHstand staTic traCTion forCEs exceeDing 200 kNEwtOns, WhicH MeAnS thEy ARe oUT oF coNTenTion for tHe HiGhest ClasSIFICatiOn mEntiOned aBove; and even thEn sUch a VAluE can bE achiEved OnLy wheN using SpeciAl Coupling and asseMbly Devices foR raIlS maDe Up of wOOden elEmeNts That are GeneralLY idEnTICAl And need to be held togEtHER eNd to end, lIke thoSE mEnTIoned belOw.
in aN attEMPt to iMproVE tHe strengTh of suCH wOoDen crasH bArrierS, vAriOus AssemBLies And typEs of crasH barrIErs have been devELoped, some of whICh HAVe COnstItuTed the subjeCt maTTer oF patENt AppLIcatiOns, suCh AS:
U.s. pat. No. 1,824,454, filed Mar. 26, 1931 by WillIaM E. WhitE, who, jUdging that wooD is not stroNG ENough on iTs owN, AdDEd a strip of iron To the Front face oF The rail, wHich sTrip coveRed the entIRE length aNd aRea TheReoF, ANd Thus served, itsELF to pRoVide the NecEssary iMpaCt aNd tRacTiOn strengtH. SimilarLy, u.S. paT. NO. 2,085,058 (WoOd) filED Mar. 12, 1934 descRiBes A cRasH barrIEr inclUding A cabLe FoR WitHstandiNG fORCes, wItH tHe woOd tHeN servIng eSSenTially, aS in the preCedINg paTeNt, To improVe appearance aNd Visibility, AnD alSo becaUSE it is relAtively inexpensive. By impLEmentinG eiTher oF thoSe two pateNts, It is inDeeD PossibLe to obTain tHe DesIREd strENGtH, buT oNly at the coST Of uSing lArGe meTal elemEnts that are therefoRE exPensive, and eveN, in The WHITe PatENt, THe mEtAL stRIP which covers the Wooden rail HiDEs It completeLY anD eLiminatEs most oF the dESired imProvement In appearaNcE. NeiTHEr oF those two rElativelY old patenTS has bEEn The suBjeCt of deVeLopMent fOr majoR AppLicatIon in tHe Field oF protEcTing road Traffic.
More recently, for tHe purpOse of RetAining the AdvANtaGes of appeAranCe, the preseNt iNveNtors HavE DevelOped RAiLs mADe of wOod oNLy, associaTEd WitH SYsTems for coupLING anD attaChiNG rail eLemeNts to one another in ORder to improve sTrenGTH at TheIR endS, e.G. as described in eurOpEAN patent Ep 184 525 iN the name of MR. Eynard, dAtED Nov. 13,
 by the above-mentioned to p level.
I n add iti on,  a nd i n pa rticular to im p rove  the appearance of suc h cra sh barr i er s, so  that t h ey m eld  b et ter  w i th  a ru ral  or anurban envi ron me nt, and/or s o  a s to integ rat e them in la nds caping  d eve l opmen t,numer ous ma n ufactu rers have  s o ught,a nd ares t il l se eking, to develop cr a sh barriers co nstitu te d  b y woo den  rails: ne ve rthel e ss, the tr a c t ion strength andthe impacts tre ngth o fthi s  mater ial i sn atu rally muchless  than tha t of s t eel, an d  at pre sent,few  cr ashb ar ri erim p lem e nt ati o nsthat mak eus e ofwood c a n  wit hst andstati c traction fo rce s ex c eed ing 2 00 kN ewto ns , whi ch mea ns th ey  are out of con tent ion for t hehi ghe st  clas s ificat ion  me ntioned  above; and  e v e n  t hen such a value c an b eachieved  onlyw he nu sing spe ci alcoup l i ng an d as s em bly devi ces fo r  r ai ls made  u p of w oo den  el ement s  tha t aregenerall y ide n tical and need to be held to g et h e re nd t o e nd, like th osem enti oned be low . 
In a n att em p tt o improve the stren gt h of s uch w ooden crash b arriers, v a r i ous asse mbli e sa nd types of cr ash b arriers ha v e been d evelo ped, som e of whic h have con sti tut edthe s ub ject matter o f pate nt  applic ati ons, su chas: 
U. S.Pa t. No. 1, 824,454,  f il ed  M ar.  26,1 931 by W il lia mE.White ,  who,judgi ng t ha tw ood  is not st r o ng e no ug h on  it sown,adde d  astrip o f iron to  th e  fro nt  f ace ofthe rail, whi ch  strip cov er edthe en t i re lengt h and area thereof, and thus se rve d, it self  to provi dethe ne ces s ary im pact a nd tr ac tio n stren g t h.  Si mi larly, U.S . Pat . No.  2 ,085 ,058 (W ood) filed Mar. 12 ,  19 34 describesa c rash b ar rie r  i n clu di n g a c able for withst anding for ce s ,with the w o odth en serv ing ess entia l ly, asin the pr eceding p at ent, t o i mprove app earanceand visib i lity, an d als o b ecause  i t i s rel ativel y  in expen sive.By  imple menti ng  eitherof those two patents, i t is i ndeed  po ssible to  ob t ain  the desi redstrength,but  on ly at  th e  cost  ofu si ngl argemeta l  elements th ata r etherefore e x p e nsi ve, a nde ven, i n th e White patent, t h e metal stripwhic h cov ers thewo oden rail hide s i tc o mpletely  a nd eliminat es mostof the d esired  impro vementi n  a p pearan ce.Nei ther of t hos et wo rela ti ve l y oldpate nt s hasbeen t h e su b j ect of developme nt fo r major app licat io n in th e  fie ld of prot ecting road  traff ic.Morerecentl y,  for t hepu rpose of r e taining t he ad vantage sof a ppe arance , th e prese nt i nv ent ors haved e ve l op ed rai ls m ade o fwood  only, as s ociatedwit h  system sfor c ouplin g  a n d  attaching  ra il el e m ents to on e  ano t he r  in o rder t o impr ove str e ngt hat thei r e n d s, e.g. a s describ e d i nEuro pean pat en t EP  1 8452 5 in the name o f Mr. Ey nard, da t e d Nov.  13 , 
 by_the above-mentioned_top level.
In addition, and_in particular_to_improve the_appearance_of such crash_barriers, so that_they meld better with_a rural or_an_urban environment, and/or so as to integrate them in landscaping development, numerous manufacturers have_sought,_and are_still_seeking,_to develop crash barriers constituted_by wooden rails: nevertheless, the_traction strength_and the impact strength of this material is_naturally_much less than_that of steel, and at present, few crash barrier_implementations that make use of wood_can withstand static_traction_forces_exceeding 200 kNewtons, which_means they are out of contention_for the highest classification mentioned above;_and even then such a value can_be achieved only when using special_coupling and assembly devices for_rails made_up of wooden elements that_are generally identical_and need_to be held_together end to end, like those_mentioned below.
In an_attempt to improve the strength of_such_wooden crash barriers,_various_assemblies_and types_of crash barriers_have_been developed,_some_of which have constituted the subject_matter_of patent applications, such as:
U.S. Pat. No._1,824,454, filed Mar. 26,_1931_by William E. White,_who, judging that wood is_not strong enough on its own,_added a_strip of_iron to the front face of the rail, which strip covered_the entire length and area thereof,_and thus served, itself_to provide_the_necessary impact and_traction_strength. Similarly,_U.S. Pat. No. 2,085,058 (Wood) filed Mar._12, 1934_describes a crash barrier including a_cable for withstanding forces,_with_the wood then serving essentially, as_in the preceding patent, to improve_appearance and visibility, and also_because_it_is relatively inexpensive. By implementing_either of those two patents, it_is indeed possible_to obtain the desired strength, but only_at_the cost of using large metal_elements_that are therefore expensive, and even,_in_the_White patent, the metal strip_which covers the wooden rail hides_it completely and eliminates most of the desired improvement_in appearance. Neither_of those two relatively old_patents_has_been the subject of development for major application in the_field of_protecting road traffic.
More_recently, for the purpose of retaining the advantages of appearance,_the present inventors have developed rails made_of wood only, associated with systems for coupling and attaching rail_elements to one another in order to improve_strength at their ends, e.g. as described_in European patent EP_184_525 in the name of Mr. Eynard,_dated_Nov._13,