Steve O
08-05-2010, 03:31 PM
At the last BAC meeting I made mention of the three consecutive bollards on the connector to Van Buren St. just east of the Lee Highway intersection.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k_xVNJhFaqo/TFsQPB5aUiI/AAAAAAAAAQE/9UD0tjMtsPI/s320/three+bollards+in+150+feet.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k_xVNJhFaqo/TFsQTDu9akI/AAAAAAAAAQM/fJejzh5MxE0/s320/Two+useless+bollards.jpg
Along those same lines, not long ago I blogged about the uselessness of these trail hazards (http://www.commuterpageblog.com/2010/02/to-stanchion-or-not-to-stanchion.html). The really questionable ones are ones that occur at the intersection of two trails. Huh? What's the point of that?
Obviously by bringing it up at the meeting I jinxed myself. Just yesterday I was cycling with my daughter on the Bluemont Junction Trail. She is still gaining confidence as a cyclist, so she wobbles a bit, particular when starting and at low speeds. We stopped to cross Evergreen Street, and, lo and behold, as we got started she collided with the bollard on the opposite side of the street. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k_xVNJhFaqo/TFsQV_WnuLI/AAAAAAAAAQU/AyzEpr1qSBU/s320/guilty+bollard+bluemont+jctn+at+Evergreen+st.jpg
Fortunately it was a low-speed encounter--but, of course, she cried for a couple of minutes until she regained her composure and we could move on. This just redoubles my opinion that these obstacles are more liability than benefit and should be removed until there is a history of trail encroachments.
Pretty much the entirety of the W&OD does not have bollards. What do they know that we do not? (Or what do we know that they do not?)
Steve
Self-Appointed Chair of Remove the Useless Bollards (RUB)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k_xVNJhFaqo/TFsQPB5aUiI/AAAAAAAAAQE/9UD0tjMtsPI/s320/three+bollards+in+150+feet.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k_xVNJhFaqo/TFsQTDu9akI/AAAAAAAAAQM/fJejzh5MxE0/s320/Two+useless+bollards.jpg
Along those same lines, not long ago I blogged about the uselessness of these trail hazards (http://www.commuterpageblog.com/2010/02/to-stanchion-or-not-to-stanchion.html). The really questionable ones are ones that occur at the intersection of two trails. Huh? What's the point of that?
Obviously by bringing it up at the meeting I jinxed myself. Just yesterday I was cycling with my daughter on the Bluemont Junction Trail. She is still gaining confidence as a cyclist, so she wobbles a bit, particular when starting and at low speeds. We stopped to cross Evergreen Street, and, lo and behold, as we got started she collided with the bollard on the opposite side of the street. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k_xVNJhFaqo/TFsQV_WnuLI/AAAAAAAAAQU/AyzEpr1qSBU/s320/guilty+bollard+bluemont+jctn+at+Evergreen+st.jpg
Fortunately it was a low-speed encounter--but, of course, she cried for a couple of minutes until she regained her composure and we could move on. This just redoubles my opinion that these obstacles are more liability than benefit and should be removed until there is a history of trail encroachments.
Pretty much the entirety of the W&OD does not have bollards. What do they know that we do not? (Or what do we know that they do not?)
Steve
Self-Appointed Chair of Remove the Useless Bollards (RUB)