Bad News from the W&OD Last Night

[eminva]

The Vienna Patch is reporting that a car hit a cyclist while driving on the trail. The driver was arrested. Apparently alcohol was involved.

Liz

[SDAyres]

There’s a couple of stories – and at least one video – of cars driving on the W&OD, apparently by accident. This drunk driver takes it to a new level.

Is there anything that can be done to keep cars off the trail? I would hate to see posts or gates – they themselves would be hazards to cyclists – but is there another solution?

– Shannon

[baiskeli]

I hate to say it since many cyclists hate bollards, but bollards were meant to stop this sort of thing. I don’t know what else to do except maybe narrow the trail entrance by putting bollards or barriers on either side.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 53802 wrote:

I hate to say it since many cyclists hate bollards, but bollards were meant to stop this sort of thing. I don’t know what else to do except maybe narrow the trail entrance by putting bollards or barriers on either side.

I believe this is why the campaign is to remove “useless” bollards (and all bollard collars, since those are nothing but a hazard).

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 53808 wrote:

I believe this is why the campaign is to remove “useless” bollards (and all bollard collars, since those are nothing but a hazard).

Okay, but what’s a useless bollard and what’s a useful one?

I’ve certainly seen several bollards removed in spots where a car could easily turn onto the trail from a street.

I love that the bollards are gone too, I just wonder if some weren’t so useless and whether we need to do something else.

[KLizotte]

I really don’t like bollards in the middle of the trail but I wonder for places where a car could conceivably mistake the trail for a road that putting up bollards on either side of the trail might work. The downside of that of course is that ambulances would not be able to get through.

[dasgeh]

@KLizotte 53822 wrote:

I really don’t like bollards in the middle of the trail but I wonder for places where a car could conceivably mistake the trail for a road that putting up bollards on either side of the trail might work. The downside of that of course is that ambulances would not be able to get through.

To be fair, I doubt this woman “mistook” the trail for the road. Sounds like she had no idea what she was doing. The better solution is to keep these people out of cars in the first place.

[bobco85]

I feel like the use of flex-post technology is rather new to our area, and would like to see that in greater use on our trails at every potential vehicular access point. No need for a bollard collar, and even if a cyclist runs into one it will deal a lot less damage to the cyclist than a stiff post. They allow emergency and park vehicles to pass through without difficulty. I think cyclists would adapt to expect bollards at every intersection, taking the dangerous element of surprise out of the situation.

@dasgeh 53825 wrote:

To be fair, I doubt this woman “mistook” the trail for the road. Sounds like she had no idea what she was doing. The better solution is to keep these people out of cars in the first place.

If we were to have greater use of flex-posts, I think (more like optimistically assume) that even a drunk would be able to tell that they just ran into/over something like a flex-post and that they would stop because of it. Well, if not drunk drivers, then at least most people in general would be discouraged from driving on the trails.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 53825 wrote:

To be fair, I doubt this woman “mistook” the trail for the road. Sounds like she had no idea what she was doing. The better solution is to keep these people out of cars in the first place.

Quite true, but we didn’t do that, and she hit someone. We can’t stop all drunk driving.

[KLizotte]

@bobco85 53837 wrote:

If we were to have greater use of flex-posts, I think (more like optimistically assume) that even a drunk would be able to tell that they just ran into/over something like a flex-post and that they would stop because of it. Well, if not drunk drivers, then at least most people in general would be discouraged from driving on the trails.

Well, they may stop normal, non-drunk folks but a flex post wouldn’t have stopped this lady; she did hit someone after all. I’m so glad the cops were able to nab her though I doubt she will get much of a punishment though.

[eminva]

I think bollards are considered unworkable on the W&OD because there are legitimate reasons motor vehicles need access (park authority trucks picking up trash or doing maintenance, utility trucks servicing the transmission lines and emergency vehicles).

There have been flexible posts at a few intersections, including Maple Avenue and Sandburg Street in Dunn Loring, but those have not always stood the test of time. I assume they would deter the average confused but not dramatically impaired motorist.

Liz

[jabberwocky]

@KLizotte 53839 wrote:

I’m so glad the cops were able to nab her though I doubt she will get much of a punishment though.

Well, they’ve charged her with felony hit and run (a class 5 felony when there is bodily injury), which carries a 1-10 year jail term on its own. Coupled with the drunk driving, I imagine she’ll be spending some time in a jail cell.

[baiskeli]

@eminva 53841 wrote:

I think bollards are considered unworkable on the W&OD because there are legitimate reasons motor vehicles need access (park authority trucks picking up trash or doing maintenance, utility trucks servicing the transmission lines and emergency vehicles).

But that’s why the bollards were removable – hence the collar(d)s.

[KLizotte]

@jabberwocky 53844 wrote:

Well, they’ve charged her with felony hit and run (a class 5 felony when there is bodily injury), which carries a 1-10 year jail term on its own. Coupled with the drunk driving, I imagine she’ll be spending some time in a jail cell.

I’m not such an optimist. A lot of these sentences get reduced dramatically due to jail crowding issues. With the cyclist’s consent, I think she should have to visit him or her in the hospital to get a real sense of the damage she has caused (and pay for any lost wages and medical bills).

[Honeybadger6]

@KLizotte 53847 wrote:

I’m not such an optimist. A lot of these sentences get reduced dramatically due to jail crowding issues. With the cyclist’s consent, I think she should have to visit him or her in the hospital to get a real sense of the damage she has caused (and pay for any lost wages and medical bills).

I think she ought to be forced to bike commute for a while. They could take away her license so she’d have to find another way to get around. THAT would be a HUGE lesson for her. (Along with jail, fines, compensation, and other your-life-is-over-because-you’re-an-idiot punishment.)

[Author]

Posts