Bad News from the W&OD Last Night

[MCL1981]

There are such things as removable bollards. They go in a hole and usually have a pad lock on a collar at ground level. That way legit maintenance and emergency vehicles can remove it, drive in, and replace it. These should be at EVERY intersection with a road. No excuse not to and cyclists complaining about them have their priorities wrong.

[bobco85]

@MCL1981 53853 wrote:

There are such things as removable bollards. They go in a hole and usually have a pad lock on a collar at ground level. That way legit maintenance and emergency vehicles can remove it, drive in, and replace it. These should be at EVERY intersection with a road. No excuse not to and cyclists complaining about them have their priorities wrong.

I agree that bollards should be at every intersection with a road, but I disagree with the use of the removable bollards. The problem occurs when the bollards are not replaced because the collar(d)s stick an inch or two out of the ground and do not have any sort of paint/reflective coating, posing an invisible danger to an approaching cyclist in even slightly-less-than-ideal visibility. I wrote about a problem with consistently unfilled collar(d)s on this thread: http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?2626-Thank-you-for-the-temporary-fix

I prefer the flex-posts because they provide a safer barrier that doesn’t get in the way of maintenance/emergency vehicles who may/may not forget to replace them.

[mstone]

@bobco85 53837 wrote:

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.

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.

The drunk driver ran into a person, almost ran over a number of other people, did pop over some curbs, etc., and didn’t even slow down. I refuse to believe that a flex post would have altered this.

@baiskeli 53815 wrote:

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

That’s very simple: a useless bollard is one for which the probability of injury caused by the bollard exceeds the probability of injury prevented by the bollard. If bollards are placed indiscriminately, most will be useless.

@MCL1981 53853 wrote:

There are such things as removable bollards. They go in a hole and usually have a pad lock on a collar at ground level. That way legit maintenance and emergency vehicles can remove it, drive in, and replace it. These should be at EVERY intersection with a road. No excuse not to and cyclists complaining about them have their priorities wrong.

There’s plenty of excuse not to: they’re more likely to injure a cyclist than prevent an injury. The removable ones are great except when people forget to put them back and you end up with an almost-invisible hazard in the middle of the trail. And even when they are placed, it’s fairly common for someone to get hurt running into one. I know, I know, that’s unlikely and it would be the cyclist’s fault for not paying enough attention. (Except, designing hazard-free trails is a public responsibility, and the event we’re discussing is, in itself, unlikely.)

And even if we did put bollards at every likely spot, some moron would find a way to drive through an unlikely spot. Do we really want to the W&OD to look like downtown, with “temporary” jersey walls along all 45 miles?

[baiskeli]

@mstone 53869 wrote:

That’s very simple: a useless bollard is one for which the probability of injury caused by the bollard exceeds the probability of injury prevented by the bollard. If bollards are placed indiscriminately, most will be useless.

Well, yeah, your answer was simple, but determining those probabilities isn’t easy at all. In fact, it’s nearly impossible.

And even if we did put bollards at every likely spot, some moron would find a way to drive through an unlikely spot. Do we really want to the W&OD to look like downtown, with “temporary” jersey walls along all 45 miles?

Nobody suggested that.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 53873 wrote:

Well, yeah, your answer was simple, but determining those probabilities isn’t easy at all. In fact, it’s nearly impossible.[/quote]

And that’s why the guidance is to put them in where there’s a demonstrated need. E.g., if people routinely use a trail as a cut-through for convenience or because they’re stupid/confused. Not because there’s a freak incident somewhere.

Quote:

Nobody suggested that.

Well, you want perfect security, you build a big wall around yourself. (Great, until the wall falls on you.) In a real world you will always have to accept some risk, and I haven’t seen anything thus far to suggest that the current practice is insufficient or that anyone should start advocating bollard proliferation because of this incident.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 53882 wrote:

And that’s why the guidance is to put them in where there’s a demonstrated need. E.g., if people routinely use a trail as a cut-through for convenience or because they’re stupid/confused. Not because there’s a freak incident somewhere.

But that would require us to wait many years to see how many times someone endangers lives by driving on the trail before we decide there’s a “demonstrated” need.

Or, in the reverse, to wait until more than one “freak accident” involving a cyclist hitting a bollard before removing it.

Well, you want perfect security, you build a big wall around yourself.

You’re still doing it though – nobody suggested they want “perfect security.”

In a real world you will always have to accept some risk,

But that could just as easily include accepting the risk of a cyclist hitting a bollard.

and I haven’t seen anything thus far to suggest that the current practice is insufficient or that anyone should start advocating bollard proliferation because of this incident.

We haven’t even figured out how to figure that out yet.

But I wonder how we knew to go removing all the bollards in the first place?

[mstone]

We knew to remove the bollards because the science was already done to show they were a net negative. That’s also why the current guidelines discourage their use.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 53895 wrote:

We knew to remove the bollards because the science was already done to show they were a net negative. That’s also why the current guidelines discourage their use.

Okay. I assume there was some kind of risk-benefit analysis based on real data. But that would vary by intersection. There are a few places where you’d think some kind of barrier would make sense.

[consularrider]

@baiskeli 53896 wrote:

Okay. I assume there was some kind of risk-benefit analysis based on real data. But that would vary by intersection. There are a few places where you’d think some kind of barrier would make sense.

Like on the pedestrian bridge over 4 Mile Run in Glencarlyn ParK? After all, I doubt even a Smart car could squeeze in between the bridge on the south bank before crossing the stream to the bollard. (big sarcasm here ).

[mstone]

@baiskeli 53896 wrote:

Okay. I assume there was some kind of risk-benefit analysis based on real data. But that would vary by intersection. There are a few places where you’d think some kind of barrier would make sense.

The problem is, “it stands to reason” and “places that make sense” are much harder to define than “let’s see where it’s a problem”. I don’t think where this crazy drunk lady came onto the W&OD would necessarily have ever been a spot someone picked as a problem area. (She drove for miles, AIUI, and crossed multiple intersections–should they all “make sense”?)

[baiskeli]

@mstone 53918 wrote:

The problem is, “it stands to reason” and “places that make sense” are much harder to define than “let’s see where it’s a problem”. I don’t think where this crazy drunk lady came onto the W&OD would necessarily have ever been a spot someone picked as a problem area. (She drove for miles, AIUI, and crossed multiple intersections–should they all “make sense”?)

Well, sure, but now that she has, is it now a problem area?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 53919 wrote:

Well, sure, but now that she has, is it now a problem area?

No. There’s no pattern of activity. If we have a rash of crazy drunk people entering at the same spot, then we’ll have an identified candidate for a bollard.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 53921 wrote:

No. There’s no pattern of activity. If we have a rash of crazy drunk people entering at the same spot, then we’ll have an identified candidate for a bollard.

Do we have a rash of cyclists hitting bollards?

Both things happen rarely (thankfully). It could take many years to collect data for specific intersections. I hope we can figure out a better way than just waiting to see which threat is worse.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 53922 wrote:

Do we have a rash of cyclists hitting bollards?[/quote]

Yes, the point you keep ignoring is that there is a real risk of injury from bollards. There isn’t a corresponding increase in risk from cars when bollards are removed or a decrease when they are installed.

Quote:

Both things happen rarely (thankfully). It could take many years to collect data for specific intersections. I hope we can figure out a better way than just waiting to see which threat is worse.

The places where bollards are useful become clear fairly quickly as it doesn’t take long for people to spread the word about a new “shortcut” and intrusions become common. But I’m sure, if you have some suggestion for a predictive methodology, that there would be interest in hearing it.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 53930 wrote:

Yes, the point you keep ignoring is that there is a real risk of injury from bollards. There isn’t a corresponding increase in risk from cars when bollards are removed or a decrease when they are installed.

I’m not ignoring that, I’m wondering how you know these risks, and also whether the risks vary by location. For instance, any place where it’s easy to confuse trail and road, like a place with lots of one-way exits, might call for bollards or other barriers because it looks like the risk of cars outweighs the risk of bollards. I’m thinking of the old National Airport, where confused people in cars trying to navigate the airport turned onto the GW trail more than once. The new bridges on the trail helped prevent that.

The places where bollards are useful become clear fairly quickly as it doesn’t take long for people to spread the word about a new “shortcut” and intrusions become common. But I’m sure, if you have some suggestion for a predictive methodology, that there would be interest in hearing it.

I don’t have a suggestion, but I don’t see how this one works. And I don’t know what you mean by “shortcuts.” Cars are using trails as shortcuts?

[Author]

Posts