Bollard placement kills cyclist in James County

[Hancockbs]

Tragic ending no doubt and likely bad placement for a bollard, but that headline is akin to “cyclist crashes into car” when a car pulls out in front of the cyclist. The bollard placement did not kill the rider. Lack of attention, riding too fast, or something similar resulted in the cyclist crashing into a bollard and his death.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197565 wrote:

Tragic ending no doubt and likely bad placement for a bollard, but that headline is akin to “cyclist crashes into car” when a car pulls out in front of the cyclist. The bollard placement did not kill the rider. Lack of attention, riding too fast, or something similar resulted in the cyclist crashing into a bollard and his death.

We spend literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year on ensuring that inattentive drivers can’t be killed by things next to roads. I guess I’d be ok if the standard were “if you’re playing with your phone in the car you deserve to die like a cyclist” but as long as the standard is “road facilities must (by law) be built to protect inattentive drivers” then the same standard should apply to bicycle facilities.

[Steve O]

@mstone 197578 wrote:

We spend literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year on ensuring that inattentive drivers can’t be killed by things next to roads. I guess I’d be ok if the standard were “if you’re playing with your phone in the car you deserve to die like a cyclist” but as long as the standard is “road facilities must (by law) be built to protect inattentive drivers” then the same standard should apply to bicycle facilities.

And an excellent video supporting this viewpoint.
https://youtu.be/9s0zb0FSM2s

@Hancockbs 197565 wrote:

Tragic ending no doubt and likely bad placement for a bollard, but that headline is akin to “cyclist crashes into car” when a car pulls out in front of the cyclist. The bollard placement did not kill the rider. Lack of attention, riding too fast, or something similar resulted in the cyclist crashing into a bollard and his death.

Perhaps better would be: “City officials in James County deliberately placed a hazard on a multi-use path–contrary to FHWA guidance–resulting in the death of a person riding a bike.”

If one places a physical hazard in the middle of a trail (or in the middle of a road, for that matter), eventually someone will run into it. Full stop. Hence mstone’s point made above.

[secstate]

Poor trail design has been a contributing factor in both of my (ultimately minor) crashes since I moved back to DC five years ago. The only factor? No, but we should be designing infrastructure that reduces, rather than increases, the chance that a small mistake becomes a life-changing crash.

[Hancockbs]

@Steve O 197579 wrote:

Perhaps better would be: “City officials in James County deliberately placed a hazard on a multi-use path–contrary to FHWA guidance–resulting in the death of a person riding a bike.”

I have no qualms with that headline, assuming is was a City officials in James County who was at fault. I am not advocating that bollards should be there or that riders should be less protected than drivers, just that we yell and scream when someone posts a headline blaming a cyclist with a crash that they didn’t cause. We should be similarly careful when blaming inanimate objects for a cyclist’s crash.

[Hancockbs]

@mstone 197578 wrote:

We spend literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year on ensuring that inattentive drivers can’t be killed by things next to roads. I guess I’d be ok if the standard were “if you’re playing with your phone in the car you deserve to die like a cyclist” but as long as the standard is “road facilities must (by law) be built to protect inattentive drivers” then the same standard should apply to bicycle facilities.

You miss the point of my message. I did not advocate for lesser safety standards when it comes to bicycle facilities. I advocated for factual statements when a bicyclist crashes.

[josh]

@Hancockbs 197583 wrote:

You miss the point of my message. I did not advocate for lesser safety standards when it comes to bicycle facilities. I advocated for factual statements when a bicyclist crashes.

I mean, if there was no bollard there, i.e. it wasn’t placed there by someone because they don’t grow out of the ground without human placement, the person couldn’t have hit a bollard (at that location at least), and so presumably wouldn’t have died. I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to make this claim. It’s not the case that the bollard placement causes all those that ride through the area to die, or that the rider couldn’t have died crashing in some other way, but I don’t think that’s what Steve O is claiming. I believe his claim is that “if this bollard had not been where it was, this rider would not have died during this ride”.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197583 wrote:

You miss the point of my message. I did not advocate for lesser safety standards when it comes to bicycle facilities. I advocated for factual statements when a bicyclist crashes.

No you didn’t, you advocated for a specific interpretation of events. A headline will never list all contributing factors, only a couple of words that fit into a headline. If you want the focus to be on speculation about one out of all the things that could have possibly happened differently in the chain of events leading to the conclusion I guess that’s your stylistic choice–but I think many people could reasonably believe that identifying the final link in the chain, the one which is most definite and the one most amenable to correction via public policy, would make more sense.

[n18]

I can see bollards at both sides of the bridge. Using 3D View(Switch to Satellite view, then to the lower right above + and -, click on the globe symbol, then 3D. Use Ctrl+Left drag to rotate, and mouse scroll wheel to move around), here is a good picture:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20968[/ATTACH]

[Hancockbs]

@mstone 197594 wrote:

No you didn’t, you advocated for a specific interpretation of events.

Incorrect. I am advocating for NO interpretation, just a statement of fact. I.E. Cyclist dies after hitting a bollard. Or if you wish to take it to another level, Cyclist dies after hitting poorly located bollard.


@mstone 197594 wrote:

A headline will never list all contributing factors, only a couple of words that fit into a headline.

Okay, so I did use the word headline, but this is not really a headline, it is a forum thread. I don’t think the character limit significantly contributed to the words used. Additionally, “Cyclist dies after hitting a bollard in James County.” is pretty close in character count to your chosen “
Bollard placement kills cyclist in James County“


@mstone 197594 wrote:

If you want the focus to be on speculation about one out of all the things that could have possibly happened differently in the chain of events leading to the conclusion I guess that’s your stylistic choice–but I think many people could reasonably believe that identifying the final link in the chain, the one which is most definite and the one most amenable to correction via public policy, would make more sense.

Placement of the bollard is only one of the factors and is far from “the final link in the chain”, unless of course the bollard was placed near minutes or second before it was hit. The final link is the cyclist hitting the bollard, which goes back to a pure statement of fact. I don’t know why he hit it. I honestly don’t know that it was in the middle of the trial. As far as I know, that is speculation, but of course I could be missing a fact.


Lastly, without knowing the additional factors, there is no way to say that the bollard placement is the most correctable factor. The cyclist’s speed or attention could be just as easily corrected.

Bottom line, I am far from advocating bollards or any other infrastructure that poses a significant threat to cyclists. I am firmly advocating for people taking responsibility for their own safety and actions.

[Steve O]

@Hancockbs 197599 wrote:

…it is a forum thread.

Written by non-journalists, potentially with an axe to grind. Not a newspaper; not a magazine. Not the place to hold anyone to a journalistic standard, IMO.

@Hancockbs 197599 wrote:

I am firmly advocating for people taking responsibility for their own safety and actions.

And you haven’t the slightest idea if that applies in this case. Your statement smacks of victim blaming.
Ever have a bug fly into your jersey, causing you to swerve, despite your best attention? Ever had a blowout? Ever had another cyclist do something causing you to make an avoidance maneuver? A bollard makes every one of these situations potentially far more dangerous. As mstone pointed out, that’s why we design our roads the way we do, with buffers and barriers and even padding in some places. Yes, responsibility, but humans make errors, and expecting them not to is absurdly unreasonable.

If I went out tonight and placed a concrete block in the middle of the MVT, painted yellow even, and someone ran into it and were injured, I presume I would be sued and potentially prosecuted. Yet jurisdictions do the same thing, and it’s called a safety feature. Go figure.

[Judd]

The Virginia Capital Trail has a bunch of bollards particularly at places where the trail crosses roads. I believe Komorebi clipped one there once.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hancockbs]

We are obviously at odds over the statement and interpretation of events here, so I’ll make this my last attempt to get my pure point across. One last time, ALL I am advocating for is stating known facts in cases such as this. If you really believe that the placement of the bollard killed the cyclist, then we have nothing to discuss. I believe you’re wrong and we’ll just have to go our separate ways. If the placement of the bollard killed the cyclist, then how come tens or hundreds of more cyclist aren’t dead from the same bollard?

@Steve O 197605 wrote:

And you haven’t the slightest idea if that applies in this case. Your statement smacks of victim blaming.

Steve, that is your interpretation. I have not once blamed the rider. I have also not absolved the rider of blame, because I simply don’t have the facts to do either. In my view, absolving the rider of blame is just as dangerous, if not more so, than blaming him. Hence, my statement for taking responsibility for ones own safety and actions.

@Steve O 197605 wrote:

Ever have a bug fly into your jersey, causing you to swerve, despite your best attention? Ever had a blowout? Ever had another cyclist do something causing you to make an avoidance maneuver? A bollard makes every one of these situations potentially far more dangerous. As mstone pointed out, that’s why we design our roads the way we do, with buffers and barriers and even padding in some places. Yes, responsibility, but humans make errors, and expecting them not to is absurdly unreasonable.

Yes, yes, and yes. Yet, none of these actions have caused me to crash at speed into a stationary object that I could clearly see in advance of the event, as appears to be the case here. Even if they did result in me crashing into said stationary object, I would still accept a great deal of the responsibility because I was not in enough control to avoid that event. In the case of another trail user or animal causing me to conduct an avoidance maneuver, I’d take less responsibility, but still some. I could have slowed, anticipated, changed lanes, etc. I have seen no facts presented that suggest any of these things happened in any regard, so there is no evidence presented to absolve the rider and blame the bollard.

@Steve O 197605 wrote:

Yes, responsibility, but humans make errors, and expecting them not to is absurdly unreasonable.

Ah, taking responsibility for an error made. Very good. I never suggested that errors should not be expected. Once again, you seem to be assuming that I think the bollard should have been there. Even though it probably should not have been, its placement did not kill the rider.

@Steve O 197605 wrote:

If I went out tonight and placed a concrete block in the middle of the MVT, painted yellow even, and someone ran into it and were injured, I presume I would be sued and potentially prosecuted. Yet jurisdictions do the same thing, and it’s called a safety feature. Go figure.

One last time, I am not advocating for bollards (or blocks, or anything else) in the middle of the trail. You seem to keep coming back to that and assuming that I am. If your scenario came to life and the block was placed in a section of the trail where I could see it in advance, i.e. not in the middle of a blind curve or similar, yes, you would still be to blame for placing it there, but I would also be to blame for not avoiding it. Even if it were in the middle of a blind curve, I’d still have some responsibility for having ridden through the curve at a speed to fast to stop in a safe distance.

[Steve O]

@Hancockbs 197614 wrote:

so there is no evidence presented to absolve the rider and blame the bollard.

Even if so, proportionality dictates that the punishment for inattentiveness should not be death. Or grievous injury even.
The officials responsible for this trail were grossly negligent IMO for putting a known hazard where it would eventually be run into by someone, likely causing injury. In this case, worse. It’s been at least since the 1990’s that FHWA guidance has recommended against the use of bollards in exactly these kinds of places. The fact that the officials ignored this long-standing guidance had a direct connection to Mr. Fox’s death. Primary cause? Who cares? Had the officials followed best practices, Mr. Fox would almost certainly be alive now, regardless of any and all other factors. Full stop.

As far as the title of my forum thread goes, I don’t feel any obligation to meet some sort of journalistic standards on a little-bitty local bike forum, and I feel perfectly fine expressing my personal point of view in the title.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197614 wrote:

We are obviously at odds over the statement and interpretation of events here, so I’ll make this my last attempt to get my pure point across. One last time, ALL I am advocating for is stating known facts in cases such as this.

Weird how much your later posts differ from your original post. To refresh your memory: “The bollard placement did not kill the rider. Lack of attention, riding too fast, or something similar resulted in the cyclist crashing into a bollard and his death.” Again, that’s not a call for “facts”, that’s a call for a specific conclusion based completely on speculation in the absence of supporting facts.

[Author]

Posts