Bollard placement kills cyclist in James County

[Steve O]

I actually don’t think there is really any disagreement about the danger of putting poles in the middle of trails. We all agree it’s a bad idea.

The point we disagreed about was the title of the thread. That was it. hancock expressed his opinion that forum threads should follow New York Times journalistic standards or something, and my opinion is that the title of a thread on a local bike forum is NBD. Pretty much that was our point of disagreement, which seems like a nothing burger.

Let’s get rid of dangerous, useless bollards so people don’t get killed (or injured). Who’s against that?

[Steve O]

@SpaceJockey 197770 wrote:

Are bollards in a bad spot? YES
Do freak occurrences happen that may result in a Rube-Goldberg-esque series of events that caused an exceptionally safe and aware cyclist to meet their end upon a static piece of infrastructure? YES
Do people make mistakes? YES

It sucks, be smart and do your best to ride safe.

YES.
And I would add: Advocate for better trail designs and removal of bollards from existing trails so that when those freak occurrences happen and mistakes are made, the likelihood of injury is reduced – just like we do with automobile infrastructure: no poles in the middle of streets and lots of protection for when drivers make mistakes. So they don’t just smash into a solid concrete object.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21008[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21009[/ATTACH]

[mstone]

@Steve O 197778 wrote:

YES.
And I would add: Advocate for better trail designs and removal of bollards from existing trails so that when those freak occurrences happen and mistakes are made, the likelihood of injury is reduced – just like we do with automobile infrastructure: no poles in the middle of streets and lots of protection for when drivers make mistakes. So they don’t just smash into a solid concrete object.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21008[/ATTACH]

Oooh, that’s an excellent example of the DOT mindset of “protect the drivers and screw the plebs on the sidewalk”!

[SpaceJockey]

@mstone 197782 wrote:

Oooh, that’s an excellent example of the DOT mindset of “protect the drivers and screw the plebs on the sidewalk”!

Considering drivers knock down lamp-posts on the sidewalks all the time I doubt that lamp-posts built in the middle of the road will have any chance at survival.

[arlcxrider]

Lampposts have “sacrificial” bases that are designed to snap off if they are struck by a vehicle. Another example of how street furniture is designed around the needs of drivers in heavy vehicles.

[lordofthemark]

@Hancockbs 197775 wrote:

Okay, you guys convinced me and you win. The nexus between a hidden landmine (or bear trap) that is designed to kill by kinetically exploding and a clearly visible static bollard is very obvious.

I’ll continue to take as much responsibility as possible for my own safety by paying attention, slowing when needed, and having an escape plan when things go wrong. You can do whatever it is you want to do and blame the bollard after you hit it.

Best wishes for a safe ride for all of us.

Have you ever ridden with me? I absolutely do as much as I can to stay safe, including being alert and slowing when needed (and stopping for signals and stop signs many riders ignore).

I ALSO want safer bike infrastructure, including removal of unneeded bollards, because I don’t think death should be the punishment for a rider’s mistake, even if they are less careful than I am. And yes, I apply that to walkers and drivers as well.

This is why I reacted so forcefully to the earlier comment. I strongly believe that making excuses for poor infrastructure, and blaming walkers and riders for errors when perfectly reasonable infra would have saved them, is despicable and way too much part of our discourse on safety.

[lordofthemark]

@SpaceJockey 197783 wrote:

Considering drivers knock down lamp-posts on the sidewalks all the time I doubt that lamp-posts built in the middle of the road will have any chance at survival.

I don’t think the alternative is to put it in the middle of the road, but rather at the edge of the sidewalk, adjacent to the road. Where I live (and in many other places) the pole is in the middle of the sidewalk – rendering it inconvenient for walkers (and in some places where there is no decent in road alt, for riders) and useless for anyone in a wheelchair.

No ADA compliance for YOU!

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.837063,-77.1021189,3a,75y,323.8h,74.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCa9zFaSWqhu534sTaHtf4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

But at least we have an ADA compliant curb cut – leading to the non compliant sidewalk, and the bus stops that someone in a wheelchair can’t get to!

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8372967,-77.1025898,3a,75y,7.2h,62.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szSmz2CHxMsfQ6tFT3zfJdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

We also refrain from putting up jersey walls (even plastic) to protect sidewalks in certain locations, because of the possibility a driver would hit the end of the end of the jersey wall.

[LhasaCM]

@lordofthemark 197792 wrote:

We also refrain from putting up jersey walls (even plastic) to protect sidewalks in certain locations, because of the possibility a driver would hit the end of the end of the jersey wall.

I think the recent shift to using K71 “flexible marker posts” in DC is a perfect exemplar of that mindset. While better and more visible for marking bike lanes than flex posts used more widely, one of they key selling features of the K71 is that they can withstand a 65 MPH impact without damage to either the vehicle or post. While that’s great for managing a city’s budget and fine when the only desire is a visible marker, a K71 does not a protected bike lane make.

[SpaceJockey]

At night that road is nightmare fuel. Looks like the biggest obstacle is the overhanging branches, at least with those trimmed a single-track can develop. Surprised at how pristine those lamp-posts look.

[mstone]

@SpaceJockey 197783 wrote:

Considering drivers knock down lamp-posts on the sidewalks all the time I doubt that lamp-posts built in the middle of the road will have any chance at survival.

I wasn’t even talking about the lamp posts, though those are bad enough. Really, they could be on top of the really thick concrete wall rather than off to the side. Might need a different and less decorative base, boo hoo. If DOT prioritized sidewalk users over road users they could stick with the ridiculous lamp design and just flip the concrete bases around to stick out in the road instead of sticking out in the sidewalk. I wouldn’t worry much about whether the solid lumps of concrete could survive being sideswiped by drivers who don’t know where the right edge of their car is. Now, look at the black crash barrier at the end of the ramp to the right that blocks the sidewalk. It’s there so drivers who miss the road won’t get hurt. Then look at the big slippery (and bumpy, on the welds) metal plate and lumps of quick patch right in the path of someone approaching the narrowed sidewalk. Those are fun to ride on, especially when it’s time to stop. Of course, you might not have noticed the crosswalk since most of it is covered by a big metal plate and what’s left is mostly faded paint. That paint is the only thing in that picture that was done specifically for people not in cars. The other crash barrier with the black and yellow chevrons doesn’t actually impact use of the sidewalk (but only because the stupid lamps already narrowed the sidewalk on that side. But, that barrier costs more than DOT spent on any pedestrian facility for that stretch of road, and they probably have to replace it at least annually. (Because drivers can’t seem to avoid running into black and yellow hi-viz barriers.)

[Author]

Posts