Car on the Custis

[KLizotte]

Aren’t you the same guy who is completely against bollards????

[jrenaut]

It seems yesterday was official Car on a Bike Trail day. Reports of a driver on the MBT in DC too.

[mstone]

@KLizotte 161618 wrote:

Aren’t you the same guy who is completely against bollards????

if there hadn’t been a flexpost, she would have just safely driven off, instead of backing up…

[bobco85]

@mstone 161625 wrote:

if there hadn’t been a flexpost, she would have just safely driven off, instead of backing up…

If there had been a flexpost at the trail access off 10th St here https://goo.gl/maps/b6BFKMSphyS2 she would have not driven onto the trail at all.

(I’m guessing this is how she got onto the trail)

[lordofthemark]

@Steve O 161616 wrote:

At least three times I asked her “How did you get here?” “Where did you come from?” All she could say was, “I don’t know,” looking completely flustered.

Where did she come from? Where did she go? Where did she come from, cotton eyed Joe?

[Steve O]

@bobco85 161632 wrote:

(I’m guessing this is how she got onto the trail)

I think she got on here at Aberdeen by Washington Blvd. If she got on at 10th, bobco, she wouldn’t have been able to do the hairpin U-turn onto the connector. I think she was westbound to start with.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14985[/ATTACH]
@KLizotte 161618 wrote:

Aren’t you the same guy who is completely against bollards????

@bobco85 161632 wrote:

If there had been a flexpost at the trail access off 10th St here https://goo.gl/maps/b6BFKMSphyS2 she would have not driven onto the trail at all.

The flexipost shown on the google map at Aberdeen is not there any more, which is good.

The problem is there are no signs or other warnings, or surface treatment that makes it obvious one is entering a trail, that would have told her not to go there. FHWA guidance is to use non-hazardous means first, with bollards only as a last resort. Bollards should never be the default option. There are all sorts of things one can do at trail entrances to discourage or prevent motor vehicles from entering that do not also endanger the trail users.

How about a big one of these mounted on the sound wall?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14986[/ATTACH]

As I am wont to say, we don’t put telephone poles in the middle of streets, so why do we keep putting the equivalent in the middle of trails?

[LhasaCM]

@jrenaut 161624 wrote:

It seems yesterday was official Car on a Bike Trail day. Reports of a driver on the MBT in DC too.

I thought it was considerate of the driver to stay in the lane (rather than take up the whole trail). I think I’ve seen 3 other drivers in the past six months at least attempt to turn onto the trail at either R or T streets (where the construction/road crew access gates are), but for someone to get this far down the trail is quite an impressive display of obliviousness.

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 161639 wrote:

I think she got on here at Aberdeen by Washington Blvd. If she got on at 10th, bobco, she wouldn’t have been able to do the hairpin U-turn onto the connector. I think she was westbound to start with.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14985[/ATTACH]

The flexipost shown on the google map at Aberdeen is not there any more, which is good.

The problem is there are no signs or other warnings, or surface treatment that makes it obvious one is entering a trail, that would have told her not to go there. FHWA guidance is to use non-hazardous means first, with bollards only as a last resort. Bollards should never be the default option. There are all sorts of things one can do at trail entrances to discourage or prevent motor vehicles from entering that do not also endanger the trail users.

How about a big one of these mounted on the sound wall?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14986[/ATTACH]

As I am wont to say, we don’t put telephone poles in the middle of streets, so why do we keep putting the equivalent in the middle of trails?

How about spray chalk?

[Judd]

@Steve O 161639 wrote:

How about a big one of these mounted on the sound wall?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14986[/ATTACH]

If you know a guy with one of those signs, I know a guy with an impact drill and some masonry screws.

[bobco85]

@Steve O 161639 wrote:

I think she got on here at Aberdeen by Washington Blvd. If she got on at 10th, bobco, she wouldn’t have been able to do the hairpin U-turn onto the connector. I think she was westbound to start with.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14985[/ATTACH]

The flexipost shown on the google map at Aberdeen is not there any more, which is good.

The problem is there are no signs or other warnings, or surface treatment that makes it obvious one is entering a trail, that would have told her not to go there. FHWA guidance is to use non-hazardous means first, with bollards only as a last resort. Bollards should never be the default option. There are all sorts of things one can do at trail entrances to discourage or prevent motor vehicles from entering that do not also endanger the trail users.

As I am wont to say, we don’t put telephone poles in the middle of streets, so why do we keep putting the equivalent in the middle of trails?

I agree that proper signage and/or markings should be the default treatment before adding obstacles, but this case does prove the usefulness of flexposts. In your story, you said that the driver was reluctant to drive over the flexpost, meaning it did its job albeit on the wrong side. If there had been a flexpost at the trail access from Aberdeen, the driver would not have driven onto the trail.

As an aside, I’m concerned that we don’t have proper signage at each and every trail access in the area, and this makes me want to mark the sites that need this signage. There shouldn’t be any confusion as to whether a driver is illegally on a trail versus legally on a road.

Okay, back to my argument. Flexposts != bollards. Flexposts are designed to bend/break when force is applied to reduce damage while bollards are designed to be solid objects preventing passage. Hitting a flexpost does way less damage than hitting a bollard. Flexposts are best used at entryways to communicate to drivers that they are not supposed to go past, but they do need to have better markings around them (the standard being a painted diamond surrounding the flexpost). A good use of flexposts is on the L Street cycletrack where there have been issues of drivers entering the cycletrack from each intersection. I agree that bollards are dangerous on trails, but I think that flexposts are not dangerous when properly implemented.

Lastly, flexposts are fun to flick when riding past (I can’t help it sometimes), so that’s got to account for something, right?

[dasgeh]

@bobco85 161650 wrote:

I agree that proper signage and/or markings should be the default treatment before adding obstacles, but this case does prove the usefulness of flexposts.

Flexposts are still obstacles. They can take out a rider who doesn’t see them or who misjudges them. They can also make it more difficult to navigate a turn on a cargo bike.

Why not TRY signage/pavement markings, and then, if that doesn’t work, adding flexposts?

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 161653 wrote:

Flexposts are still obstacles. They can take out a rider who doesn’t see them or who misjudges them. They can also make it more difficult to navigate a turn on a cargo bike.

And the bases are bolted down, so hitting it can still cause a crash
@dasgeh 161653 wrote:

Why not TRY signage/pavement markings, and then, if that doesn’t work, adding flexposts?

Not just “Why not…?” it’s the guidance that FHWA gives: only to be used as a last resort after non-hazardous means have been exhausted and there is a history of encroachment.
@bobco85 161650 wrote:

I agree that proper signage and/or markings should be the default treatment before adding obstacles, but this case does prove the usefulness of flexposts.

And this is the attitude that gets them put everywhere. “Might be useful here; let’s put one here. Might be useful there; let’s put one there.” Adding a bollard increases risk to trail users while subtracting one reduces risk. The risks associated with the bollard itself are, in almost all cases, greater than the risks associated with a trail incursion. Even more so if trail incursions are minimized through effective other means.

[bobco85]

Again, I agree that other measures should be taken first before resorting to flexposts, but I do not think that flexposts are dangerous, and I think they have been and can be effectively used in different situations.

Now this is pure anecdote, but I think that drivers want to avoid hitting things (could damage their car) more than they do about going onto awkward terrain*. Flexposts offer an obstacle that drivers (at least for now) are reluctant to drive through. Without some sort of barrier, a trail access looks just like any other driveway, and signage and pavement markings will only do so much. Visually narrowing the width by using rocks helps, but I doubt their effectiveness (see Wayne F. Anderson Bikeway/Commonwealth Ave driver-on-trail issues).

I understand that flexposts, if used, should have a decent amount of room around them so that folks with wider/longer bicycles/trailers/etc. can easily pass. I also think they should only be used at places of entry/exit (looking at you, unnecessary flexpost on the side of the Custis/MVT bridge over I-66 in Rosslyn).

Honestly, I feel safer when I see flexposts at trail entry points. I really do. To me, there is no confusion that a vehicle is not supposed to enter. I also like them because they get people to slow down, to consider that they’re about to enter the trail, and to pay more attention to things around them.

The flexpost is a useful tool in helping to keep the trails safe from vehicles.

* A few weeks ago, I witnessed a confused driver who went unobstructed onto the Capital Crescent Trail on the north side of the bridge over River Rd then drive off a curb onto Landy Ln to “escape” the trail.

[Steve O]

@bobco85 161669 wrote:

Again, I agree that other measures should be taken first before resorting to flexposts, but I do not think that flexposts are dangerous

You are mistaken. Both of my children, when young and learning to ride, crashed because of bollards that were unnecessary. They would have crashed even if they had been flexposts. They were not injured, thankfully.

Please read this series of posts in its entirety. http://www.ohiobikeways.net/bikewaysblog.htm#bollards

[Judd]

@Steve O 161670 wrote:

You are mistaken. Both of my children, when young and learning to ride, crashed because of bollards that were unnecessary. They would have crashed even if they had been flexposts. They were not injured, thankfully.

Please read this series of posts in its entirety. http://www.ohiobikeways.net/bikewaysblog.htm#bollards

Sounds like the Steve O origin story… one man on a crusade….

His hatred of bollards only exceeded by an irrational dislike for the Wayne F. Anderson Bikeway.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14989[/ATTACH]

[Author]

Posts