Car on the Custis

[VA2DC]

@DrP 161709 wrote:

Speaking of bollards…Who is going to turn left from Fairfax onto Wakefield and turn immediately right before the sidewalk? I only see possible pain with this one.

I’ve seen a car drive onto the sidewalk from the turn lane from northbound Glebe to eastbound Fairfax in front of the Suntrust Bank. I’m not advocating for bollards, but I could see someone crossing Fairfax from the Holiday in on Wakefield and trying to turn into the bike lane. More likely though will be drivers heading south on Glebe and turning right on Fairfax. I could see someone trying to use the bike path as a service lane.

[Judd]

@bobco85 161717 wrote:

You should also advise that guy to stop breaking the end QUOTE tags :p

The guy I now that handles posting all of my brilliant thoughts is very tired today and making lots of mistakes. He even forgot to put my keys in my pocket today, causing me to have to find an alternative bike parking strategy.

[Steve O]

@DrP 161707 wrote:

That one was removed a while* ago.

*While can be anywhere from 3 months to a year because at some point it is no longer a new thing.

Coincidentally around the same time as a Midnight Saddles ride, IIRC.

[DrP]

@VA2DC 161718 wrote:

More likely though will be drivers heading south on Glebe and turning right on Fairfax. I could see someone trying to use the bike path as a service lane.

Actually, this is less likely. There is a corner curb and the bike lane is not full width at the corner. Meaning, if on Fairfax heading west, there is an opening of about 3ft for west bound cyclists to enter. There is an opening of about 3 ft heading south into the crosswalk to cross Fairfax for those cyclists that were heading east off the connector trail. It looks clear to me that it is not a car lane, however, I need to stop thinking that people actually look at such things and think it through.

[Steve O]

@DrP 161709 wrote:

Speaking of bollards…

So the new bike lane on Fairfax between Glebe and Wakefield (i.e., next to the new building) appears to have a shiny, new, metal bollard at the Wakefield entrance to the lane. And I mean shiny. It looks stainless steel or chrome as I go by it in the evening. I do not understand its purpose. Who is going to turn into there? How frequently is someone from Wakefield going to try to make a left from the stop line? Who is going to turn left from Fairfax onto Wakefield and turn immediately right before the sidewalk? I only see possible pain with this one.

I reported this to the county and received this email from the bike/ped manager:

SteveO I can assure you none of your faithful bike/ped or trails planners requested a bollard at that location. I did ask that they put hi vis reflective tape on it for the time being. But in the long term it’s our intention to have it removed and get the hole filled in. But considering how hard it’s been for the contractors to simply get the trail open and safe for use, I did not want to distract them by a bollard crisis. DG

[huskerdont]

@bobco85 161716 wrote:

I swear, all my memories of passing through there have that bright yellow flexpost being there, and I’ve gone through there a couple times in the past few weeks (does this mean I’m getting old?)! Anyways, I’m glad it’s gone, and hopefully I’ll notice its removal (and remember that it’s not there anymore) next time I pass through.

Yes, I accused SRUB (the Society for the Removal of Useless Bollards) of removing that one last fall.

[Steve O]

@bobco85 161682 wrote:

There’s a disconnect with our arguments. I am advocating for the use of flexposts in specific situations (trail entry points such as the one through which the driver entered), but I am not, in any way, advocating for the use of bollards. (Note: I have read those articles before multiple times) I am also not advocating for flexposts to be the first and final solution, but I do think they are useful tools in ensuring safety.

A flexpost is safer than a steel bollard
A hand grenade is safer than a cruise missile, but I’d not use either to clean out my closet, except as a last resort.

I am with you theoretically. I challenge you, though, to cite a single, real life example of a location where other strategies such as clear, visible signage and surface treatments have failed and there is still a history of incursions. I am not personally aware of any.

[mstone]

@bobco85 161682 wrote:

There’s a disconnect with our arguments. I am advocating for the use of flexposts in specific situations (trail entry points such as the one through which the driver entered), but I am not, in any way, advocating for the use of bollards. (Note: I have read those articles before multiple times) I am also not advocating for flexposts to be the first and final solution, but I do think they are useful tools in ensuring safety.

They are not useful, because here in the real world the maintenance on our trails sucks. So you don’t get a flexpost, you get a collard. The only thing stopped by a collard is the bike tire of an unsuspecting cyclist. Case in point: the idiotic flexpost in the middle of the crosswalk at Shreve road. It’s spent more of its existence as an almost-invisible hazard to cyclists than as a flexpost. (Honestly, whoever designed that should be fired and/or shot. If for no other reason than to be an effective notice to vehicles there should be two, placed several feet away from and on either side of the crosswalk.)

If you look at the vehicle incursions which have happened, what you’ll typically find is a complete lack of signage and (even more importantly) treatments on the trail surface. The only reason they add flexposts is that they’re too lazy to apply the proper markings, and it’s so damn easy to slap down a flex post. See above about the lack of maintenance, and consider whether someone too lazy to properly mark the trail is going to be on top of replacing the repeatedly broken flex posts.

[drevil]

@mstone 161729 wrote:

So you don’t get a flexpost, you get a collard. The only thing stopped by a collard is the bike tire of an unsuspecting cyclist…

YUMMMMMMM, collards

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14996[/ATTACH]

[bobco85]

@Steve O 161728 wrote:

A flexpost is safer than a steel bollard
A hand grenade is safer than a cruise missile, but I’d not use either to clean out my closet, except as a last resort.

Hey, I never said it had to be steel; they make them out of concrete, too! Also, since they are objects meant to prevent intrusion and not offensive weapons, I’d rather go with a guard dog being safer than a landmine (works with the closet-cleaning, too).
@Steve O 161728 wrote:

I am with you theoretically. I challenge you, though, to cite a single, real life example of a location where other strategies such as clear, visible signage and surface treatments have failed and there is still a history of incursions. I am not personally aware of any.

I could easily point to every buffered bike lane in the area that has seen increased protection from driver incursion by adding flexposts, but that wouldn’t be fair because we’re talking about trail incursions.

I suppose a proper example would be hard to find, because how many times in these cases will signage and surface treatments be used before a more permanent solution is found? I’d point to the Commonwealth Ave/Wayne F. Anderson Bikeway driver incursions as an ongoing problem that has not yet been solved using signage and/or pavement treatments. Signage has been improved multiple times, and rocks were placed closer to the trail access to discourage drivers, but it will be proven ineffective the moment a driver makes it onto the trail again. It’s like those workplace safety signs (XX days without an accident); the moment a driver makes it onto a trail, the number goes back to zero. For the record, I do think a flexpost would be useful in this location.

On the contrary to your challenge, can you find a real world example of a trail that has been protected from vehicle incursion without having to use flexposts/bollards?

Of course, my theories about the effectiveness of flexposts only work if they are properly implemented. To the detriment of my argument, it’s a known fact that flexposts in the DC area have not been properly implemented (placed only at trail entries, marked with a diamond surrounding, leaving plenty of room for trail users to get around, maintained so that collards aren’t left, etc.). I wish they were better maintained which would maximize their effectiveness, but I still think they have a use in preventing driver incursions on trails.

[mstone]

@bobco85 161737 wrote:

I suppose a proper example would be hard to find, because how many times in these cases will signage and surface treatments be used before a more permanent solution is found? I’d point to the Commonwealth Ave/Wayne F. Anderson Bikeway driver incursions as an ongoing problem that has not yet been solved using signage and/or pavement treatments. Signage has been improved multiple times, and rocks were placed closer to the trail access to discourage drivers, but it will be proven ineffective the moment a driver makes it onto the trail again. It’s like those workplace safety signs (XX days without an accident); the moment a driver makes it onto a trail, the number goes back to zero. For the record, I do think a flexpost would be useful in this location.

On the contrary to your challenge, can you find a real world example of a trail that has been protected from vehicle incursion without having to use flexposts/bollards?[/quote]

Check the manual for how to properly implement things! For example, splitting the trail so that each lane goes around an obvious impediment is a much more useful treatment then slapping down a flexpost as a half-assed lazy fix. Once it no longer looks like a road, you don’t have to deal with idiots in cars.

Quote:

Of course, my theories about the effectiveness of flexposts only work if they are properly implemented. To the detriment of my argument, it’s a known fact that flexposts in the DC area have not been properly implemented (placed only at trail entries, marked with a diamond surrounding, leaving plenty of room for trail users to get around, maintained so that collards aren’t left, etc.). I wish they were better maintained which would maximize their effectiveness, but I still think they have a use in preventing driver incursions on trails.

But why bother with flexposts at all in this imagined world where things are done right?

[AFHokie]

@mstone 161740 wrote:

Once it no longer looks like a road, you don’t have to deal with idiots in cars.

But why bother with flexposts at all in this imagined world where things are done right?

You underestimate the ingenuity of idiots… How many people have driven their cars onto sidewalks or into a lake because their GPS told them too?

http://www.oddee.com/item_98264.aspx

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[Steve O]

@bobco85 161737 wrote:

On the contrary to your challenge, can you find a real world example of a trail that has been protected from vehicle incursion without having to use flexposts/bollards?

How would we know? There are long sections of the W&OD that have never had an incursion (and, granted, a couple of sections that have). NVRPA removed the bollards from virtually the whole trail more than 20 years ago. (I’m working on them taking the Maple Avenue ones out, too.)

The reason is that the risks associated with the obstacle are greater than the risks associated with the incursion. I am certain that is true. Although there have been a couple of widely publicized incursions on the W&OD, I don’t believe any trail users were injured. I can assure you that if there had been 100+ flexiposts at all the intersections sprinkling the trail over the last 20 years, there would have been hundreds of minor crashes and almost certainly some more significant injuries.

That is why FHWA recommends against them until after other strategies have been tried and failed. I may give you the Commonwealth Avenue location in its current form. I believe a redesign, however, could fix it without need for a middle-of-the-trail obstacle.

Truthfully, I’ll take the once-a-year oblivious driver on the trail over the default use of bollards or flexiposts. They virtually always turn out to be harmless and provide a bit of comic relief.

[Judd]

@Steve O 161762 wrote:

That is why FHWA recommends against them until after other strategies have been tried and failed. I may give you the Commonwealth Avenue location in its current form. I believe a redesign, however, could fix it without need for a middle-of-the-trail obstacle.

The Commonwealth entrance could be fixed with this really simple redesign:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]15000[/ATTACH]

[honestmachinery]

@Judd 161764 wrote:

The Commonwealth entrance could be fixed with this really simple redesign:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]15000[/ATTACH]

Heh heh. Hey, they substituted boulders for bollards there, arguably more of a hazard to cyclists.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts