Car on the Custis

[Steve O]

This was truly odd. There was a white sedan on the George Mason connector, just west of the Ballston Connector. A seriously confused woman was behind the wheel. When I came upon her she was trying to back down the connector to the main trail. I stopped her and told her to go up the connector and turn right on George Mason Drive. She said she couldn’t because there was a post in the way (hence her backing).

I told her to stay put while I rode up to doublecheck the bollard and confirm it was a flexi-bollard. When I got back she was still trying to back up.

I instructed her that she could drive over the bollard and it would bend down under her car. She was dubious, but I convinced her.

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.

Did anyone else see this white car on the Custis about 6pm? I have no idea how she got there.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14984[/ATTACH]

Topic

[peterw_diy]

@Steve O 161762 wrote:

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 signage that exists at 4MR and Commonwealth is not installed per MUTCD standards. Most significantly, the new signage was installed past the asphalt in question (on the left side rather than the right side) and is closer to the 4′ concrete walkway than the asphalt. The fix should be easy but I can only speculate why Alexandria T&ES hasn’t fixed this signage.

[jrenaut]

@peterw_diy 161790 wrote:

The fix should be easy but I can only speculate why Alexandria T&ES hasn’t fixed this signage.

Please, do so publicly

[consularrider]

@drevil 161733 wrote:

YUMMMMMMM, collards

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14996[/ATTACH]

Char[re]d. [ATTACH=CONFIG]15002[/ATTACH]

[Sunyata]

@Steve O 161762 wrote:

Although there have been a couple of widely publicized incursions on the W&OD, I don’t believe any trail users were injured.

Before I even moved to this area, I was involved in an incident with an impaired driver on the W&OD. This was the same woman that hit an older gentleman and landed him in the hospital.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/driver-arrested-after-hitting-cyclist-on-wod-trail/article/2530949

My best friend and I were almost hit by this woman just east of the Hunter Mill crossing between Reston and Vienna. She was traveling at a very high rate of speed for such a narrow trail (close to 50mph) and was pretty oblivious to the cyclists and walkers that were dodging her car. 😡 Had I not had incredibly quick reflexes, both my friend and I could have been severely injured.

However, it should be noted that a flex post would not have stopped this intoxicated woman. A concrete barrier/bollard may have, though.

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 161762 wrote:

The reason is that the risks associated with the obstacle are greater than the risks associated with the incursion.

Just an asterisk to your argument here: the risk of a vehicle on the trail are huge: you could have someone kill lots of people. BUT the likelihood of that scenario is very low, based on experience. In the end, we should take into consideration both the potential harm and the likelihood of the event coming to pass when making policy.

But I think that all supports you point: With bollards (of any kind), the potential harm is broken bones, and the likelihood is moderate. With vehicles on the trail, the potential harm is death, but the likelihood is very low.

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 161889 wrote:

Just an asterisk to your argument here: the risk of a vehicle on the trail are huge: you could have someone kill lots of people. BUT the likelihood of that scenario is very low, based on experience. In the end, we should take into consideration both the potential harm and the likelihood of the event coming to pass when making policy.

But I think that all supports your point: With bollards (of any kind), the potential harm is broken bones, and the likelihood is moderate. With vehicles on the trail, the potential harm is death, but the likelihood is very low.

Thanks. The other problem is that we know not where the crazy/oblivious driver will attempt to enter. So it’s easy to say, “a bollard there may have stopped her.” However, the logical endpoint of that reasoning is that we have to put them everywhere. So it’s not one bollard v. one car. It’s thousands of bollards v. one or a few cars.

We also don’t know what is going on in someone’s head. A determined driver will find a way to get on the trail. Many places I’ve seen bollards used they can just be driven around.[ATTACH=CONFIG]15008[/ATTACH]
And if not, then they tend to be some sort of fortress like at the White House.

The lady in question who, thankfully, did not injure our friend, Sunyata, may have been deterred by better design, like the new design at the Vienna Community Center. Or not.

FHWA has essentially done the calculation you describe, which is why they recommend against their use except as a last resort after other strategies have tried and failed.

[Author]

Replies