Jersey on the Potomac

[Rootchopper]

An additional feature of the double 90 degree turn at the northwest end of the parking lot is the fact that the trail along the river had a big tree in it. So the trail is about half as wide as it is else where. Let’s put trees at random on tight turns on roads and see how safe that is for motorists.

What’s really needed here is a reconfiguration of the whole mess.

[Tim Kelley]

Here’s what my contact at NPS had to say,

“I don’t know why they disappeared and then reappeared but the reason for the barricades is to cut down on trail users cutting through the parking lot. We are seeking funding to make some permanent modifications to the area that would widen the trail, increase the turning radius of the 90 degree turns, and near the pedestrian bridge add a gathering area with bike racks, a water fountain, and a Mount Vernon Trail map sign.”

[rcannon100]

@mstone 44000 wrote:

What does that even mean? “Our contractors are too dumb to not drive off the end of the parking lot”?

Ah-yup. When they started their construction, the trucks were coming off of the pedestrian bridge and driving straight on to the bike path.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 43945 wrote:

It would be reasonable if the trail wasn’t a sidewalk with a bunch of right angles, narrow, and covered with pedestrians, and the parking lot wasn’t the safer path.

The trail has some right angles, yes. You slow down.

Pedestrians are going to be on a path.

I do not think the parking lot is the safer way, especially when bikes fly through it.

[baiskeli]

@Rootchopper 44038 wrote:

An additional feature of the double 90 degree turn at the northwest end of the parking lot is the fact that the trail along the river had a big tree in it.

And not only that, the little wall around it, at trail level, is a great wheel trap.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 44257 wrote:

The trail has some right angles, yes. You slow down.

Pedestrians are going to be on a path.

I do not think the parking lot is the safer way, especially when bikes fly through it.

Once again, you’re arguing a straw man–nobody has proposed “flying through” the parking lot, nobody has proposed that pedestrians should not exist, etc. It’s simply safer, in this particular configuration, to ride straight on the road than to navigate the badly designed trail. I (and presumably any other sensible person) would still advocate going slowly through the lot, but I’ve got a much better sightline for cars backing up than hazards on the trail.

But thank you for once again suggesting that everybody else is just trying to go really fast without giving any thought to safety.

[mstone]

@Tim Kelley 44251 wrote:

Here’s what my contact at NPS had to say,

“I don’t know why they disappeared and then reappeared but the reason for the barricades is to cut down on trail users cutting through the parking lot. We are seeking funding to make some permanent modifications to the area that would widen the trail, increase the turning radius of the 90 degree turns, and near the pedestrian bridge add a gathering area with bike racks, a water fountain, and a Mount Vernon Trail map sign.”

Nice. God forbid someone choose a safer option when NPS might be improving things at some point in the future.

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 44266 wrote:

Nice. God forbid someone choose a safer option when NPS might be improving things at some point in the future.

Yes, I am sure that it is at the top of NPS’ priorities. After all, they are always so quick to remedy having ugly barriers and unsafe conditions for cyclists. :rolleyes:

[baiskeli]

@mstone 44264 wrote:

Once again, you’re arguing a straw man–nobody has proposed “flying through” the parking lot,

Didn’t say that. I said it’s not safe the way some people do fly through it.

nobody has proposed that pedestrians should not exist, etc.

You cited pedestrians in the trail. They’re always going to be in a trail, regardless of its design. Unless you can design a bollard that keeps them out, which would be kind of awesome.

It’s simply safer, in this particular configuration, to ride straight on the road than to navigate the badly designed trail.

I don’t agree. But I doubt there’s much of a difference, and I hope we don’t gather real-world evidence for comparison.

But thank you for once again suggesting that everybody else is just trying to go really fast without giving any thought to safety.

I said nothing of the sort. I highly value your warning against straw men. Good call.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 44277 wrote:

Didn’t say that. I said it’s not safe the way some people do fly through it.[/quote]

No, you replied directly to me and said “slow down”. Had you just said “I think some people go too fast, not saying that you do or that the parking lot has anything to do with it”, then I’d wonder why you would find it necessary to state the obvious but at least your point would be clear. It’s still a straw man, because you still seem to be arguing against the post you quoted, without actually addressing it directly.

Quote:

You cited pedestrians in the trail. They’re always going to be in a trail, regardless of its design. Unless you can design a bollard that keeps them out, which would be kind of awesome. [/ quote]

Realizing that there are sometimes options to reduce the amount of conflict has nothing to do with whether pedestrians are still on the trail, so I’m still not sure what your point is.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 44286 wrote:

No, you replied directly to me and said “slow down”.

I was saying slow down when negotiating the right angles on the trail. I wasn’t referring to the parking lot.

A good solution to right angles, while waiting for NPS to fix them someday, is to slow down. It shaves maybe 3 of 4 seconds off your ride.

SOME cyclists do fly through the parking lot. Others don’t.

Had you just said “I think some people go too fast, not saying that you do or that the parking lot has anything to do with it”, then I’d wonder why you would find it necessary to state the obvious but at least your point would be clear. It’s still a straw man, because you still seem to be arguing against the post you quoted, without actually addressing it directly.

I found it necessary to state the obvious because, well, I thought it was necessary.

Realizing that there are sometimes options to reduce the amount of conflict has nothing to do with whether pedestrians are still on the trail, so I’m still not sure what your point is.

The point of that was humor.

[NickBull]

@Tim Kelley 44251 wrote:

Here’s what my contact at NPS had to say,

“I don’t know why they disappeared and then reappeared but the reason for the barricades is to cut down on trail users cutting through the parking lot. We are seeking funding to make some permanent modifications to the area that would widen the trail, increase the turning radius of the 90 degree turns, and near the pedestrian bridge add a gathering area with bike racks, a water fountain, and a Mount Vernon Trail map sign.”

After they finish doing all that work, they should feel free to put the jersey barriers back. But meanwhile they increase the risk of my commute every day. Having ridden through there every work day for a decade, I have never seen an accident or near-miss until they put in those stupid barriers. Pedestrians stand around on the corners that bicyclists are trying to ride through. Oncoming bicyclists have near misses trying to traverse something that is essentially one lane. Bicyclists trying to make the turn can easily get clipped by other bicyclists who don’t know that they should be making the turn. Cars don’t see bicyclists because there are trees between the cars and that path so the cars can’t see the cyclists. Just how is all of this increasing safety?

Those and the fact that every cyclist I know has crashed on the bridge of death show the park service’s priorities in exquisite detail. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about cyclists. All that they care about is cars and making life easier for cars.

Nick

[Author]

Posts