More Fun on the W & OD

[Dickie]

@americancyclo 90905 wrote:

There was a work truck under 66 Monday on my way home around mid day that surprised the heck out of me. no cones or warning to trail users to slow down, and they were blocking more than half the trail.

There was another one Tuesday morning just after the Wilson tunnel on the WOD heading west, they were watering the new trees but taking up most of the trail after a blind corner, no warning, no cones, no hazards.

[vern]

@Steve O 90864 wrote:

As President of RUB (Remove Useless Bollards), I strongly oppose the use of bollards in general. Those of you on this forum know that this is my pet peeve. I do not recommend adding a useless bollard at the Westover entrance. That’s already a pretty odd place to mistake for a road, given the geometry and surface materials there. I highly doubt that was the entrance point, and I don’t think any additional treatment is necessary unless we get evidence that vehicles have actually ever entered at that point. If so, signage would be the first defense.

As Bobco has pointed out, signage is at best poor and more likely lacking altogether at almost all locations. Better signs and possible pavement treatments (paint, words and symbols painted on the trail itself) are much safer options than bollards.

If you are new to the forum and are not familiar with the problems bollards present, I recommend this series of blogs:
http://www.ohiobikeways.net/bikewaysblog.htm#bollards

In 1928 the Republicans campaigned on the slogan of a chicken in every pot. Well, I think I am going to run for elective office with the campaign slogan of “A bollard for every household!”

[chris_s]

I think this is a topic 1) upon which reasonable people can disagree and that 2) we don’t have enough data to actually make an informed decision.

That said, I’m in the “1 flexible bollard plus copious attention grabbing signage” camp.

[mstone]

@chris_s 90910 wrote:

I think this is a topic 1) upon which reasonable people can disagree and that 2) we don’t have enough data to actually make an informed decision.

I’m pretty sure that we do have data that more people are injured in bollard collisions than auto collisions on non-motorized trails, that’s why the federal guidance says not to spread them like fairy dust. What we do lack data on is how effective distinctive pavement markings (i.e., colored pavement or obvious graphics, not lines and words) are for keeping people of the W&OD, because NVRPA has yet to try that mechanism for whatever reason. (Requires more effort than gluing down yet another bollard?)

[Vicegrip]

As a facility manager I know that signs only work if someone reads them, understands them and feels the need to think the rules spelled out pertain to them right them

A physical barrier to cars works across all languages and layers of self importance.

Perhaps rather than a center set hard bollard they could set two that are just a bit too tight to fit most cars through. Or as was done in some areas rocks that prevent cars from leaving the pavement which negates the value of the existing bollards. If they are there might as well make them do some good.

I too see people driving to this area. The last time the driver of the van I had coming my way in my lane was looking a bit ticked that I was in his way. I reminded him that he was on a path that did not permit cars and got “I am dropping off the coolers” in the nun ya business voice.

[mstone]

@Vicegrip 90914 wrote:

A physical barrier to cars works across all languages and layers of self importance.

The thing is, the one-size-fits-all flex bollard “solution” isn’t very useful for a case where people are determined to drive their coolers in, either. Sounds like this is a location where a barrier is completely appropriate, but they need to do it right. In general they actually need/want vehicle access, so just a narrow entrance isn’t going to work. Something like a locked gate with access around the sides for bikes/peds would seem ideal. (Or, if they don’t need vehicle access, a divided path is still preferable to a narrowed path which forces everyone to bunch up at an intersection.)

[jrenaut]

Land mines set to go off at 1,000 pounds of force ought to do it.

[Vicegrip]

@mstone 90917 wrote:

The thing is, the one-size-fits-all flex bollard “solution” isn’t very useful for a case where people are determined to drive their coolers in, either. Sounds like this is a location where a barrier is completely appropriate, but they need to do it right. In general they actually need/want vehicle access, so just a narrow entrance isn’t going to work. Something like a locked gate with access around the sides for bikes/peds would seem ideal. (Or, if they don’t need vehicle access, a divided path is still preferable to a narrowed path which forces everyone to bunch up at an intersection.

A gate you need to ride around is better than a single metal bollard? There are metal bollards in place now might as well as make them work. My notation to narrow the access was to appease the bollard haters. To gain legal access a post has to be unlocked just as a gate would. A gate is more intrusive than a single yellow post it both are just as effective Keep in mind we are talking about access points to the trails not the trails themselves. A bollard thee is not the same as one on the Custis or the middle of the W&OD. Simple fix here is to block cars from going around what is already there.

[Anonymous]

… removed after a more careful reading of a couple previous posts… i don’t think mine added to the conversation in a helpful manner

[mstone]

@Vicegrip 90921 wrote:

A gate you need to ride around is better than a single metal bollard?

Yes, it is safer to have two separate and clearly marked wide paths with a highly visible obstruction in the middle rather than making one path with two skinny lanes and a hidden hazard in the middle. This isn’t “ride around” as in “slalom”, it’s “ride around” as in “move very slightly right starting 20 feet from the gate”.

At worst, widen the path slightly at the bollard, and paint a highly visible continuous marking from the bollard to a spot at least five feet away from the bollard on either side.

It’s basically never a good design to put a bollard on a 10 foot path without widening the path for more clearance and clearly marking the approach to the bollard. (As in, all of the bollards on the W&OD.)

[Steve]

Only in cycling would we suggest creating an inconvenience to ourselves just to prevent idiots from endangering us. You think drivers would ever suggest putting roofing over all of the roadways to ensure that planes don’t accidentally land on them?

[americancyclo]

@Steve 90929 wrote:

Only in cycling would we suggest creating an inconvenience to ourselves just to prevent idiots from endangering us. You think drivers would ever suggest putting roofing over all of the roadways to ensure that planes don’t accidentally land on them?

If planes started landing on highways, they might.

[rcannon100]

Well, can we at least install these things on the bike paths??? I think they might be effective at stopping some of the cars.

[Steve]

@americancyclo 90931 wrote:

If planes started landing on highways, they might.

I know I know. I just get frustrated sometimes. It’s like, why should I have to do dumb things to protect myself from dumb people? But I also realize that in reality, sometimes you do.

I just feels so similar to victim blaming. Like if a driver hits and injures a cyclist, the first question is always whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Now when cars are driving on bike paths, the first question is whether or not there was a concrete bollard in the way. It nearly absolves the driver from the fact that they drove up a curb cut, or are on a ten foot wide path with a solid stripe down the middle.

[DismalScientist]

@acl 90922 wrote:

… removed after a more careful reading of a couple previous posts… i don’t think mine added to the conversation in a helpful manner

Is adding to the conversation in a helpful manner the new standard for posting? Greeeeeaaaat….:rolleyes:

[Author]

Posts