[bobco85]

I’ll be there! Keep in mind that the forecast calls for scattered thunderstorms this evening, so there might be a little extra water at the water park!

Single drink tickets are always $5 at the door, but you can save by buying ahead of time packs of five (5) drinks for or 20 drinks for $75.

Who’s going to get 20 drinks? Maybe there’s going to be a tandem “designated driver” program to help the 20-drinkers get home 😎

[bobco85]

@ursus 161675 wrote:

I am not sure which bridge you are referring to, but if it is the one at the start of the bridge after you pass the newly reconstructed trail at the Roosevelt Island parking lot, it isn’t there anymore.

This is the one I’m talking about, on the west side of that bridge:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14990[/ATTACH]

I hope that flexpost has been removed. It is not a good place for a flexpost to be installed.

[bobco85]

@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

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.

There is a very real danger about bollards in how they have been historically (and currently, cough, cough, Ffx Co Pkwy Trail) used. A solid object placed in sometimes unexpected places that leaves no room for error is dangerous, and people have died after collisions with bollards.

However, the danger in the use of flexposts has not been realized. The flexibility inherent to them allows for energy in a collision to be better absorbed which will reduce injury. I think this is a major reason why they’ve been used so more frequently nowadays.

Concerning your anecdote about your children, you stated that they hit bollards, crashed, and were uninjured when they were young and learning to ride. It’s expected that inexperienced cyclists will be more wobbly and tend to crash more often, but even in this case, flexposts would not have caused injury.

Bollards and flexposts are like apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but one is softer than the other and hurts a lot less when hit.

[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.

[bobco85]

Quick update for everyone: there is a chance of scattered thunderstorms on Saturday, so make sure to bring your rain gear just in case.

Also, if you need to reach me before/during/after the ride, my cell # is 571-201-7189. I also added this info to the start of the thread.

See ya Saturday!

[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?

[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)

[bobco85]

The Four Mile Run Trail turned 50 years old this year (I asked BikeArlington why there was no birthday party). It was first opened on April 4, 1967, and includes portions such as the Wayne F Anderson Bikeway and Barcroft Trail. Photo is from the trail’s grand opening celebration:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14971[/ATTACH]

There is a local myth that Four Mile Run was originally named Flour Mill Run after the various mills (including Arlington Mill) located along the stream and that a dilapidated sign for Flour Mill Run was later interpreted to say Four Mile Run, but that has been debunked using historical maps of the area (one map has Hunting Creek a.k.a. Cameron Run as Three Mile Run, and another has a Fifteen Mile Run located much farther upstream along the Potomac River, but I could not determine the current name for it). Photo is a portion of map drawn by Andrew Ellicott who was commissioned by George Washington to survey the DC area (before there was a DC):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14972[/ATTACH]

Did you know, the Four Mile Run Trail might never have existed, and in its place could have stood the Four Mile Run Expressway? I scared people this morning at coffee club with the following images showing designs for a motor expressway (first image is of Carlin Springs Rd/US-50/Four Mile Run Expressway near Glencarlyn & Bluemont Park; second image is of Walter Reed Dr/Shirlington Rd/Four Mile Run Expressway near Shirlington):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14973[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]14974[/ATTACH]

Obviously, this format allows for more than 140 characters, so I expanded on the brief phrases a bit. I’ll try to keep each of these bite-sized, but I hope folks like this.

[bobco85]

I picked up silver (okay, they’re light gray since they’re not shiny, but I’ll take what I can get!) clothing through a combination of Amazon and bike store luck.

Since I won’t be shiny, I’m considering the use of aluminum foil attachments to my bike…

…(oh, this is gonna be fun)…

[bobco85]

I found this 10 year old report titled “Shared Use Paths in Limited Access Highway Corridors” online and noticed that it includes the Custis Trail here (PDF document): http://www.altaprojects.net/highwaytrails/highwaytrailsfinal0507.pdf Note that there are other highway-adjacent trails shown that we can reference.

Here’s some of the info it lists for the Custis Trail. Compare this with the design proposal.

• Type of Separation from Vehicle Traffic
  • Horizontal and vertical setbacks
  • Sound walls
  • Guardrails
  • Fencing
  • Landscaping
• Benefits
  • Horizontal and vertical setbacks (in most locations)
    enhance user experience
  • Multiple access points to adjacent residential neighborhoods and other bike/ped destinations
• Drawbacks
  • Minimal separation (in some locations) between bike/ped traffic and high-speed vehicle traffic creates negative user experience

[bobco85]

I watched the video and looked at some of the designs, and the biggest question that I have on the proposed design is: Who is going to actually use this trail?

I think the people that are likely to use the trail in its current design are moderate to expert cyclists and runners. It looks to be well made for going long distances and will benefit athletes for training more than anyone else.

I think the people that are likely to not use the trail are beginner cyclists, nature lovers, children, elderly people, dog-walkers, and pedestrians in general. Trail-users will be subjected to loud, noisy traffic, oven-like conditions during the summer (all the asphalt heating up nearby and a noise wall reflecting some of the light at people without any shade), and lots of trash and debris from vehicles (especially during the winter). I don’t think people would enjoy using the trail because there are no landmarks, no interesting trees, no nature to enjoy, and as stated before, no escapes should a situation occur on the trail.

This trail is basically a narrow 2-way bike lane along an interstate and nothing more. It needs to go on the outer side of the noise wall and/or have grade separation.

[bobco85]

My experience with passing pedestrians walking their dogs is to ring my bell earlier than I normally would. The dog (with its much-better-than-human hearing) typically will turn its head and maintain their pace, allowing me to easily and carefully pass without incident. The human sometimes doesn’t even notice anything has happened after the pass.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobco85]

@Steve O 161218 wrote:

Amazing timing. I just got home from donating at the donor center on Prosperity Drive near Dunn Loring, about 6 miles away for me.

I have donated dozens of times by bike. This was the first time they said absolutely nothing about my riding my bike (one nurse did say she noted I rode my bike and that I looked fit, thanks). I haven’t gotten a lot of push back when they recommend not doing any vigorous exercise. When it is mentioned, I tell them I plan to ride easy, exerting myself similarly to as though I am taking a walk (which is true; I take it easy on my ride home, with no ill effects to date).

Ride your bike there, take plenty of time with the cookies and juice afterward, and then just easy roll it into work. You should be fine.

My experience has been the same, although I’ve had to lie about the distance (“oh yeah, it’s only like a mile away” when really it’s about 5) a few times.

The thing to keep in mind is that biking for you is likely a very easy activity, so you can take it slower without much worry. Just make sure you stay hydrated, sugared (extra snacks), and cool, and you’ll be fine. Another good idea: let someone know when/where you’re doing this and check in with them when you get home/work.

Lastly, thanks for donating! I’ve got to get my lazy butt back for another donation myself, so this is a good reminder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobco85]

I decided to wait until viewing the footage to post this, but I experienced 2 separate incidents of drivers not yielding to pedestrians/cyclists in crosswalks on the W&OD Trail this morning. I rarely raise my voice when riding my bicycle, but this morning I had to yell to protect myself and others.

Quick summary:

Incident #1 (Walter Reed Dr/W&OD): driver enters intersection after red light, starts to reverse into crosswalk now occupied by 3 cyclists; I notice driver has dog sitting on his lap with head out window, completely blocking sideview mirror

Incident #2 (George Mason Dr/W&OD): driver impatiently creeps up to crosswalk, then does a quick roll forward as the cyclist in front of me approached, causing him to perform an evasive maneuver; I shouted at driver to stop, noticing he has a stupid grin on his face

Here’s the video (I came very close to dropping some not-family-friendly terminology):
[video=youtube_share;GKcapP4-xzY]https://youtu.be/GKcapP4-xzY[/video]

[bobco85]

Wow, what an asshat of a driver. You should report this behavior to the folks at Key Elementary School because an enraged criminal (hit ‘n’ run) driver had just entered their parking lot that had faculty and other schoolchildren, a serious safety issue.
@dasgeh 160987 wrote:

However, the Police questioned whether there is an implied crosswalk to cross Key on the west side of Bryan St N (you’re going to have to look at a map for this to make any sense). There are 2 1/2 streets that come together basically at the same intersection, and none of the corners are right angles. They spoke in terms of what a judge would enforce (though they agreed the hit and run aspect was clear).

Does this mean that Arlington needs to paint crosswalks at all non-right-angle intersections for ACPD/the courts to interpret that pedestrians to have the right-of-way?

Looking at the satellite image for the intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/dw2fTMcPmh42), it’s clear that the pedestrian ramp “points” northeast across Key Blvd. Thus, there would be an implied crosswalk. I also see that there is a speed hump that the driver must have flown over in their haste to get their kid to school on time which apparently overrides the value of human life.

[Author]

Posts