[Steve O]

In my Christmas letter to my family last year (written in the 3rd person), each of us was assigned a superpower. Mine was:

“In any conversation, if a geographical reference is made, after a moment or two of thought, he will say, ‘You know, you could bike there.'”

This has become a running joke in our family, because I actually do this a lot without even trying.

(My old high school friend sent me an email after receiving our Christmas letter, which consisted of a single sentence: “We’re going to Hawaii on vacation this year.” Ouch!)

[Steve O]

If there’s a big group of people, I just jog over and ride on the road and don’t deal with either trail. I always regret it, though, when the light at the DMV turns red and the trail riders go on by while I have to wait for the light.

[Steve O]

I had Shimanos on my bike that was stolen. They were on so long, that I don’t even remember the model. I love them, because I use my bike for so many different things, so being able to ride in street shoes or clip in is great.

I went to Performance and bought Forte Campus pedals. I regretted it immediately. Whatever model Shimanos I had before were designed to hang a particular way. So to clip in you would put your toe on the top and push forward. It was always the identical motion, so once you created the kinetic memory, clipping in was automatic. When wearing street shoes, you put the middle of your foot on the top and pushed back to set your foot on the flat side.

The new ones are always just any which way. I miss the old automatic way.

[Steve O]

Wait, he said they only survive a few hits!!! Doesn’t that imply that they are being hit all the time. That’s why they shouldn’t be there at all. How many times have they been hit in the last 20 years? A thousand? That’s only 50/year or 1/week. I bet it’s a lot more than that.

So let’s say it’s been 2000 hits in 20 years, with 1/4 of those resulting in someone going down. Is that a reasonable rate of crashing to justify keeping, what, 3-4 cars from turning and then realizing after 20 yards that they are in the wrong place?

WTF!!

[Steve O]

I’m planning to make it about 7:45. See you there.

[Steve O]

Looks cool. I would just get the taillight, though. The headlamps don’t appear to have a very good pattern–they just light the road immediately in front and aren’t designed to be brighter on top to light the road farther ahead. If you just want to be seen, great; if you need to actually see, not so much.

[Steve O]

@Steve O 61135 wrote:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3488[/ATTACH]

If you are at any of the Saturday bike sales this weekend (I’ve seen several advertised on CraigsList), feel free to keep an eye out for a silver with red accents Fuji frame. It had a ACPD registration sticker and also some reflective tape on the seat tube as well as on the crank arms (you can see in the photo). They may have scraped off the ACPD sticker, though. A little rusty and scraped up. Who knows if all the accessories shown above would still be on it. I’ll be away Saturday, so I can’t make the rounds myself.
Thanks!!!

[Steve O]

@bobco85 62293 wrote:

I think all cyclists have a responsibility to pay attention and slow down if they can’t see the trail ahead of them. I just don’t see a situation where a cyclist behaving responsibly would have this problem.

Ever notice those big barrels that protect a car in a crash?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3581[/ATTACH]
I think all motorists have a responsibility to pay attention and slow down if they can’t see the road ahead of them. I just don’t see a situation where a motorist behaving responsibly would need these barrels? (BTW – the enormous concrete bollard in this photo should definitely be removed, and even more so the one opposite it, which a car would have to be traveling the wrong way on Key Bridge to even see.)

Those barrels are there because we know that people make errors, sometimes even stupid ones. As a society we have decided that if a drunk driver plows into the side of the bridge, he or she should not have to die for being careless or stupid or however you want to characterize it. (the more cynical might claim they are there just to protect the bridge; I hope that is not true.)

I heartily agree that a responsibly behaving cyclist shouldn’t hit the bollard. I also know that people make mistakes–even I have made a mistake or two .
So adding an unnecessary hazard like a bollard is just guaranteeing that a mistake that is made is more likely to result in an injury instead of just an “oops, I’m drifting across the trail–need to pay better attention,” which we have all done. 100% perfect attention; 100% distractionless environment; 100% sound bicycle maintenance; 100% trail maintenance: all those would be great in a perfect world. I don’t live in that one. The bollard is unnecessary because there are other non-hazardous ways to accomplish the same thing.

[Steve O]

The reason that bollards are painted yellow and made reflective is because they are a hazard. The coloring and reflectivity is a warning that they constitute a danger. Perhaps some perceive this danger as mild or low, but if it were non-existent, then the bollards would not need any treatments to be seen.

Paul McCray of NVRPA did verify that the one on the west side has been there for quite some time. Because there is no mechanism for reporting a minor crash and a scraped elbow caused by that bollard, one could claim there is no evidence that it causes any danger. I am certain that scores of people have been affected by that bollard. It’s very possible even that a couple have gone to the emergency room, but there is no mechanism for connecting the injury at the hospital with the bollard. So it’s true that I have no evidence that that particular bollard has caused any crashes, but I’m 100% certain that it has.

I recommend the FHWA guidelines as a starting point: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/bollards_access.cfm
“bollards should never be a default treatment, and should not be used unless there is a documented history of intrusion by unauthorized cars, trucks, or other unauthorized vehicles.”

I also highly recommend this series of blog posts: http://www.ohiobikeways.net/bikewaysblog.htm#bollards
In particular watch the video, which was taken by an extremely experienced cyclist. It’s just ridiculous to add a hazard–even a low-risk one–for no particularly good reason, to a trail. Even more so when there are non-hazardous solutions available.
That one at Maple St. can easily be circumvented by anyone who wants to get on the trail and there are plenty of non-bollard options like paint and signs and design changes that will work as well or better than the bollard at notifying drivers that they don’t belong. So what’s the point other than to knock down some 7-year old just trying to learn to ride? I’ve seen it happen.

[Steve O]

@bobco85 62246 wrote:

I disagree with your analogy about flexible bollards equating to telephone poles.

Even flexible bollards cause crashes. It’s much better having your hand strike one of these than a concrete one, no doubt. But if your wheel hits the base, it’s still very likely you will crash. Given the large crowds of cyclists and peds at these crossings, there is a significant “second user” problem, in which the following cyclists cannot see the hazard until it is too late to avoid. Painting diamonds around the bases does nothing to help with this problem.
My plan B would be a total redesign – not placing a hazard in the middle of the trail.
For a dissertation on why they are a very bad idea in general, read this series:
http://www.ohiobikeways.net/bikewaysblog.htm#bollards

I would also point out that the one on the west side of the intersection can just be driven around quite easily (or over, for that matter, since it’s designed that way). So if it’s there to let people know there’s a trail, how about just some signs instead? Why subject some 7 year-old wobbly newbie to scrapes and cuts caused by a bollard crash when a sign will serve the same purpose? (Both of my kids, when they were young, had encounters with bollards that made them crash.)

[Steve O]

@bobco85 62159 wrote:

I hope they are repaired and properly installed (with diamonds painted).

No. I hope that they are removed entirely, which they should be. They haven’t been there for 15+ years; there’s no need for them now–particularly in light of the fact that trail usage is going up. FHWA guidance discourages the use of bollards as a default option. Long before we install bollards other solutions need to be tried, such as signage, paint treatments or other design changes. We don’t put telephone poles in the middle of the street; we should not put posts in the middle of the trail. Period.
(FHWA guidance is here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/bollards_access.cfm)

[Steve O]

I found the original. Paul McCray of the NVRPA responded to one of my blog rants about bollards with this on Feb. 9 2010:

“We have had a number of incidents on the W&OD Trail when a car has driven up the path, usually by mistake. To my knowledge though we’ve never had damage beyond some ruts in the turf beside the trail and never had a trail user injured due to a vehicle on the path. We took out our bollards and gates 15+ years ago just to eliminate any chance of accidents and to ease access for police, fire, rescue and maintenance.”

Of course, there was the recent injury on the trail from the crazy/impaired woman in Vienna. IMO, one serious incident in two decades + does not warrant a change in policy.

[Steve O]

A couple of years ago, as president of RUB (Remove Useless Bollards), and working with Arlington County to get rid of them virtually everywhere, I contacted someone from the W&OD. I was told that they removed all the bollards 10-15 years ago as a safety measure–that they determined the danger of the bollards to the cyclists was greater than the risk of someone driving onto the trail. They were removed from the entire length of the trail.
I was disturbed to notice the bollards at Maple, because that seems to go against their general policy.

I do not like them, and I hope that the collars are removed and the crossing is returned to its bollardless state.

[Steve O]

If you feel inclined and enjoy coffee, you can meet a bunch of us Forumers at Friday Coffee Club every Friday at Swing’s near the White House. Just show up between about 7 and 9 and say hi.

[Steve O]

@Steve O 62033 wrote:

How easy/hard to remove?
Theft-proofing

I think you were talking about the light rather than the hub. My bike was a lot like yours, steel frame, fenders, rack, used for commuting, getting to meetings, going on rides with friends and even medium length rides like 25-35 miles for fun. All around. Also locked around town a lot (hence, stolen!). The light I had on it, that I got with the Schmidt originally, was mounted into the brake mount. It was a Lumotec Oval, which was kind of state-of-the-are at the time (LEDs were just getting into the market, and were far from perfect). No one ever tried to take it; it would have required wrenches and stuff and a few minutes of time. Not grab and go. If you want to leave one on the bike, because you might forget to take it with you, then I’d go with a somewhat less expensive model that does NOT have a quick release and has to be wrenched onto something.

[Author]

Posts