W&OD Bollards at Maple Ave

[bobco85]

@Steve O 62259 wrote:

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.)

Where is the evidence that flexible bollards are causing injuries? I understand and agree that there is a danger with stiff bollards (like those on the Fairfax County Parkway Trail), but I think you are exaggerating the danger here. The bollards in this situation are not obscured by foliage or a turn and are located at an intersection where cyclists would presumably be slowing down anyways.

I also don’t accept the “second user” problem because 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.

If it is proven that flexible bollards are as dangerous as you claim, then I will change my opinion. Until then, I will continue to see them as safe as gates, fences, etc.

[mstone]

@bobco85 62293 wrote:

Where is the evidence that flexible bollards are causing injuries? I understand and agree that there is a danger with stiff bollards (like those on the Fairfax County Parkway Trail), but I think you are exaggerating the danger here. The bollards in this situation are not obscured by foliage or a turn and are located at an intersection where cyclists would presumably be slowing down anyways.

I also don’t accept the “second user” problem because 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.

If it is proven that flexible bollards are as dangerous as you claim, then I will change my opinion. Until then, I will continue to see them as safe as gates, fences, etc.

It’s yet another (unnecessary) distraction in a busy conflict zone. When the flex bollard breaks, it leaves a dangerous collard which is more than capable of knocking over a bike. (And they always end up breaking.) Again, if they want to stick a bollard in there, they should widen the trail to allow a reasonable width on either side, especially in an area where it’s not uncommon for crowds of pedestrians and cyclists to try to scurry across in a pack during a too-short pedestrian interval. Check the relevant AASHTO documents for bollard guidelines.

It is worth pointing out that flex posts aren’t designed for cyclist safety, they’re designed to not damage cars. Given that, I’d flip your “prove it” argument to, “prove that the bollards are safe for an application outside of their design parameters”. Also note that impacting a solid object is only one of the hazards of bollards discussed by AASHTO, and flex posts don’t mitigate other hazards like compromising the design parameters (width, etc) of a path.

[bobco85]

@mstone 62306 wrote:

It’s yet another (unnecessary) distraction in a busy conflict zone. When the flex bollard breaks, it leaves a dangerous collard which is more than capable of knocking over a bike. (And they always end up breaking.) Again, if they want to stick a bollard in there, they should widen the trail to allow a reasonable width on either side, especially in an area where it’s not uncommon for crowds of pedestrians and cyclists to try to scurry across in a pack during a too-short pedestrian interval. Check the relevant AASHTO documents for bollard guidelines.

It is worth pointing out that flex posts aren’t designed for cyclist safety, they’re designed to not damage cars. Given that, I’d flip your “prove it” argument to, “prove that the bollards are safe for an application outside of their design parameters”. Also note that impacting a solid object is only one of the hazards of bollards discussed by AASHTO, and flex posts don’t mitigate other hazards like compromising the design parameters (width, etc) of a path.

I looked up the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) found here: http://www.albany.edu/ihi/files/AASHTO_Bike_Guide.pdf, and only on page 66 is there a reference to bollard use/non-use:

Restriction of Motor Vehicle Traffic

Shared use paths may need some form of physical barrier at highway intersections
to prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from using the
facilities. Provisions can be made for a lockable, removable (or reclining)
barrier post to permit entrance by authorized vehicles. Posts or bollards
should be set back beyond the clear zone on the crossing highway or be
of a breakaway design. The post should be permanently reflectorized for
nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved daytime visibility.
Striping an envelope around the post is recommended as shown in
Figure 26. When more than one post is used, an odd number of posts at
1.5-m (5-foot) spacing is desirable. Wider spacing can allow entry to motor
vehicles, while narrower spacing might prevent entry by adult
tricycles, wheelchair users, and bicycles with trailers.

((Figure 26. Barrier Post Striping) showing use of 10 ft long by 2 ft wide painted diamond around bollard)

An alternative method of restricting entry of motor vehicles is to split the
entry way into two 1.5-m (5-foot) sections separated by low landscaping.
Emergency vehicles can still enter if necessary by straddling the landscaping.
The higher maintenance costs associated with landscaping
should be acknowledged before this alternative method is selected.

I have to say, I had a hard time finding information on flexible bollards and their safety towards cyclists. Most references are to the intention of their use to restrict motor vehicle traffic. If you can link to more information, I’d be glad to read it (it’s a SLOW day today).

My preference is for the repainting of the crosswalk to be done with signs informing drivers that they aren’t allowed on the trail, but again I see no evidence for the dangers of flexible bollards when properly maintained. I withdraw my argument for flexible bollards that are not properly maintained (this includes being replaced when broken).

[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 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.

[mstone]

@bobco85 62351 wrote:

I have to say, I had a hard time finding information on flexible bollards and their safety towards cyclists. Most references are to the intention of their use to restrict motor vehicle traffic. If you can link to more information, I’d be glad to read it (it’s a SLOW day today).[/quote]

That was my point. You’re assuming that they’re a safe alternative, but that’s not what they were designed to be and that’s why you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for. You will see manufacturer glossies claiming that one bollard or another is “safer” for pedestrians, but note they claim that for round steel/concrete bollards (look, ma, no corners!) just as much as for flex posts. The top bullet is generally something like “won’t damage cars” or “less likely to need you to roll a truck to remove a road hazard if someone knocks it over”.

Quote:

I withdraw my argument for flexible bollards that are not properly maintained (this includes being replaced when broken).

That should be assumed to be the default end state for bollards, based on real-world experience. You poo-poo the idea that a flex post is a hazard, and road/trail maintenance people poo-poo the idea that a collard is a hazard. Until attitudes change on the maintenance end (seems unlikely for many reasons, including resource pressures) then it makes sense to put even more emphasis on avoiding bollards which are destined to be poorly maintained on the engineering end.

[mstone]

@Steve O 62385 wrote:

Ever notice those big barrels that protect a car in a crash?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3581[/ATTACH]
I just don’t see a situation where a motorist behaving responsibly would need these barrels?

And it’s not just the crushable barrels. There are guidelines for leaving clear space along a roadway or making sure that signs & lights will break off safely, for ramping up barriers, for making sure that highway guide walls collapse at a given level of force. Ever been alongside the metro tracks on 66? Even the ladders carved into the access gates are carefully angled such that a car sideswiping the wall there won’t catch on a solid obstruction. An immense amount of engineering effort goes into trying to ensure that motorists (already encased in a ton of steel and a bunch of inflatable bags) can’t hurt themselves if they go off the road, but if the hazard is to cyclists and pedestrians on the path the response is “be more careful”. WTF.

[eminva]

@Steve O 62385 wrote:

I heartily agree that a responsibly behaving cyclist shouldn’t hit the bollard.

Not to play devil’s advocate, but to illustrate another possible scenario, let me tell you about my experience. There used to be flexible bollards at the Sandburg Street crossing in Dunn Loring. As I was heading eastbound, I crossed the intersection and slowed to allow a jogger to pass the (very visible to me) bollard before I attempted to pass him. Just then, two very ELITE cyclists passed me in the face of oncoming traffic. They realized their mistake too late and quickly pulled back in front of me and the jogger. One clipped the bollard, which came off and went flying into my front wheel. To avoid hitting the jogger, I bailed into the grass. I was unhurt and the bike was okay (the bollard was a goner).

I’m just trying to make the point that responsibly behaving cyclists can be negatively impacted by bollards, too.

Liz

[bobco85]

@mstone 62388 wrote:

And it’s not just the crushable barrels. There are guidelines for leaving clear space along a roadway or making sure that signs & lights will break off safely, for ramping up barriers, for making sure that highway guide walls collapse at a given level of force. Ever been alongside the metro tracks on 66? Even the ladders carved into the access gates are carefully angled such that a car sideswiping the wall there won’t catch on a solid obstruction. An immense amount of engineering effort goes into trying to ensure that motorists (already encased in a ton of steel and a bunch of inflatable bags) can’t hurt themselves if they go off the road, but if the hazard is to cyclists and pedestrians on the path the response is “be more careful”. WTF.

The flexible bollards are safer for the very reason that they “give way” if someone runs into them to lessen injury. The cyclist who made the video that Steve O referred to even says in the few seconds about flexible bollards that “…[flexible bollards] could still take a bicyclist down but probably would not cause any serious injuries through direct impact…” while the image shows a proper set-up for a flexible bollard with painted diamond.

The way I would use bollards if I were to use them at all: they would be flexpost, have the painted diamond on the ground, be colored brightly and with reflective striping if not lit (LED solar-powered lights if the set-up is possible), and the trail would have extra width near the bollard. I think that would be safe because it would be clear that trail-users aren’t supposed to go into that area.

That’s my ideal use of bollards.

[mstone]

@bobco85 62410 wrote:

The flexible bollards are safer for the very reason that they “give way” if someone runs into them to lessen injury

And, again, direct impact isn’t the only problem caused by bollards. It’s certainly safer for me to hit you with a wooden 2×4 than a steel beam of the same dimensions, but “safer” isn’t “safe”, and pointing out that the 2×4 is safer doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to hit someone with it.

Quote:

The way I would use bollards if I were to use them at all: they would be flexpost, have the painted diamond on the ground, be colored brightly and with reflective striping if not lit (LED solar-powered lights if the set-up is possible), and the trail would have extra width near the bollard. I think that would be safe because it would be clear that trail-users aren’t supposed to go into that area.

That’s certainly getting closer to the design guidelines for bollard use. I wonder, though, why you’d bother with a mid-lane flex bollard at all if you’re doing such extensive redesign? It would probably be better to implement two reasonably-sized openings between 3 bollards or within a more substantial wall/fence if you really want to ensure that vehicles stay out (with appropriate markings, etc). Or, simply divide the path and put something like a grass strip in the middle to make it visually obvious that it’s not just a road. Or just use green paint and NO CARS lettering…

[bobco85]

@mstone 62420 wrote:

And, again, direct impact isn’t the only problem caused by bollards. It’s certainly safer for me to hit you with a wooden 2×4 than a steel beam of the same dimensions, but “safer” isn’t “safe”, and pointing out that the 2×4 is safer doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to hit someone with it.

I think it would be safe if the bollard was properly set-up with a buffer zone (diamond area). Also, that analogy doesn’t really work here. It would work if you said something flexible like a pool noodle.

@mstone 62420 wrote:

That’s certainly getting closer to the design guidelines for bollard use. I wonder, though, why you’d bother with a mid-lane flex bollard at all if you’re doing such extensive redesign? It would probably be better to implement two reasonably-sized openings between 3 bollards or within a more substantial wall/fence if you really want to ensure that vehicles stay out (with appropriate markings, etc). Or, simply divide the path and put something like a grass strip in the middle to make it visually obvious that it’s not just a road. Or just use green paint and NO CARS lettering…

Agreed. I’d try for an alternative to bollards first, then the splitting path idea (I’ve never encountered that but would love to see it), and lastly the mid-path bollard. I just think the mid-path bollard is more likely to be put into use because it doesn’t require a lot of extra work (read: money).

[mstone]

@bobco85 62434 wrote:

I just think the mid-path bollard is more likely to be put into use because it doesn’t require a lot of extra work (read: money).

If they do it on the cheap we’ll get the post stuck in the middle of the too-narrow path and that’s it. Given all the trade offs, I’d rather see nothing, especially since they haven’t tried any of the non-invasive solutions yet.

[kcb203]

They were back up this morning.

[hozn]

@kcb203 62676 wrote:

They were back up this morning.

Yeah, they were put back up Thursday AM. I was there when it happened, riding out after HP workout w/ Tim. Chatted with the nice guy that was installing them. I guess they use epoxy to secure them, but he says it only survives a few hits before they have to be replaced. He was moving the east side one back from the road a bit, but apparently only because the area nearer the road was kinda chewed up from previous installation(s).

[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!!

[Author]

Posts