[Steve O]

And don’t forget that there’s free valet bike parking right at the park. I commend you for cycling to the game!

[Steve O]

Could you ask them to please fix the lights while they are at it. They’ve been out since October.

[Steve O]

I was not on the ride, but I saw the emergency equipment at the corner of Glebe and Old Glebe.
Yes, there may have been gravel, but I also blame the county for leaving the road in such poor condition. There is a lump of asphalt on the curve that could take someone down on the corner. Perhaps that’s what caused the crash–or contributed to it.
There’s a similar problem on the corner of Old Glebe and Military that’s been there for several years. It took me down once turning onto Military.

[Steve O]

My wife is a ped only (doesn’t ride a bike). She tells me she appreciates bells much more than verbal warnings. For her, they are easier to hear and interpret.

@Gensuki – I like the idea of the t-shirt reminder. I don’t think it would offend anyone, particularly if you added the word “please.”

[Steve O]

Arlington has started installing many new bollards in locations that they are not needed and may constitute hazards. At the least, they are wasting tax dollars doing so.

I have blogged about the details at this link.

http://www.steveoffutt.com/2012/05/more-bollards-in-arlington-county.html
There’s also another thread on the forum here:
http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?2161-New-East-Falls-Church-bridge-over-4MR-Why-the-bollards-!!

I also gave public comment to the Board on the morning of May 19. Here is the text of my comments:

My name is Steve Offutt, and I wanted to bring to the board’s attention recent activity by the parks department that needs to be addressed as soon as possible
In the last few weeks, numerous bollards have been installed on trails in the County. I know personally of six new ones within less than one mile of my house in Dominion Hills.
Bollards are those posts that one sees installed near trail intersections with streets. They represent a significant hazard to trail users, and can cause severe injury. The purpose for bollards, if needed at all, is to deter motor vehicles from entering the trail.
Four have been installed on the new bridge connecting Madison Manor with EFC. This bridge is at the intersection of two trails—no street—so there is no reason for bollards here. One of them shows signs of being struck by a cyclist, so someone may have already been injured by them.
Similarly, a bollard was just placed on the 4MR trail by Dominion Hills Park. This is my neighborhood and there has not been a bollard there for at least ten years, and I am not aware of any trail encroachments, so it seems needless, hazardous and a waste of taxpayer dollars to place it here.
From what I have gathered, these installations are being ordered without input from county transportation staff who have cycling expertise nor any community input
The Federal Highway Administration provides guidance on bollards. I quote here from their guidance:
Even “properly” installed bollards constitute a serious and potentially fatal safety hazard . .. . For these reasons, 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 vehicles.
Unjustified bollards can create liability exposure. Trail managers should consider whether or not they increase their liability if they install bollards or other barriers.
Since there is no history of intrusion, these bollards are likely to be considered as “unjustified “ in a court of law, exposing the County to legal risk.
I would like to request that the Board instruct staff to immediately cease installation of any additional bollards until a consistent and acceptable policy for location and design that assures the highest level of safety for our citizens who use these trails is in place. I would also like to recommend that the Board instruct staff to remove the bollards that have been recently installed until such policy is in place.
Thank you.

[Steve O]

This is NOT how it’s supposed to work!
The idea is that they should be REMOVED–not more added.

Yes, another day, another bollard. A brand new one just installed at the entrance to the 4MR trail going to Dominion Hills Park at the corner of N Madison and Four Mile Run Drive.
I think there was one there 10-15 years ago; you can see the patch where it was removed.

I have lived about 300 yards from this location since 2000. As far as I know there has never been any issue with vehicle encroachment here.
Also, this trail is often used by people teaching their little children to bike, because it’s much less busy than the nearby W&OD. Great idea putting a hazard right in the middle of the trail for 6-year olds to run into. I love crying children as much as the next person, but this seems a little nuts.

We need to devise a consistent policy in the county about when and where bollards are to be installed. Right now it seems completely arbitrary.
Although I do not wish harm to anyone, I hope that the next person who is injured by one sues the county for deliberately placing needless hazards in the middle of the path of travel.

[Steve O]

Seems like some sort of speed control, like speed humps, would make a big difference. It would force the cars down to 20-25, which would allow for easier crossing by cyclists and reduced likelihood of rear-ending. Slowing them down for 100 yards or so would add a few seconds to their trip, so I doubt it would ever be an acceptable solution.

[Steve O]

The W&OD trail removed all their bollards a number of years ago, because they believed the safety benefit outweighed whatever potential trail encroachment might occur.

And from the Trails and Greenways yahoo group (via Allen Muchnick)

Two people have been killed by hitting bollards on the Foothills Trail in Washington State. I advocated using flexible plastic posts which
give way when hit, but the county did not buy it. They took out some bollards and painted the small ASHTO diamonds around the remaining
ones, but they are of no use at all. At 15 miles per hour a cyclist travels 22 ft/sec. If they see a warning on the pavement because they
are not looking up, they need at least two seconds or 44 feet to swerve and avoid the bollard.

Look at any bollard and you will see many rubber tire marks on it.
The ASHTO standard needs to be revised to reflect reality.

John Selby
Board Member, Foothills Trail Coalition
===========================
Fatal bike trail wreck raises safety concerns

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20120427/NEWS01/204270305/Fatal-bike-trail-wreck-raises-safety-concerns

MANSFIELD — A death on the Richland B&O Trail has local cyclists concerned about metal posts or barricades known as bollards, which are used to keep motor vehicles off the trail.

A 53-year-old man died Wednesday from injuries received in a bicycle accident Tuesday evening. The experienced cyclist, Giuseppe Maino, hit a barrier in Bellville.

Steve McKee, director of the Richland County Park District that oversees the bike trail, said the bollards have caused accidents in the past.

“It wasn’t really on the horizon until this accident,” McKee said of the bollards. “We’ve had a few people with scrapes in the past. This is going to make us take a serious look.”

Maino was a contractor at the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio National Guard base in Mansfield. He died at 1:10 a.m. Wednesday at MedCentral/Mansfield Hospital, said Richland County Coroner’s Investigator Bob Ball.

McKee said the board will consider some substitute for the existing barricades.

“Our trail is 17 years old and the construction was overseen by the Ohio Department of Transportation, and it was state-of-the-art at the time,” he said Thursday. “Would we consider something different at this point? Yes, we would consider some changes.”

Cindy DeWeese, a park district board member, said, “If there’s something better, it would be something we would consider.”

Cyclist Pete Medek said he knows people who have gotten hurt hitting the bollards. He talked to McKee on Wednesday after Maino’s accident.

“I’m doing some research on what some new methods for bollards are,” Medek said. “There are other methods which can be used in place of bollards … We’re looking at different designs which are a lot safer.

“If we can do it without bollards, that would be my vote, but the ultimate decision is with the county parks. Hopefully, we’ll discuss the options and come up with the winner that everyone is happy with.”

Veteran cyclist Keith Elliott has been riding the Richland B&O Trail for years. Elliott said the group of cyclists associated with Y-Not Cycling and Fitness in Lexington will raise money to help pay for changes to the barricades.

“For the past six or seven years whenever we ride together as a group, the person who takes the lead yells, ‘Poles up!’ when we approach the barricades,” Elliott said Thursday. “We always knew they were dangerous and someone could get seriously injured, and we know people who have gotten hurt, but we never thought someone would get killed by one of those poles.”

Eric Oberg, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s manager of trail development based in Canal Winchester, said bollards are still the most widely used design for access points on trails.

“Bollards in and of themselves are not antiquated,” he said. “There are some other ideas being used now.”

He’s seen some trails split at approaching intersections.

“The trail splits at the intersection. Two trails split for 15 to 20 feet. It creates too narrow of a corridor for any motor vehicle to access,” he said. “A lot of bike trails are not putting in bollards at all now and hoping cars don’t go down the trails. Some places do gates partially open, and that appears more dangerous than a straight bollard. I can’t tell you I know of any other instance of a fatality (with a bollard).

“It’s an unfortunate tragedy, but an opportunity to look at things. … I’m hoping people don’t jump to conclusions and make it anybody’s fault. There’s no blame to be placed. The best thing would be if we learned something from it and make this the legacy of the accident.”

Bellville police Officer Burt Skeen said authorities responded to the bike trail shortly after 7 p.m. Tuesday, about 200 yards west of the bridge where Ogle and East streets meet. Maino, of Turin, Italy, was taken to MedCentral/Mansfield Hospital by Jefferson Township Fire Department rescue personnel. He underwent emergency surgery.

“He was to the rear of the group and only one gentleman was beside him. The other bicyclist was approaching the posts on the bike trail and he went ahead to make sure Giuseppe could pass either on the left or the right of the center pole. Mr. Maino impacted the pole,” Skeen said.

[Steve O]

Hi Pete,
No worries; I appreciate your perspective and experience.

One of the things that is troublesome to me is that where these things go seems totally capricious. I doubt someone could cite a consistent decision making template that would describe why bollards go here and not there.

Interestingly, it appears that the bollards on the east end of the bridge are out of compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, which states:
R302.3 Continuous Width. Except as provided in R302.3.1, the continuous clear width of pedestrian access routes shall be 1.2 m (4.0 ft) minimum, exclusive of the width of the curb.

Advisory R302.3 Continuous Width. The continuous clear width requirements in R302.3 apply to sidewalks and other pedestrian circulation paths, pedestrian street crossings and at-grade rail crossings, and pedestrian overpasses and underpasses and similar structures (see R302.2). Clear width requirements are contained in R304.5.1 for curb ramps and blended transitions, and in R407.4 for ramps. Where sidewalks are wider than 1.2 m (4.0 ft), only a portion of the sidewalk is required to comply with the requirements in R302.3 through R302.7. Additional maneuvering space should be provided at turns or changes in direction, transit stops, recesses and alcoves, building entrances, and along curved or angled routes, particularly where the grade exceeds 5 percent. R210 prohibits street furniture and other objects from reducing the minimum clear width of pedestrian access routes.

Also, it appears that at least one cyclist has already struck the base of one of the bollards, deduced from markings on the base itself, and they’ve been there less than a week. I’d be surprised if that person did not fall down, even at low speed. I don’t like using dangerous, crash-causing objects for speed control.

[Steve O]

Back to the bollards discussion.

Here’s a thought experiment:
The bridge was open and usable for a couple of weeks prior to the installation of the bollards. If it had remained that way, do you think there would have been requests to install them? Would anyone have even imagined they were missing? I believe trail users thought the project was essentially complete and, like me, were caught by surprise by the sudden appearance of bollards that serve no purpose. If they hadn’t magically appeared, this thread would not exist.

I personally saw no threads here on the forum or anywhere regarding that bridge that suggested it was incomplete without having bollards placed on it. Nor would one have ever been created.

If we think bollards are an appropriate way to get people to slow down at intersections, then why not install them at the intersection of the Custis & W&OD? Or at the Custis Trail milepost 0 where the trail goes under I-66 and the sightlines are blocked by the highway structure? Or at every place the W&OD and 4MR trails diverge and reconverge? Or how about that bridge across the creek in Benjamin Banneker Park; that’s an almost exact analogy; why no bollard there? I could come up with dozens of trail intersections where it would be good for cyclists to slow down, but I hardly think that warrants installing bollards on all of them.

So that then begs the question of why this particular trail intersection is special. How is it different and more deserving of bollards than any of the others?

[Steve O]

“When EFC is redeveloped, the W&OD will be moved to a bridge parallel to I-66, presumably connected to the metro. This will make the trail to Sycamore and the new bridge superfluous.”

Perhaps. That project has been included in the plan, but there is far from any guarantee that it would actually get built (given that VDOT would be involved)–nor do we know how many years from now that might be. I hope it does, because that would eliminate the only on-street section of the W&OD on the entire trail.

[Steve O]

And now they’ve added a fourth bollard on the other end of the bridge, which is even more meaningless. Why not one in the middle, too? Or a whole obstacle course of them?

I disagree with @Dirt. Placing dangerous obstacles in the path of travel is not an appropriate method for trying to improve cyclists behavior. We don’t do that with cars. In fact, as discussed on another thread on the forum, it may actually be illegal.

[Steve O]

Where is Kirkland Road? Do you mean Kirkwood?

[Steve O]

So it took just about a month from the initial note on this thread. Should that be considered fast? Or slow?
I don’t ride that section regularly, but I’m wondering if they put up cautionary signs after the notification of the problem but before the actual repair. Since we know it caused at least one injury, it would seem that would be the least one should expect.
For comparison, imagine a bump in the road severe enough to make cars veer out of their lane if hit at normal speed. There would be cautionary signs up w/in hours even if the repair took longer than that.

[Steve O]

I’m glad it’s working!

The more I think about it the more it seems bollards are, in fact, a deliberate attempt (although unintentionally deliberate, if that makes any sense) to injure people–the steel ones, that is. Think about it. An immovable, solid steel object is deliberately placed exactly in the middle of the lanes of travel. We all know people are fallible, so eventually someone is going to run into it. It’s just a matter of time. So when a dangerous bollard is placed right where cyclists have to pass by it, we know that someone will eventually be injured by it. Guaranteed. We know. Repeat: it’s going to happen.
And yes, it’s likely whoever is injured may have been inattentive or careless, but that’s irrelevant. Traffic engineers put in safety devices on abutments and other solid objects all over our roads and highways to help reduce the impact for cars. Those are placed on objects that could only possibly be run into by reckless or inattentive drivers. But we protect them anyway.
Here are some examples:
http://g.co/maps/xe458
http://g.co/maps/9k6pv
http://g.co/maps/t65y3
http://g.co/maps/ne59j
http://g.co/maps/mkh9k
http://g.co/maps/p94me

Bollards, though, are not protected AND they are deliberately placed right where it’s guaranteed they will cause injury. Seems almost like it ought to be criminal.

Steve (President of RUB – Remove Useless Bollards)

[Author]

Posts