League of Illinois Bicyclists and Chicago Bicycling Federation attack bike paths [rant warning]

[Mike Kruger]

These fine groups sent me informational notices today about
the danger posed by bike paths, specifically the "stop block"
posts that aim to prevent motor vehicles from using the paths.

Story and video:
http://cbs2chicago.com/siteSearch/local_story_164203645.html

The article contains this bit of hyperbole from Nick Jackson
of the CBF (who I've met, and who seems like a reasonable
enough person): "This is down at ankle level; a bicyclist has
no chance to see this," Jackson said. "This is going to be
dangerous. They are going to hit that and they are going to
fall."

So cyclists have "no chance" and are "going to fall". On my
commute route, there are at least 10 of these on the 4 miles I
spend on the North Branch trail. I take this route about 50
times a year, since 1996. So, 10 * 2 * 50 * 10 = 10,000 times
I've passed these without hitting one. That's not my
definition of "No chance". I think our advocates do us a
disservice by making cycling sound overly dangerous.

The video contains a humorous / appalling scene of young
cyclists riding past the dangerous stop block -- and blowing
right by the stop sign and riding through the intersection
without so much as slowing down. There's a good example!

The LIB and the CBF probably do have a point about the stop
blocks being an old, obsolete design, but (a) there's no
mention of these group's roles in getting the paths built in
the first place some years ago, something they are usually
anxious to remind me of when my membership is up for renewal,
and (b) at least some governmental units will find ways to
replace these with something worse, like those awful things
that force you to navigate an area just wider than mountain
bike handlebars.

 

[Olebiker]

The last time I was able to get my wife on a bike, July 4, 1991, she
hit one of those posts on the St. Marks Trail in Tallahassee and broke
two ribs. It was a four by four concrete post with a rebar. She bent
that sucker over.

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> These fine groups sent me informational notices today about
> the danger posed by bike paths, specifically the "stop block"
> posts that aim to prevent motor vehicles from using the paths.
>
> Story and video:
> http://cbs2chicago.com/siteSearch/local_story_164203645.html
>
> The article contains this bit of hyperbole from Nick Jackson
> of the CBF (who I've met, and who seems like a reasonable
> enough person): "This is down at ankle level; a bicyclist has
> no chance to see this," Jackson said. "This is going to be
> dangerous. They are going to hit that and they are going to
> fall."...
>
> The LIB and the CBF probably do have a point about the stop
> blocks being an old, obsolete design, but (a) there's no
> mention of these group's roles in getting the paths built in
> the first place some years ago, something they are usually
> anxious to remind me of when my membership is up for renewal,
> and (b) at least some governmental units will find ways to
> replace these with something worse, like those awful things
> that force you to navigate an area just wider than mountain
> bike handlebars.

The link you gave wouldn't come up for me. But bollards (or posts) can
certainly be a bad idea.

According to the design manuals I have here, if bollards are necessary
to keep motorists out, they need to have adequate warning and
visibility to keep cyclists from running into them. That visibility
includes night visibility. They also need adequate spacing so cyclists
can ride through them easily.

As luck would have it, I'm presently fighting a very dangerous bollard
installation on a bike lane in a local metropolitan park. I'm not well
disposed toward bollards at the moment - if ever.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[The Wogster]

Justa Lurker wrote:

> Here is a photo of the site of my bicycling accident last July, which I
> mentioned in a previous post in another thread:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbatb/25790327/
>
> Trail users are (well --- they were anyhow, the county finally removed
> this thing earlier this year) supposed to go around either end. Which I
> had done with no problems many times previously. Until one fine morning
> when I was distracted by the nice weather and/or a pretty girl going the
> other way and/or problems at work and/or whatever.....combined with
> leaving my sunglasses on after entering the shaded tree-covered area
> from the bright sunlight. Kabammmmmmm ---- bicycle stops, body in
> motion [mine] stays in motion ---- result: instant severely & totally
> dislocated elbow requiring ambulance ride to trauma center, 3 weeks in
> splint, and 6 weeks in physical therapy (could've been worse, I know).
>

Around here, they use metal poles, these are usually painted brown, with
yellow reflective stripes on them, to make them more visible. Usually
they are made as a swinging gate so that maintenance vehicles can get
in, but other vehicles can't. Usually there is a big sign on the gate
portion that says something like no unauthorized motor vehicles.

W

 

[Justa Lurker]

The Wogster wrote:

>
> Around here, they use metal poles, these are usually painted brown, with
> yellow reflective stripes on them, to make them more visible. Usually
> they are made as a swinging gate so that maintenance vehicles can get
> in, but other vehicles can't. Usually there is a big sign on the gate
> portion that says something like no unauthorized motor vehicles.
>

Yes, that was my first reaction to suggest some sort of reflective
attention-getting signage, etc. be added if they couldn't simply
eliminate the wooden crossarm ---- which (like yours) could be
lifted/swung out of the way to let service & emergency vehicles onto the
multiuse trail. The park system responded that one of their concerns
was aesthetics and appearance and not wanting to detract from the
natural beauty. While I don't want billboards and convenience stores
and neon signs all along the trail either, I felt that answer wasn't
satisfactory. At least they finally did something about it.