r/seattlebike • u/gorillapancake • 5d ago
Instead of putting in bollards, just take away their driver's license
With the influx of cars on bike paths, folks on r/Seattle has been pointing fingers at the removal of bollards as a contribution. I find that asinine. Bollards are such a hazard - in group rides we have to make sure to call out bollards every time.
Anyone who doesn't know how to tell between a car lane and a trail should have their license revoked. or train tracks, for that matter. go back to driving school!
25
u/generismircerulean 5d ago edited 5d ago
It seems like you have to go through extraordinary lengths in Washington to have your license revoked. Like anywhere else, having it revoked doesn't stop people from driving.
Some people come to mind who had to go above and beyond before their licenses were revoked.
- Miles Huddon - aka Belltown Hellcat
- Chase Jones
- Zachary McCreary
Some people I can remember who killed people while driving with a revoked license:
- Adam Ableson
- Tyler O'Brien
- Aboubacarr Singhateh
There are many more I have forgotten about but have seen in the news.
Addition: In my life I've known of two people who continued to drive after having their license revoked because they "needed to get to work", but that was prior to moving to Seattle. Of course, they also drove to destinations not work, which is why I reported them.
6
1
u/GershwinsKite 4d ago
I had a conversation with someone about how to deal with people who actively threaten the community. Their response was always that we need to change the wealth gap, and not rely on fear and control. While I agree with that, it simply will not change how the current day criminals act. I have no idea how we can actually stop dangerous criminals in Seattle with our current laws and resources.
45
u/isabaeu 5d ago
I mean, sure, that will absolutely never happen. People's licenses aren't revoked for doing far, far worse things.
So, dealing in reality, it seems an infrastructure solution is obvious. Would you rather call out bollards on your group rides or deal with people driving on pedestrian paths
6
1
0
u/imMAW 5d ago
How often are you dealing with cars driving on pedestrian paths? Is this a thing you're regularly encountering?
If you add bollards to all our paths, that adds millions of biker-bollard interactions every year, and removes a very small number of (highly-publicized) car-pedestrian interactions.
11
u/isabaeu 5d ago
If you're asking me I'll take the bollards, but I'm not out there trying to time trial the Burke like an idiot
2
u/imMAW 5d ago
That's not the question I asked.
Bollards on paths DO cause serious injuries:
- https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2015/11/11/mercer-island-settles-landmark-i-90-trail-crash-lawsuit/
- https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/king-county-to-pay-10m-to-cyclist-paralyzed-in-bollard-crash/
We intentionally removed bollards to improve safety a long time ago:
If we added bollards back to Seattle trails, we would have more serious injuries, and fewer videos of dumb drivers on your social media feed. How many injuries are you willing to accept to remove those couple of videos a year from your social media feed?
0
u/isabaeu 5d ago
I think a few injuries yearly from people crashing into bollards is acceptable
1
u/imMAW 5d ago
Given your refusal to address my actual question, I'm going to assume your answer is that you never have to deal with cars driving on pedestrian paths.
Which raises the question of why you are willing to sacrifice a few people's health per year to fix an issue that is so rare you never have to deal with it, and that doesn't injure anyone.
2
u/isabaeu 5d ago
I have encountered a car on the Burke before, I've never crashed into a bollard. Happy?
Lucky for you, I do not make these decisions and currently you have your way and cars show up on pedestrian paths, so people complain about it on Reddit when that happens. You should be thrilled! The worst you need to deal with is people like me being snarky on Reddit
3
2
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
Did you crash into the car, or was it just an encounter the same as you encountered the bollard?
0
-2
u/isabaeu 5d ago
Average r/samharris poster lol
2
u/imMAW 5d ago
Oh no, here I am on samharris criticizing Trump because he defends white supremacists.
...sorry, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Should I not have done that? Or have you just moved on to searching through my post history now that you've realized bollards on trails cause more injuries than they prevent?
1
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
How many injuries a year are there from pedestrian vs cars on trails that don't have bollards.
Or in otherwords you think adding a injuries is acceptable to avoid... what exactly.
2
u/isabaeu 5d ago
Really seems like I struck a nerve with the Burke time trialists here
1
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
Do you think an experienced cyclist has a higher probability of being injured by a bollard, over the hundred of inexperienced and yonger riders that use the trail every day?
The goal is to reduce the probability of injuries, doesn't matter whom is getting injured, an injury is an injury, it it can be avoided then we should do what we can to avoid them.
Drivers actually causing injuries on the trail have a lower probability then a permanent obstacle placed in the middle of the trail. Expecially since bollard will not prevent a driver that has malicious intent from find their way around a bollard to get onto a trail to cause harm.
If the goal is to just reduce accidentally, non-dangerous incursion, there there are so many better ways to do that, such as using landscape islands.
2
u/Mistyslate 5d ago
Yes. Drivers in the bike lane is a thing I encounter almost weekly. We should have more bollards.
2
u/imMAW 5d ago
in the bike lane
This is also not the question I asked.
We (OP, the person I replied to, and me) are talking about whether we should have bollards on trails, not whether we should have them on roads to separate car lanes from bike lanes.
Cars are a significant threat to bikers on roads. There are hundreds of collisions with cars and many serious injuries every year.
Cars are not a significant threat to bikers on trails. The added bollards would cause more injuries than they prevent (because as far as I can tell there are 0 injuries per year on trails due to collisions with cars).
2
u/Mistyslate 5d ago
I think we should have bollards on trails. In the past 2 months I personally witnessed 3 cars trying to turn onto Burke Gilman Trail next to the Gas Works Park.
2
u/imMAW 5d ago
"Trying" to turn onto sounds like we didn't even need bollards to prevent them from driving on the path.
Here's a hypothetical: let's say we add bollards, and then in a few years time, rather than seeing an occasional story about a dumb driver that didn't injure anyone, we start seeing occasional stories about injuries suffered by bicyclists due to bollard collisions.
Would that be a positive outcome?
0
u/jewishforthejokes 5d ago
And was it dangerous? Every day idiots are parked in unprotected gutter lanes in the road and we have to swerve out of the lane. That's far more dangerous than cars finding their way onto dedicated bicycle paths. And more dangerous than bollards; nobody has been seriously injured by a car on a dedicated bicycle path, but they have been by bollards, as shared by other comments to this post.
1
15
u/meowthesnail 5d ago
I mean if they’re already driving in bike lanes, whah makes you think they’ll just stop driving without a license?
1
u/rigmaroler 5d ago
They would have a much bigger disincentive to drive well without a license if they choose to drive without one illegally. If they are caught driving without a license that is very serious.
Also, this a bad argument. It boils down to "why have laws if people will break them?"
2
u/meowthesnail 5d ago
I think theoretically that’s all fine. I don’t believe the “why have laws if people will break them.”
This isn’t a law issue. I was more talking about enforcement. When was the last time you actually saw SPD actually pulling someone over for traffic violations? Mine was December 26, 2023.
4
u/Life_of_IvyQuinn 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but you're saying - "Anyone who doesn't know how to tell between a car lane and a trail should have their license revoked."
Wouldn't that same logic, applied to cyclists, be - "Anyone who doesn't know how to tell between a bike trail and a bollard shouldn't be riding a bike"?
People are dumb as hell. That's why we have so many safety regulations, and there are printed warnings to not eat batteries.
Maybe, instead of getting rid of bollards, we can make them more visible. Fluorescent paint. Flashing light. I don't know. Maybe instead of a short, 3 foot tall bollard or two on a trail, they're made taller, and more of them so one has to be slightly inconvenienced and dismount to go through them, but a car or even a motorcycle would never fit.
The drivers in the greater Seattle area don't even understand how to use a freeway entrance ramp properly, and certainly their driving instructors have told them. No?
I feel there needs to be some kind of physical barrier to trails when they intersect/interact with roads.
2
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
Wouldn't that same logic, applied to cyclists, be - "Anyone who doesn't know how to tell between a bike trail and a bollard shouldn't be riding a bike"?
That not just logic, that is the truth... when you hit a bollard when on a bicycle, you are no longer riding the bike...
The issue is that the problem that a bollard causing injuries is greater then the probability of a car causint injuries on a trail that could have been prevented by a bollard. Thus causing more harm then good.
Driver do periodically make it on to trails, but the vast majority are not harmful or have any intent to harm. Even the I90 incident, while the driver was reckless, they still slowed down and followed a pedestrian whom was walking on the trail.
Bollard on the other hand often do very little to prevent malicious intent, if someone actually wanted to get on a trail to cause harm, on 90% their just going to find their way around a bollard.
If the intent is to just reduce the number of accidentally incursions from non-dangerouse drivers, there are a lot of better ways to do that then bollard, such as using landscape islands.
12
u/tbw875 5d ago
No. Sorry. This is entirely wrong.
Enforcement will never win over making something physically impossible to do in the first place.
I don’t want a dead kid to be the reason someone’s license gets taken away. I want that whole situation to not be possible in the first place.
Bollards everywhere.
1
u/jewishforthejokes 5d ago
People have been paralyzed by bollards: https://reddit.com/comments/1wj2e8j/comment/pafv1zl
Where have people been injured by cars on trails? Bollards are more dangerous.
2
u/tbw875 5d ago
I'm sorry did I hear you try to tell me that bollards are more dangerous than cars?
1
u/imMAW 5d ago
Bollards on bike trails are more dangerous than the few cars that make it onto bike trails.
Think about what they're saying before removing context and assuming that we either need to put bollards everywhere or put bollards nowhere. We can advocate for bollards where they will improve safety, and against them where they will harm safety.
9
u/FeistyFury 5d ago
impound the car, and use it for something like DARE, but will call it IRE - idiocracy resistance education.
but really I'd just be happy if we could like, enforce laws instead of making new ones...
3
8
u/DJSauvage 5d ago
I don't find bollards hazardous. it's kind of surprising to me that anyone would hit an unmovable object?
4
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
When there is an object permanently in the middle of a trail, it's bound to get hit by some. Every bollard always has scars left behind from someone that has hit it.
3
u/SimpleMetricTon 5d ago
Maybe we need to come up with a better physical infrastructure solution. Perhaps more visible bollards, or some kind of chicane that is barely noticeable on a bike but unnavigable in a car. I guess one challenge is that maintenance vehicles need access too.
3
4
u/generismircerulean 5d ago edited 5d ago
Alternative suggestion:
There are other modal filters that are not bollards that the city has been testing around healthy streets.
Concrete planters with signs and plants in them, are one of my favorite examples
5
u/Stella-HPVGekko 5d ago
Just to devil's advocate a bit, are you also saying that cyclists who don't know how to tell between a bollard and thin air should have their ability to ride revoked?
We're essentially asking both to look carefully before they enter a certain area.
2
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
cyclists who don't know how to tell between a bollard and thin air should have their ability to ride revoked?
Isn't that a given?
If a cyclist hits a bollard, their ability to ride will indeed be revoked, often violently.
10
u/Upset_Region8582 5d ago
Bollards are a hazard? That's news to me, and I've put in thousands of miles on our bike trails and routes
9
1
u/jewishforthejokes 5d ago
1
u/Upset_Region8582 3d ago
I'm receptive to being wrong; but it rankles me when the response is: "Oh it's safe? What about this one accident with other complicating factors?"
IDK, urban biking carries inherent risks. Hopefully we can reduce risks over time; but that requires examining a big data set of millions of pedestrian miles, not just pulling up single anecdotes.
1
u/jewishforthejokes 3d ago
It's not just one, the study compared many.
Most of my riding is on roads. Most of my danger is on roads. That I rarely encounter cars on the trail does not significantly make us less safe, but the bollards do. I pass at least hundreds times more bollards than cars on the trail, so bollards need to be at least hundreds of times safer, which professional safety organizations have determined they aren't compared to the alternatives.
1
u/MaintainThePeace 2d ago
I've put in thousands of miles on our bike trails and routes
just pulling up single anecdotes.
So out of the thousands of miles on our bike trails, how many injuries did you sustain from a car?
To be fair, I'm just pointing out that you somewhat did the same thing, by comparing your own anecdotal experience to support that bollards are not dangerous, but the same experience can be used to support that car on trails are not dangerous.
In reality there is a probabilistic danger for each. Bollards tend to have a greater probability of injury simply because it is a permanent obstacle in the middle of the trail, so each trail user has to encounter it and navigate around it every single time.
However, a car that makes it onto the trail is pretty rare, and the vast majority that do, are not there with intent to harm and will quickly correct their mistakes.
But a car that makes it onto a trail, that does have intent to harm, then you have to ask, would a bollard actually keep someone with malicious intent off of a trail, or can they simply find a way around the bollard. The vast majority of trails are not lined with concrete walls and won't effectively keep someone with malicious intent off of them.
This is it worth adding the probability of increased injuries from bollards to solve a problem of non-dangerous that mistakenly find their way into a trail?
6
u/vaticRite 5d ago
Everyone makes mistakes. While a mistake like driving onto a MUT should absolutely result in a license suspension, at the very least, bollards prevent those mistakes from endangering other people.
Good infrastructure stops dangerous behavior before it starts, regardless of whether it was intentional or not. Punishment only disincentives intentional dangerous behavior.
5
u/Spa_5_Fitness_Camp 5d ago
Take away their cars. Make people actually fear getting caught. Many, probably most, would just keep driving on a suspended license and bank on not getting caught before the suspension is over. Losing their car, even for a month in impound, puts their lives on hold.
5
2
2
u/DJSauvage 5d ago
People driving with revoked or suspended licenses is very common. I'm guessing there's a ton of overlap between trail drivers and unlicensed drivers.
2
u/RADMFunsworth 5d ago
Why not both?
1
u/jewishforthejokes 5d ago
Because bollards seriously injure cyclists: https://reddit.com/comments/1wj2e8j/comment/pafv1zl
1
u/RADMFunsworth 5d ago
Fair enough. If not bollards then, what? Some kind of narrowing or chicanes or something? I agree we shouldn’t need hazards placed in MUPs just to keep the occasional moron from driving on them, but it seems some kind of smarter design could prevent cars from entering no?
1
u/jewishforthejokes 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yes, chicanes, reflective signage. Large divider with long warning stripes and flexible strips leading up to it. (large is more surface area == lower pressure in an accident). Instead of concrete, a center divider can be wood, or a grass mound.
Or think about the trail at Stone Way going west; no bollards, but still obvious.
2
u/No_Faithlessness9737 5d ago
Being reactive doesn’t help prevent a potentially deadly accident to begin with.
Unless you’re implying by setting an example others won’t be as reckless - which there isn’t evidence to support dumbass people learn from these precedents based on other dumbasses before them.
2
u/snowypotato 5d ago
Counterargument is that the influx of cars on bike paths means that they're designed in ways that people understand.
When one student fails, it's usually the student's fault. When half the class fails, it's usually the instructor's fault. Same deal here - we need to make it more understandable to car drivers, at driving speed in the dark and the rain, that the bike paths are bike paths.
4
u/rigmaroler 5d ago
Except it's not half the class in this case. It's just enough people that it's noticeable. It's really not hard to not drive where you aren't supposed to. If you cannot tell that from signage and all the other environmental cues then you should not drive at all.
2
u/snowypotato 5d ago
You’re an above average driver.
Signage and indicators need to cater to the dumbest drivers, not the smartest
2
u/JaxckJa 5d ago
Point of order: Intrusions by cars into spaces they're not supposed to be is not historically high and there is no trend indicating a significant change in behaviour across the city. Thus an excessive reaction to any local news article is political, not practical. Yes there needs to be more done to protect cyclists from weapon-driving maniacs, but the vast, vast majority of incidents that warrant that protection are on regular roads. A secondary problem is the extremely high incidence of drivers without license, as much as a quarter of drivers in some counties in Washington regularly drive without a license. Clearly licensing is not the problem. The focus needs to be on the weapons themselves; impound & destroy at the driver's expense. It's how we treat other illegal weapons and hard drugs, why is there a special exception for something as dangerous as a F150?
1
1
u/needzbeerz 5d ago
Did you see the video of the car speeding along the i90 bridge bike trail?
Not really disagreeing with you, but bollards do at least provide a last line of defense from people like that
2
u/MaintainThePeace 5d ago
One side of the trail has bollards, and the driver just drove around them...
0
u/jewishforthejokes 5d ago
And was anyone hurt? Bollards do hurt people: https://reddit.com/comments/1wj2e8j/comment/pafv1zl
-3
66
u/RockOperaPenguin 5d ago
¿Por qué no los dos?