Tragic Death on Cedar River Trail

Did they use “bell or voice” when passing? I was on the Soos Creek Trail (bicycling) Sunday and I made sure to tell everyone “on your left”. However, many of the slick Lycra crowd bicyclists who go 30 mph where children are walking on the trail do not warn people at all.

So sad.

It seems never to be the fault of a bicyclist. What if the walker was hard of hearing or stumbled?

I second above comment concerning cyclists who FAIL to 'call out' when passing either pedestrians, or other cyclists. This is dangerous behavior which will eventually have a negative consequence. The facts are, none of us have eyes in the back of our heads. Thus, if one is riding 'behind'/passing another, one is responsible for braking in the event the person in front should make any sort of move (expected or unexpected).
I also agree this tends to happen most when the passing cyclist is faster, slicker, 'superior' or macho in attitude . . .
Big thanks in advance for calling out or ringing your bell loudly (in advance) before passing me by!

Since we can't seem to function without someone to blame, I'd say it's the fault of whomever decided it was a good idea to put pedestrians and cyclists on the same path.

Personally, I can't imagine why I'd ever go for a walk on a bike path, especially with young children, when the city has thousands of miles of sidewalks and walking paths for me to choose from.

Well at least you are consistent. And you're right with clueless bikers like you trails designated for everyone are not safe for anyone. You didn't know there is speed limit on the BGT and you think every trail is a bike path. Guess what, there are more miles of roads than sidewalks – why don't go play in the traffic.

seandr from two weeks ago
“Is there a speed limit on the Burke Gilman trail? “

No, there is not.

If you don't like fast moving bikes, find an alternative route.

Hmmm. My only accident (on Alki) was when a rollerblader rocking out to her ipod suddenly decided to execute a spin move directly in front of my path. Seconds beforehand, I happened to noticed that she was completely tuned out and started braking before she did her move. I was nevertheless thrown from my bike and landed on the grass, just missing a landscaping boulder. I walked away with a sprained shoulder and $200 of damage to my bike, and she was unhurt.

After that incident, I avoid the paths if I can as they are full of people who seem unaware of bike traffic, and are therefore a serious danger.

Given the thousands of miles of dedicated paths the city has built (and continues to build) for you, the pedestrian, why would you choose to walk on a bike path? I'm genuinely curious. My sense is that people simply aren't aware of the danger inherent to mixing these two kinds of traffic, and that strikes me as a serious urban design failure.

PS: If the Burke has speed limit signs, I've never noticed them, and if I hadn't raise this question a few days ago, you probably wouldn't know the speed limit either. So you're welcome.

Anyway, this is yet another case of weak urban design.

And reporting a near miss: still sweaty from my spin class and just after picking up my new Orca Card at Metro, I was…dare I say it…driving westbound on King when a cyclist came roaring southbound out of Occidental at 15-25 miles an hour, completely ignoring the stop sign. He did turn to witness the near occasion of his death. I believe by his back carrying case that he was a messenger speeding onward.

To repeat; The facts are, none of us have eyes in the back of our heads. Thus, if one is riding 'behind'/passing another, one is responsible for braking in the event the person in front should make any sort of move (expected or unexpected).

I agree that the safety of the path seems to rest on theory that cyclists can stop instantaneously when a pedestrian/dog/toddler forgets where they are and suddenly jumps in front of them.

Of course, this theory isn't supported by the laws of physics and human perception, however, which is why the path is so unsafe, and why I avoid it.

The pedestrian is comparable to a car traveling 15 mph on a stretch of I-5 with a 70 mph speed limit. We know that's a hazardous situation, which why we have minimum speeds on highways. For some reason, we haven't applied that lesson to the Burke.

Mountain bikers and hikers should not share the same trails. Period. I have had too many close calls as a hiker. It's just not feasible.

Bikers: With no disrespect, I implore you to understand that “calling out” is a language/practice peculiar to your subculture. The assumption that a) anyone can hear or understand your words when you are behind a person, out of sight, and moving at a rapid pace, and b) that said person is just supposed – in that split second – to understand your command (when all bikers seem to want/expect something different) is absurd, dangerous, and profoundly self-focused. Sadly, in this case, it may also have been deadly.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

As I commented last time, the reason you do not call “on your left” is not that you tire of it after ten times, but that you notice that three out of those ten times, what actually happened was that the other trail user heard a noise on their left, or the word 'left', and instinctively TURNED LEFT to face the sound. Bells work better but after much experience with undergraduates on the trail you realize that if you do not need the other trail user to actively move out of the way, safer (for them!) NOT to ask them to.

Unexpectedly shouting at someone right as you whiz past them is exactly what causes them to step the wrong direction in front of you. Fast riders actually have the experience to know this. A 57-year-old, if we are to follow the stereotype set out by youngster Josh Cohen, probably does everything quite courteously, saying 'on your left' at exactly the wrong time.

The larger problem is that Seattle's trail users are exactly like Seattle's motor vehicle users: they are superficially polite and courteous, but are crap at situational awareness and don't use their damn eyes when they operate vehicles.

Exactly. My money's on the bikers calling out just as they whiz past the victim and that being a contributing factor to the accident.

This is part of why I never joined Cascade — everyone in that org is full of retarded “safety” advice like riding singlefile in large groups on the road and “using voice” when passing. And their “advocacy” that favors building linear parks (and a few useless door-zone striped lanes) over actual transportation infrastructure that people can use to get to their jobs via bicycle.

Actually, I and three others corrected you within a few minutes. It really shouldn't need to be a law, bikers should be able to figure out how to ride safely, but they don't seem able to.

That woman that t-boned herself into the van and then the bikers wanted the driver charged with assault, couldn't she figure out the guy with the turn signal on might not see her streaking down the side of the road?

Really, is it the dopamine.

They aren't bike paths. They aren't bike paths. They aren't bike paths.

“The Burke-Gilman Trail is a popular recreational trail for walkers, runners, cyclists, skaters and commuters. The trail is jointly maintained by Seattle Department of Transportation and Seattle Parks and Recreation.”

BTW – bikers also freely use sidewalks, switching from streets to sidewalks, riding in crosswalks, running lights and stop signs and then complaining about pedestrians and cars.

I used to walk home from work through the park on North Beacon Hill that connects to I-90, and regularly had to deal with real jerks on bikes. One sweaty cow in particular rode up behind me and screeched “THIS IS A BIKE PATH NOT A WALKING TRAIL”

She was very lucky she didn't get an umbrella in her spokes.

When cyclists encounter pedestrians on mixed-use urban trails, they should pass with caution and SLOWLY. I stopped walking on the Burke Gilman trail (yes, another mixed-use…) because of all the inconsiderate cyclists traveling as fast as they could, without regard to others.

If cyclists find courtesy is inconvenient, then they are free to ride on every street and road in the county, excepting only limited access freeways.

Could say the same thing about cars and bikes on roads.

I think its kind of funny how the same arguments used by bikes against cars “don't be in such a hurry”, “share the road”, etc, work just as well when used by pedestrians against bikes.

I agree – bikes shouldn't be on freeways or thoroughfares like Aurora and Rainier for exactly this reason, unless the road has a dedicated bike lane to separate these two kinds of traffic. City streets are a different matter as a car traveling 30 mph can easily slow down for a bike traveling 15-20 mph in the same direction.

If pedestrians insist on using the Burke instead of the sidewalk 10 feet away, fine, that's their right. My point is that there ought to to be some explicit traffic management rules, for example posted speed limits, special lanes for slow traffic, rules against long leashes for dogs, warning signs, …

I agree. Ideally I would like to see more dedicated right of ways for all forms of transportation. The burke seems wide enough at parts to make walking lanes and biking lanes that would keep slower traffic to the right.

The real problem though is that everyone thinks that what they are doing is important, while others are not. Cars hate when bikes slow them down, bikes hate when pedestrians slow them down, and pedestrians hate both. With a bit of understanding I think we could avoid a lot of these conflicts. Maybe that means I have to drive 15 on a street with a lot of bikes and maybe it means that bikes need to go 15 on a trail full of walkers.

Substitute “cars” for “bikes” and “bikes” for pedestrians” and re-read all the posts in this thread.

The larger problem is that Seattle's trail users are exactly like Seattle's motor vehicle users: they are superficially polite and courteous, but are crap at situational awareness and don't use their damn eyes when they operate vehicles.

The larger problem is that Seattle's trail users are exactly like Seattle's motor vehicle users: they are superficially polite and courteous, but are crap at situational awareness and don't use their damn eyes when they operate vehicles.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit, polarized argument that is ruining this country!
-
Reality: A pedestrian is dead. A cyclist was hurt and is probably traumatized emotionally. It was an accident. This problem will not go away.
-
You 2 have a lot of good arguments, but you're not serving any purpose by pitting pedestrians against bicyclists. You're both right. And we're all stuck on the same paths and roads – together.
-
Make it work!

The callousness of these posts is unbelievable. Who's a bigger jerk, the kamikaze bike messenger or the cluless family of 5 that straddles the whole path without paying any attention to other traffic? They both suck. They both engage in risky behavior.
-
There should be more postings about risks and codes of conduct. Everybody needs to be aware and take responsibility for themselves.
-
I like lane markers like they have around N. Lake Union and Greenlake. A certain % of people will always ignore public information, but we should help people better understand the risks and responsibilities inherent in using the trails.

As someone that used to do trail riding back east when I was younger, I just want to say that 'calling out' is not and should never be enough. If we as cyclists expect car drivers to be hyper-careful around us–and I did, when I rode, and I did, when I drove–then the same applies to us versus pedestrians. A cyclist should always, always, always yield/stop/slow whatever to a hiker or walker. No exceptions. I don't ride now but I routinely go walking in the woods in various parks and I often have the ipod, but stay to the side of the trail as much as possible.

It's unreasonable for a bicyclist to expect me to hear them. You have to assume the person you're coming up on 1) has earbuds in, 2) may just not be paying attention or 3) may be hearing impaired or stone deaf.

If a car driver is 'always' at fault versus a bicyclist, the same principle applies to us versus pedestrians. Our goose has to be good for our gander.

This is sad no matter who is at fault.

I strongly oppose the ageism expressed in this article!

Cyclists need to be required to be tested on knowledge of safety and laws and have licensed prior to riding on a public street or trail (and surely should never ride in crosswalks and sidewalks). Maybe us pedestrians can stage a protest by laying down all over the trail and painting outlines of people on the trail to show how careless and uncaring cyclists are! (I really don't dislike cyclists that much, but it seems like this would be the reaction if a driver hit a cyclist).

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, so let me clarify.

A safety program that depends entirely on blaming/scapegoating a particular form of transportation won't accomplish anything besides removing what little remains of civility in this city. Neither cars, bicycles, nor pedestrians should bear all of the responsibility for everyone's safety.

Furthermore, a safety program that depends on everyone having perfect perception, situational awareness, and judgment at all times is not realistic. We are humans, not robots.

This is a human factors issue, plain and simple. Either:
a) provide dedicated paths for each of these forms of traffic
b) figure out designs/rules to mix them safely (e.g., slow lanes, special hours for biking or walking only, posted speed limits, no toddlers, no long leashes, etc etc etc).
c) go with the current policy and accept that some percentage of people are going to get seriously hurt.

And they double post -;)

No. I just liked his comment soooooo much that I wanted to share my joy with the rest of this little world.

My deepest sympathies to the family of the dead woman. I hope they do not stumble upon this comment thread.

If a pedestrian is using a multi-use path they should be aware of their surroundings. Blissing out with earbuds in, oblivious of other users is irresponsible. We ALL need to look out for each other.

Soapy- Just like a biker, you're never wrong -;)

No, I'm wrong a lot. And my bike gathers much more dust than it should. One of my biggest pet peeves is seeing people – whether they're on foot, on a bike, in a car, or in a horse and buggy – who sleepwalk their way through life without any awareness of their effect on other people. I do it sometimes, and you see it everywhere, but it seem unusually common in Seattle. Especially on the roads.
-
The difference is that, when I'm wrong, I almost always realize it and feel bad. Sleepwalkers just don't get it.

Agreed. It's pretty upsetting how this discussion turned into pro-bike and pro-ped ranting. This incident is both sad and a wake-up call.
-
The bottom line is that people have to take personal responsibility. The nanny state can't put up enough signs or make enough rules to prevent these incidents. Both pedestrians and bicyclists need to watch out for each other and understand the inherent risks.
-
Share The Road = Share The Path

Voice or Bell aside, I can not remember the last time I got three feet of space from a biker while walking!

Absolutely. But the person with the bigger stick in all scenarios bears more responsibility, be it a car or bike. I can yell at 1,000 decibels: but for all I know, the guy ambling before me could be hearing impaired or simply rocking out. I can't tell and it doesn't matter. I have no excuse to NOT slow down, none, no more than I have no excuse in a car to not slow down if someone crosses into the road in front of me.

there is a speed limit on the BGT and any other King County Trail, check out the King County Code – as it is codified. Education to both cyclist and peds is what is needed and hopefully following this tragic incident, the County with move forward with some PSA to help everyone know their responsibilities as a trail user…. I mean, you didnt even know there was as speed limit, but you spoke with authority and said no… WTF???

As the party who is overtaking the pedestrian, the bicyclist is responsible. That is very cut and dry. If you see pedestrians on the trail in front of you, you MUST swing as wide as you can and SLOW DOWN. ALWAYS assume that this person is either unable to hear you or does not understand what you expect.
I've been in groups of riders where the bicyclists assume they can maneuver safely through the pedestrians. This is both unsafe and a terrible representation of bicycling courtesy.
The cyclist in this story should be charged in the same manner as an automobile driver who has killed a pedestrian…

It's not that one is right and one is wrong. It's that we both tend to think we own the road. When I am driving, I LOOK before I change lanes(pedestrian), I WATCH HABITS/MOVEMENT OR SLOW before passing anyone to make sure they are not turning into the lane I am moving through. Why do we think this does not apply on a shared path? Even on the highway, there are recommended slow lanes. (Not that people drive in them, but I'm just saying, it's not a free pass either way to take/make your way.)

Wow. It's not that I think you are wrong, but really: what's the rage all about? Why the fight? We all agree: this is awful. No one wants to kill someone. No one wants to die or be hurt. Simple really. Learn to be attentive. Learn to care. BOTH ways. Yes, there are rude – REALLY RUDE cyclists out there. Even as a cyclist (who walks and hikes) I find them rude and terrifying. It's called “agenda”. I'm not it. So you can stay enraged – and let your adrenaline pump go into overdrive everytime they frighten or enrage you. Or you can learn to breathe again, work for your safety and those of others around you, and do the best you can. We are all in this world together whether we like it or not. And some days, I really don't like it.