Written by 
Approximately two miles of the Cedar River trail will be getting a center stripe to separate direction-of-travel lanes, new 10 MPH speed limits, and other improvements in an effort to improve safety for all users.
At last night’s Committee of the Whole meeting, the Renton Council received a briefing from a cross-divisional “trail safety” team that the Mayor had commissioned here. The team included specialists from recreation, transportation, police, and other departments. The briefing was also attended by many citizens from the community, including relatives of the hiker who was killed by a bicycle on the trail last month, representatives of the Cascade Bicycle Club, the editor of the Renton Reporter, and other interested parties.
The council largely agreed with the recommendation of the Mayor’s trail-safety team, and gave the administration support to move forward.
There are several items proposed for the trail as well as a public awareness campaign. Here are some of the most significant items in the proposal:
The two-mile section of the Cedar River Trail, from the library to the Railroad Trestle Park on Maple Valley Highway, will receive a dashed center-stripe to separate the two directions of travel. Walkers, joggers, skaters, horseback riders, an bike riders will all be asked to walk on the right hand side of the trail except when passing slower travelers; then, they can use the left side as needed to pass, but they must be wary of on-coming traffic. The pavement is 12 feet wide in this section, so it will be divided into two six foot lanes.
That section of the trail mentioned above will be marked for a lower maximum speed. A new maximum speed limit of 10 miles per hour will replace the existing speed limit of 15 miles per hour. (While this may be disappointing to some bicyclists, I calculate that this change only adds a maximum of three minutes of travel over the entire two mile stretch for the fastest riders, and has less impact for everyone else)
Solid center striping will be added to sections where passing is considered dangerous due to visibility obstructions (just as in the case of roads). Solid stripes will also be added to direct trail users away from bollards and other obstructions in the trail.
There will be a dismount zone (where any bikes must be walked) in the lower section of the trail between the Library and the Senior Center. This is a narrower section of trail, with poor visibility at the bridges. It was judged to be too unsafe for continued bike commuting. Bikes have the option to stay on the streets above this stretch.
There will be new trail etiquette signs posted, and brochures made available at the trail, to remind users about safe practices for enjoying the trail. This will include awareness for bicyclists that they must not exceed a safe speed, regardless of the maximum speed posted. Overtaking pedestrians requires care, and groups with children or animals will require special care as they can not always be expected to reliably stay on their side of the trail.
Additional enforcement will be employed to stress the new trail rules and give warnings or citations (as appropriate) to violators. Some of the enforcement will be from volunteers, and some will be from commissioned police officers. In addition, trail users will be reminded to contact 911 if they feel anyone is obviously violating rules or is otherwise a menace on the trail.
Council members had a few suggestions, potentially including extending the lane markings and lower speed limit to the east further and investigating the feasibility of interactive speed signs that would tell riders their speed. These suggestions were taken under review by the team. Since they are additive to the staff suggestions (not in conflict), staff could probably move forward with their plan while further studying the council suggestions. We’ll get another status on this soon.
In closing, I want to emphasize that it is important to our physical and mental well-being that we all get out and move as much as we can. I have great respect for all the trail users–walkers, joggers, skaters, bikers, etc– for making it a priority to exercise. Even with the inherent risks of getting out on a multi-use trail, the collective gains to our health, longevity, and state of mind make it worth it.
“Additional enforcement will be employed to stress the new trail rules and give warnings or citations (as appropriate) to violators. Some of the enforcement will be from volunteers, and some will be from commissioned police officers.”
Interesting, I don’t have a problem with the police but I question the use of volunteers being able to make fair decisions between all users and speeds traveled. Has was mentioned by a councilmember few bikes carry speedometers, I know I do. How are the speeds to be checked and if the limits are being followed. Is the demount zone to extend from the Senior Center or from the Logan bridge, it makes a difference if a person takes the upper trail, with is wider then the lower trail and not constrained by a river and a concrete wall.
alternate routes should be posted
For those trail users who wish to avoid the congested areas, such as the Sneior Center to Library stretch. Because even some walkers/joggers have to weave around slower walkers and strollers.
Also, the speed limit of 10mph should be enforced for ALL users, not just bikes – that includes rollerbladers, joggers, etc.
And lastly, horses are outlawed on the trail, aren’t they?
Re: alternate routes should be posted
Horses are permitted, according to Trails.com
http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.aspx?trailid=BGW055-007
“Additional enforcement will be employed to stress the new trail rules and give warnings or citations (as appropriate) to violators. Some of the enforcement will be from volunteers, and some will be from commissioned police officers.”
Interesting, I don’t have a problem with the police but I question the use of volunteers being able to make fair decisions between all users and speeds traveled. Has was mentioned by a councilmember few bikes carry speedometers, I know I do. How are the speeds to be checked and if the limits are being followed. Is the demount zone to extend from the Senior Center or from the Logan bridge, it makes a difference if a person takes the upper trail, with is wider then the lower trail and not constrained by a river and a concrete wall.
Speed was never a factor in this collision, however that seems to be the focus for no apparent reason. Have there been studies on whether a 10 MPH impact would have been safer then 18 or does 10 MPH just sound cool?
It seems to me big signs should be put up mentioning how dangerous it is to walk unexpectedly into someone else’s path.
I hope the owners of these pets and kids are “prepared to be civilly liable for the injuries they cause” by not staying on the right (except to pass) and illegally crossing the solid line.
And since we’re making the trail like a road, let’s ban headphones and talking on cellphones while using the trail, too. After all, they can’t hear a bicycle bell or “on your left” if they’re not paying attention.
10 mph seems excessively slow. Even the MUCH busier Burke-Gilman is 15mph through the UW campus. I’m not in the shape I used to be, but I could hit 10mph on foot.
This is an overreaction to an accident that happened 1 time. And it wasn’t even speed-related! The bicyclist wasn’t cited – in fact, ANY fall by a senior can be fatal.
This new limit is essentially making it impossible for bicycle commuters east of downtown to safely, legally ride. 169 is too dangerous for bikes (now there’s a road you should be policing for speeders – nobody drops down to 40 coming into town)
Last year in WA, 18 people were killed by trains. That’s 1700% more people than were killed on the trail. Maybe we should ban trains in Renton? I wouldn’t call them “silent” killers, but they can apparently be quite sneaky. Overreactions like this are what make people lose faith in government and law enforcement. If I wanted a nanny state, I’d live somewhere with a HOA!
Someone’s bitter.
From a letter to the Renton Reporter:
“I wonder how fast the cyclist had to be going to break Velda’s skull, pelvis, ribs and collarbone. “
…
The poor lady was slammed into the ground by someone who was going way too fast. Anybody who doesn’t acknowledge that speed was a problem is either ignorant, or self-serving.
Let’s not delude ourselves, Mixed Use trails quickly get taken over by the louder, faster and most annoying form of transportation. In this case, the Cedar River Trail is really the Cedar River Bike Road.
Interesting since the only thing made public was the fact that the bike rider made the claim that the women stepped in front of him. Did she? I haven’t the slightest idea, I wasn’t there, all I have to go on his what the police investigation mentioned and I heard nothing about excess speed being mentioned. Maybe it was excessive, I haven’t the slightest idea. But to say so I believe is an insult to the tragedy and the police investigation.
>> I haven’t the slightest idea.
I’m glad you admit it!
The rest of us trust one of her best friends.
Interesting since the only thing made public was the fact that the bike rider made the claim that the women stepped in front of him. Did she? I haven’t the slightest idea, I wasn’t there, all I have to go on his what the police investigation mentioned and I heard nothing about excess speed being mentioned. Maybe it was excessive, I haven’t the slightest idea. But to say so I believe is an insult to the tragedy and the police investigation.
“I wonder how fast the cyclist had to be going to break Velda’s skull, pelvis, ribs and collarbone. “
Honestly, the bicyclist did not have to be going fast for those injuries to occur. In the elderly, all of those injuries could be caused simply by falling down.
I think the logical conclusion is that he wasn’t speeding, given that:
– the rider was no spring chicken himself (57) and was uninjured aside from some scrapes and bruises
and
– he was not cited by the police for speeding or recklessness.
Just because some riders do speed or fail to announce before passing, doesn’t mean this wasn’t just an accident involving two law-abiding people. Bicyclists don’t generally try to run into other trail users, so he would have tried to avoid her, unless she changed direction too late for him to stop or swerve.
I do think it is odd how we’re demonizing the biker for this accident, when it’s just as likely that the walker (or neither) was at fault. Did she step in front of the bike as reported? Was she on the phone, chatting with a fellow walker or just hard of hearing and didn’t hear the biker’s bell or passing warning? Since seniors are more likely to be injured in a fall, maybe we should require them to wear helmets when using the trail – besides bikes there are also rollerbladers, skateboarders, joggers and kids and animals franticly running around that could knock them over. Of course, then we’d have to acknowledge that seniors ARE different than younger adults and that aging brings with it unique health challenges and risks. Even better, let’s have a minimum age on the trail – 65 maybe? Seniors turn out to vote more than everyone else – they could get it passed. See, I can be reactionary and unreasonable, too!
The fact is each week, more than 30,000 Americans over the age of 65 are seriously injured by falling, and nearly 250 die from their injuries, according to the NSC. Of those who do survive falling, 20-30 percent experience debilitating injuries that affect them the rest of their lives. Falling is also the leading cause of injury, and the leading cause of injury-related death, for both men and women 75 and older.
In Japan, they even invented an airbag for seniors to protect them from falling injuries – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7633989.stm
The most common mechanism of injury for rib fractures in elderly persons is a fall from height or from standing.
In elderly persons, the most common cause [of pelvic fractures] is a fall from a standing position.
Falls were the major cause of [skull] fractures in the elderly.
In elderly patients [collarbone fractures] are often the result of low-energy trauma. (Sticking out a hand while falling down can cause this)
http://seniorliving.about.com/od/healthnutrition/a/fallstudy.htm
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/825981-overview
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/825869-overview
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6332998dsv
http://books.google.com/books?id=KjGJjgFnFjkC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=elderly+collarbone+fracture&source=bl&ots=iWtux8-_Mo&sig=LUTN2-WSs0FujjaMX9BKK6GDoq4&hl=en&ei=-_r-S7OcEIrAMrLagTw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The comparisons to SUVs are quite funny and ignorant at the same time. With all the deaths caused by their drivers every year, I have yet to see the speed limit reduced for everybody who drives a car.
That’s just outright lack of observation. Duvall ave, in the time I was out of town, suddenly dropped by 5 MPH, and a school zone was added dropping it another 10 MPH when kids are around. I used to take that route to get to QFC and other things on 4th, but now I go on Union because the speeds are the same and the distance shorter. That’s just the first example that popped into my head, but it actually does happen all the time.
“In addition, trail users will be reminded to contact 911 if they feel anyone is obviously violating rules or is otherwise a menace on the trail.”
What happens when a person calls 911 and they are told that 911 is an emergency phone number and should be used for emergency calls.
Do we tell them that we were told to do so by a Renton Councilmember?
Children under age 6 are never legally ‘negligent” or “reckless”
A friend of mine who is an attorney clarified Washington statutes and associated case law for me regarding the hypothetical situation where a child walking and a bike rider collide on the trail. Essentially, a child under age 6 will not ever be held responsible unless they were acting with malice. I asked a followup question about the custodial parent’s share of the responsibility, and my attorney friend clarified for me it would depend on whether the parent was using reasonably care. Parents are not required to leash their children. So if the child was basically walking along predictably with his/her parent, and got startled and stepped across the center line, the parent would not necessarily have any responsibility for the accident. And the child definitely would not if the were under six years old. On the other hand, if witnesses saw the children running all over both lanes with the parent not making any effort to correct them, and then a bike wiped out on a child, the parents might be partially liable.
Here is my friend’s response to my original question about the minimum age of legal responsibility for an accident:
________________________________________
In Washington, a child under the age of 6 can not be found negligent, or even reckless, in a civil (tort) action. However, a person of any age can be found liable for an intentional tort. So, what this means to the angry biker: If kids, under age 6, are horsing around on the trail and one falls or is even pushed “over the line” and hit by the bicyclist, the children have no liability, but if they were to intentionally jam a stick into his spokes and cause uncontrolled flight into terrain…then he can sue the diapers off of them.
In the negligence situation, the biker’s liability for hitting the kids is a bit more tricky. If he is found to have zero comparative fault, then he pays nothing, but if he is found to be fully or partially at fault, he would have to pay for his share of the damages.
This is the relevant part of Price v. Kitsap Transit, 125 Wn.2d 456, 886 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1994). The part highlighted in red shows the case where it was held that a person of any age can be held liable for an intentional tort.
A 4-YEAR-OLD CHILD IS NOT AN “ENTITY” TO WHICH FAULT CAN
BE APPORTIONED UNDER RCW 4.22.070(1)
The tort reform act of Washington requires the trier of fact to determine the percentage of total fault for any injury attributable to:
… every entity which caused the claimant’s damages, including the claimant or person suffering personal injury or incurring property damage, defendants, third-party defendants, entities released by the claimant, entities immune from liability to the claimant and entities with any other individual defense against the claimant….
(Italics ours.) RCW 4.22.070(1). To determine whether the trial court properly assigned 80 percent of the total fault for Price’s injuries to Bradley, a 4-year-old, we must determine the proper meaning of “entity”.
Based on the express language of the tort reform act, we conclude an “entity”, as that term is used in RCW 4.22.070(1), must be a juridical being capable of fault. Cf. Peck, Washington’s Partial Rejection and Modification of the Common Law Rule of Joint and Several Liability, 62 Wash.L.Rev. 233, 243 (1987). Since RCW 4.22.070(1) is applicable “[i]n all actions involving fault of more than one entity …”, it would be inappropriate to inquire as to the amount of fault which should be attributed to a party if such party is incapable of fault as a matter of law. (Italics ours.) This interpretation agrees with the fundamental practice of not assigning fault to animals, inanimate objects, and forces of nature which are not considered “entities” under RCW 4.22.070(1).
If you really want to improve the trail, have police out on the weekends, patrolling the path through the city – especially at night or in the early mornings. Or have park employees cleaning the trail early on weekend mornings.
I went out today (Sunday) for a 6am walk that included the trail from the library to the senior center. I saw three homeless people sleeping on benches, 6 empty beer cans and bottles, a puddle of urine on/next to one of the benches and human feces next to a pair of underwear that had clearly been used as TP. The “No Alcohol in the park” rule on the sign near Bronson had been crossed out with a black marker and there was graffiti on one of the benches.
I would much rather have a biker racing by me! It looked (and smelled) worse than a honey bucket after a Phish concert at the gorge.
How about putting “armrests” or something on the benches to segregate them into three individual seats? Then people couldn’t lay across them.
Does the river have to reclaim the path to clean it up down there?
I think, reading these comments, the people lost sight of the POINT of the new rules. (BTW, why not take the fight to Coulon, instead, where the trail is fairly useless for anything but strolling, because everything else is forbidden). I don’t think anyone would CHOOSE to hit a child, an elderly person, or anyone else. So, use care to not do so. The point of the rules is the clarify who is at fault should another death occur. The takeaway is don’t cause any deaths, and I seriously doubt there is going to be someone out citing bikers for going 5 MPH faster than the posted speed if you’re commuting to work in the morning. For all the serious bikers/commuters out there, think about how it feels to ride alongside cars on the road that obviously don’t want you there. That’s how it feels as pedestrians on trails when there are bikes speeding along nearly hitting them.
As for the lane markings, again, GUIDELINES! They used them all over in Japan, where bike-pedestrian collisions and deaths are a very real problem, and every time there were lane markings, it was much easier to walk and not get in the way of bikers, who also seemed to enjoy the fact that they could pass us easily without worry.
Bottom line – enjoy the trail, try not to hurt anyone. Seems easy enough, right?