F in citizenship for these plaintiffs now sue a beleaguered city dealing with homelessness, sexual abuse payoffs by a former mayor, and a host of other concerns -- over what is evident to most people to avoid riding too close to a groove.

As they're merrily biking in a city led by a council that has bent over backwards (and forwards) to them. I thought they were feeling groovy.

@1: Hey idiot, someone died. More have been and will be injured and continue to be in real risk of death. This for doing what we should be doing, reducing travel by automobile in the city. Its a shitty design that should never have been implemented.

@2: Yes someone did. But where does personal responsibility end? Hazards exists for everyone. A city's revenue is not bottomless.

@2: is there a better, safer alternative that is affordable over the entire distance of the trolley? the tracks down Westlake look the same to me.

@2 it's not a "shitty design" - it's "the design". Surface Rail (an alternative to driving, natch) will always be in conflict with bicycling. You know what is also an impediment to biking? Curbs. If this rider had hit a curb rather than the into the rail slot, she would have crashed just the same. There's no wrongful death lawsuit for the existence of a curb (although if there is, what's the statute of limitations? I have a several lawsuits I could still file...).

Now, as the lawsuit says, perhaps the city had an obligation to minimize the impacts on non-rail users, even suggesting a protected bike lane - presumably either a parking-protected or bollard-protected bike lane. That's fine - except this block already has a painted bike lane which does not intersect the streetcar tracks except at angles that are safe to a cyclist. It doesn't follow to suggest that she was biking "along the streetcar tracks" because the lack of a protected lane, when she didn't avail herself of the existing market lane.

Basically what happened is she died in a crash. No one's at fault, and certainly not the city, who provided a safer alternative.

An in-street rail design like this, lacking known features such as rubber inserts, should be unacceptable. Certainly this issue, that the tracks will grab the wheel of most bicycles, was known before the city started this project. If the tracks caused as much mayhem to automobile users you can be sure that mitigation would have been done. Now someone died, more have been injured. This for a transportation mode with dubious benefit (stuck in traffic just like everything). It is a big mistake and needs to be fixed. Streets are not just for automobiles and trucks and street cars, they are part of the commonwealth. A safe right-of-way is not a privilege.

+1 for what @5 said. The existence of railroad tracks does not kill all cyclists - only inattentive or unskilled ones. This is an unfortunate incident - but these lawsuits are not the solution. Using the familys' logic, why couldn't the city sue the family for having a family member who was operating her bicycle in a public right of way who was incompetent to do so? Both are ridiculous arguments.
Cyclists have to understand that they assume a reasonable level of risk by operating on public streets with curbs, corners, painted (slippery when wet) lane markings and steel plates - AND streetcar tracks in places. I know I do, and I commute regularly by bike an logged thousands of accident free miles in the past few years. The one time I did crash was on a slippery road repair (black tar patch) when it was wet. Fortunately I did not die, but it would have been equally ridiculous for me (or my family) to sue for this accident.
Bicyclists have to coexist with all the hazards of a multi-modal city - it's a fact of life.

I’m not surprised, I’ve gotten locked into that groove and have almost fallen myself.

@5: You and raindrop deserve each other.

After a mere 45 seconds of searching the web, I managed to find info on a safety product being designed to address exactly this problem: a hunk of plastic you can stick into the rail depression that collapses when a train rolls over it, but stays solid otherwise. It's still in the development phase at this point but, looking at the videos, this seems to be a pretty common problem.

http://saferails.nl/

https://www.fastcompany.com/3067198/this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzYQ7uF…

@Sportlandia: "You know what is also an impediment to biking? Curbs." You're conflating an operator veering off a roadway (and hitting a curb) with a vehicle legally changing lanes and crashing because of a feature of the road design. The two aren't the same thing.

@raindrop: Hazards do exist. However, the public in the United States expects to be warned of hazards, and for obvious hazards to be mitigated as part of the road design and daily practice (even to the extent that temporary roadwork requires metal plates to cover gaping holes, brightly colored warning signs to be placed in the roadway, and a small forest of traffic cones).

A bicyclist, like a car driver, should be able to use a road they are legally allowed to operate on without risk of death from the basic road design. Imagine an in-street railway being designed and launched that safely allowed only wide-wheelbase vehicles to straddle the tracks; say, a Hummer or tractor. Changing into that lane with a passenger car would cause the tires to drop into the gap and the car to crash. This is exactly the scenario that has occurred with the streetcar cars, just with bicyclists (also legal road users) being impacted rather than passenger cars. The city has added a deadly hazard to one traffic lane for a common mode of transportation that they are encouraging people to use to alleviate congestion, promote recreation, and make this city more friendly for residents, visitors, and families. And they have done so with no real effort towards mitigating those hazards.

To those saying the rider should have been in the bike lane -- Washington state law allows bicyclists to ride in the general lanes (yes, even the center of the lane) whenever safety dictates. There are a multitude of reasons why a bicyclist may choose to do so; avoiding hazards, to pass a slower rider, to discourage unsafe passing, etc.

Adding insult to injury, the 1st Hill Streetcar is currently a failure in most metrics (ridership, percentage that fares cover operating cost, etc.).

@9: products that are still in development in 2018 don't make it into SIPs that were approved probably 6-7 years ago.

@10: So then how does this litigation help?
@8: Glad you didn't fall. Now you need to be more cautious.

This is called a fatal design flaw. Fatal. The design is such that someone on two wheels would eventually die using it. (The city was warned about this danger over and over but Mr. P@V1$$$ got his way). Human [citizen] fatalities are not 'acceptable risk' for the city to speculate in even when a super-rich guy splashes cash around. And for every news blurb you read about a bike rider getting hurt by these tracks there are easily 100+ maimed others who did not get any press.

Aside, the city was told over and over that these things were a MAJOR road hazard for bikes. So in addition to allowing an unacceptable public safety risk they allowed it with full knowledge of the repercussions. A decent lawyer should be able to pick his teeth with city's money because of this incredibly poor (borderline malicious) judgement.

I personally have wrecked because of the d@^# things (no hospital-requiring injuries).

I'm a very experienced bicyclist. But not with tracks. Unlike curbs, this kind of track isn't ubiquitous. I was careful, but I also crashed when my tire slipped into the track, was thrown over handlebars, luckily only sprained my wrist.

@12: Litigation improves safety and prevents further deaths. Are you pretending to be slow?

@8 I can't spread for raindrop but I certainly deserve better than having you follow me around with empty-calorie comments.

@16 - I wasn't talking to you - but at most it's a tangential result when waged against municipalities. Private is another story. Attorneys love it, are you one?

This is a horrible tragedy but it's our approach to public safety that defines us.

On one hand I once worked on a product that tracked Super Market spills via a device that logged exact times of the incident, clean up, etc. It successfully saved companies millions in litigation and liability costs, but did little to make our shopping isles safer.

Next having used a bicycle on a daily basis in Asia back in the 90's I was vigilant because of the dangers. It kept my head on a swivel, you literally had to navigate around gaping holes in sidewalks we called "foreigner traps" as we were the ones oblivious enough to fall in.

As cynical as I am the suit is for the better if we can prevent even one future accident. I just hope the system works towards safety and not just to limiting financial risk

There are many many thousands of cities in which public transportation (trolley cars) and bicyclists have peacefully co-existed, many of them for well over a hundred years.

And in those thousands of cities sporting decades of trolley lines, how many wrongful death suits have there been by bicyclists who won't take responsibility for there own abilities?

Just to put this in perspective.

Public safety includes bicyclists that watch where they are going. It makes about as much sense to sue the bicyclist as it does to sue the trolley lines (city).

I've been bicycling in Seattle for over two decades and I have no problem with trolley lines. It's a very small drop in the hazard bucket every time I get on my bicycle.

Of course cyclists know tracks are dangerous. Everyone knows to cross them at an angle and that is exactly what you do when you know you are going to cross. The problem with this design is that it creates a hazard for the entire length of the road, not just at intersections. Imagine you are riding down next to the tracks when a car pops out in front of you because he was not looking before turning, or just to get a better look into traffic, or maybe he can't see because some asshole parked way too close to the corner (all of these things are very common). Ideally you would be able to move left a bit and avoid him. But if you have to do that on a street with these streetcar tracks, you might well hit them and crash.

This is yet another reason why rail should NEVER be at street grade (Exhibit A is the crawling light rail line on Rainier Ave). Elevated or subways. Seattle is one of the wealthiest cities in the wealthiest country on Earth. We ought to be able to figure this out.

@22: "Of course cyclists know tracks are dangerous. Everyone knows to cross them at an angle and that is exactly what you do when you know you are going to cross"

Exactly, and you pray to FSM each time that it's a proper angle. It's a lot harder on a road bike.

@23: If you're having to pray, then get off your bike and walk it across the tracks.

In the original stories. I thought I read that she was riding side by side with someone between the rails? Also, I used to live at 14th & Yesler. I rode my bike down Yesler to 3rd ave 5 days a week at 5 am. And I'm not dead like she is. I don't blame the city. I blame her. Anyone who dies on, or caused by train tracks gets ZERO sympathy from me. Why? Why was she soooo close to the rail. Not the city's fault she rode toooo close. Could've used the sidewalk. Could've stayed to the left/right, whichever the case maybe depending if she was riding east or west.

It's NOT the city's fault that she died. It's her fault. It's not the city's fault that she rode sooo close to the rail. It's her fault. Ask yourself, how many other people have died at that same section of track?......I'm waiting! Who's got the answer? No one wants to say only her.

Her parents are greedy bitches who deserve nothing. The city will pay them off with a "No Fault" agreement. Why? Because they don't want to have to prove in court that it was her fault. It makes the city look like they just beat up on a dead girl.

@25, callous and illiterate is an ugly combination. It's her brother, not her parents, who filed the lawsuit.

Bogus lawsuit. She was hauling it down the hill and didn't bike responsibly. Obviously.

And despite these and other lawsuits sure to follow, we're going full steam ahead on tearing up 1st Ave for another goddam streetcar line. So on top of the $177 MILLION dollar price tag, taxpayers will fork over mllions more to lawsuits from bicyclists. SMH

Very sad. Tracks are a hazard, cross at a 45 degree angle or greater with a solid hold on your handlebars, particularly on a road bike, and know that rubber on wet steel is very slippery. Years ago I used to bike through Ballard making quite a few track crossings in the industrial areas.

Expansion joints in roads are also often wide enough to trap a road bike, and there are a lot of drains that are deep enough to send you over the handlebars if you went into them.

I went over the handlebars on a ripple in asphalt once because I reached for a drink at a stupid time, luckily I wasn't hurt.

Many cities around the world have tracks just like this, and, yes, bikes crash on them regularly. google "san francisco bike track crashes". Yikes, and don't try to swerve around a double parked car on 17th in SF.

@26, You're right. Brother, not Parents. Funny how you left the rest of my statement alone. You know it's true.