Good advice. If you see a very old or very young pedestrian, slow to a crawl. And the bell is a good warning (though mine keep breaking.) What a tragic accident.

Tell it to your good buds Lance Spandex, Guido Campagnolo, and the rest of the pack.

Ultimately the Arlington County Board is responsible, for empowering another special interest group without regard to the consequences of its behavior.

Although not a frequent rider on the Arlington trail system, I am on the W&OD a lot from Vienna out bound. I ride both the paved and gravel trail portions and have ridden w/ groups, solo, a couple friends, my kids and on all kinds of bikes; I run on both trails also. I agree that speed of cyclists is an issue in that a runner and pedestrian colliding might not lead to the same kind of injuries between a cyclist and a pedestrian yet being knocked to the ground even by a runner could lead to a fatal head injury. So the issue isn't the activity but how those doing the activity treat other users. We all need to be safer for sure yet sadly tragic accidents like this occur and will continue to occur as more and more folks use the trail systems. We've grown accustom to automobile accidents, the risk of driving and resulting injuries. Unfortunately trail usage will eventually lead to this same accustomization (sp?) but we can hopefully lessen the frequency with education and common sense.

Many pedestrians on the trail don't understand that when a bicyclist says passing on your left they should move to the right. I signaled my intent to pass on the left when a man pushing a baby stroller instead veered in front of me on the Custis Trail. Instead of hitting him I slammed on my brakes and ended up breaking my pelvis in a bad crash.

On the topic of bells... Yes, they are useful. But they are only part of the solution. As a cyclist and a walker, the biggest problem with bells is that most people who use them rely on the bell as their only method of communication and forget how to use their words. A bell doesn't actually communicate anything about your intent; it simply communicates your presence. I don't have one on any of my bikes, though I suppose I should consider it. But I always call out my intent when approaching other trail users from behind. And when necessary, I slow to a crawl and await an opportunity to pass.

Not so long ago, when riding on a local MUT, I happened upon a commuter riding in the same direction. I wasn't going fast enough to pass him easily, and the terrain in that location was not particularly suitable for passing anyway, so I settled in to follow him. We came upon three women walking on the right side of the trail. Because there were three of them walking in a cluster, they filled the entire right side of the trail and spilled over the middle line. As we approached, the guy in front rung his bell. Nothing. As we got closer, he rung it again. Still nothing. We slowed to a crawl because it wasn't safe to pass, and he rung it again. Again, nothing. So, I yelled loudly from behind him, "PASSING ON YOUR LEFT," and what do you know? The ladies all looked over their shoulders and moved to the right so we could pass.

Use a bell, yes, but be prepared to use your voice as well.

I am 62 years old. Fifty years ago our suburban police department was in the schools stressing bicycle and pedestrian safety to children. I lived in a suburb of Boston. I understand that now all the police departments are concerned about is 'prom night'.

The biggest problem here is that multi-use trails are simply too narrow to share. The powers that be continue to make sub-standard width lanes for bicyclists and pedestrians, presumably because they need to save money. It's a little-known fact that the US road system was originally built at the behest of cyclists in the 1890s, and the width of the roads back then was based on what was necessary for cycling. That width was over 10 feet, because a cyclist needs plenty of lateral room for safety because two-wheeled vehicles wobble, wiggle, swerve and need room to maneuver that goes far beyond the 2ft or so of the bicycle's width.

This summer, I started commuting a different route on my bike. This route is mostly on the road, but it does take me along a mile or so of multi-use path that is 3ft wide. This path is shared by joggers and dog-walkers and it is by far the most dangerous part of my route, because 3ft is far too narrow. In order to use it safely, I must slow to below 5mph - most cyclists just don't do that because they don't understand how dangerous the path is.

So we can talk about signaling, bells and whistles all we like, but unless something is done about the fact that government is permitting bike facilities that are far too narrow for cycling, the same problems will keep happening. This is why I avoid bicycle facilities wherever possible, and why I will continue to avoid them until those who build cycling facilities figure out how to build them properly.

So, my street will continue to crumble while bicycle trails are widened? How safe is that for anyone?

Yeah, I see your point. Sure, wider multi-use paths may save a few pedestrians' and cyclists' lives, but motorists want smoother roads!

It's always about 'me' for some folks, I guess.

Ian, thanks for the comments.* The width of mult-user paths (we've never ever had "bike paths" in this area) is pretty much of a function of trail design that took place in a time that never really anticipated how the trails would morph into transportation corridors. When we get new trails (rare, but it happens - see the MBT or the new Four Mile Run connector), they're generally wider. But I don't think we'll see trails like the WOD getting rebuilt and widened - we can't even keep them maintained. Also, you'll get a lot of pushback from some environmentally-focused groups, who arguing that widening trails is bad because it results in a loss of permeable surface. I think the calculation should be bigger than that, but it's a point which some find convincing.

*Also, note that CSG is just one of the many personalities of one pavement-obsessed commenter. If I had my way, he'd have been ID'd and whittled down to one (or booted from here) long ago.

Can someone tell me why the cyclists say "On your left" instead of "Stay Right!" or "Move Right"? Unfortunately if you hear "left" your first instinct is to move left, which is the wrong direction in that case.

I think that, for many cyclists, ordering pedestrians to move right seems arrogant. It does to me, at least.

On the wider issue of whether or not bike lanes, MUPs, etc., are necessary, I must admit to having mixed feelings on the issue. While I see that they can make some cyclists feel safer, in practice, what I've seen of them makes me think that cyclists should stick to the road for safety's sake.