Sacred Falls signs
vague, expert says

---

By Debra Barayuga
dbarayuga@starbulletin.com

Signs at Sacred Falls State Park in May 1999 did not effectively warn visitors of the danger of falling rocks, according to a plaintiff's expert in the lawsuit against the state over the Mother's Day rockslide that killed eight people.

Richard Gill, a professor of mechanical engineering and adjunct professor in psychology at the University of Idaho since 1984, said the signs in place on May 9, 1999, were defective because of their content, design and location.

More than two dozen people who were injured or whose family members were killed or injured have sued the state for negligence, saying it failed to adequately warn park-goers of the rockfall dangers or take proper steps to reduce the risk of injury or death.

The state contends the signs were adequate and that visitors were warned of the dangers and of using the park at their own risk.

Signs at Sacred Falls did not meet standards accepted by either the American National Standards Institute or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said Gill, who has done consulting work in the field of human factors, which studies how people perceive and process things -- including warning sign designs.

To be effective, warning signs need to tell succinctly what the hazard is, the consequences and how to avoid it, Gill said. The signs also need to be placed in proximity to the potential hazard and at the beginning of the trail to inform park-goers of what to expect before they reach their destination. Signs also need to be maintained.

The signs at Sacred Falls State Park were too wordy and referred to more than one hazard on one sign, Gill said. Some were defaced with graffiti and bullet-ridden, while others were placed in places that could not be easily read by the typical park-goer, Gill said.

Pictograms, which are highly recommended because they often convey warnings more effectively than words, were not used, he said.

One particular sign that appeared several times, including at the entrance to Sacred Falls Park, contained 250 words and was grouped with two other signs. Across it were three more similar signs.

"You can't expect a typical park-goer to read 250 words on one sign, much less six signs," Gill said. "It's unrealistic for people to do."

Combining a flash flood warning with a rockfall warning can mislead park-goers into thinking flash floods produce rockslides, he said. Because May 9, 1999, was a sunny day and a flash flood did not appear likely, park-goers could have believed that the risk of falling rocks was minimal.

Attorneys for the state are expected to call an expert to testify on visitors' ability to perceive the hazards at Sacred Falls and the signs' adequacy.