I hope education will include not only sharing the road with cars but also with pedestrians. Some bicyclists do not stop for pedestrians crossing at intersections or ride on sidewalks when bike lanes are clearly marked and available.

Watch everyone come out of the woodwork with all sorts of advice...for the other guy.

In sticking with the topic and not turning it into my personal gripe session, yes, education is important if these new routes are going to be difficult to initially figure out. I don't expect it will take too long for everyone to get it though.

As long as rules for things like roundabouts are the same as international standards there should be no confusion. If international rules are shunned and Palo Alto rules are introduced there will be great confusion. I would also like to see bike riders educated on using lights high visibility vests and old fashioned bicycle bells as well.

Palo Alto roundabouts will operate according the the rules established by the state of California, not local rules (yield on entry). They will be the same as the ones on Stanford campus, but smaller. There is a reason that education has been focused on the younger kids: they are willing to listen and learn, and they haven't established bad traffic habits yet. Anyone who has been a parent of a high school student knows that you can teach them all you want, but it doesn't mean they will learn and obey. Most adults have such deeply ingrained traffic habits that it is very hard to get them to change their behavior in normal circumstances. When a totally new device or situation is encountered it presents an opportunity to provide education in an area where habits are not already established, so it can be effective then.

Donald. Many Palo Alto drivers and bike riders never have occasion to visit Stanford campus so that is not helpful. International roundabout rules are to yield or give way to vehicles already using the roundabout. Is that what you are implying as I was confused by your comment?

I noticed one day going down Churchill when school was out and the kids on bikes are riding 3 or 4 abreast and really not paying any attention to the car situation. They are oblivious as they chat to one another. I then turned off the main road but ran into the same situation just riding along chatting with each other. Which on one hand is nice to see but on another dangerous for the car/bike situation. They have put roundabouts at Stanford and I think more dangerous for the biker

Yes, PLEASE, educate the bicyclists!
There need to be some mandatory courses teaching the rules and safety because most of them don't appear to have any common sense.
I loathe driving around the ones without any reflective lights whatsoever, in dark clothing, with earphones in their ears, and phone in their hands, zigzagging in and out of the bike lane.
Plus, they want the same rights as the cars, when convenient, but don't want to stop at stop lights as we have to.

Growing up in The Netherlands, we received traffic rules' lessons in the 3rd or 4th grade. All students had to take a written exam and afterwards a practice exam, completely similar to drivers' tests here.

We learned together, and the exams, even though they caused some stress, were fun, especially the practice exams. Successful completion was celebrated both in class and at home.

Growing up in The Netherlands, we received traffic rules' lessons in the 3rd or 4th grade. All students had to take a written exam and afterwards a practice exam, completely similar to drivers' tests here.

We learned together, and the exams, even though they caused some stress, were fun, especially the practice exams. Successful completion was celebrated both in class and at home.

I continue to see adult drivers contributing to the bad habit of (teen) bicyclists by remaining stopped at an interesection and waving the bicyclist through! I see this done even when there are other cars waiting at the intersection, whose drivers may not know what that person is doing. THIS IS SO WRONG!. Yes, you should be aware of the bicyclist, and No, you should not hit them. But pulling out (slowly) when it is your turn, even if in front of the cyclist, can make the cyclist aware of his/her responsibilities. But for god's sake, DON'T WAVE THEM THROUGH!

How much is this going to cost?

Park Blvd needs a posted speed limit and enforcement. People treat it like a highway. And there have already been several near fatal accidents...including a young child on a bike.

What we really need is a Legal Vehicle code and Manual, which outlines all the laws pertaining to Bicycles, including fines for abuse. Mandatory bicycle licensing, and mandatory adherence to the vehicle (bicycle ) Code.

As a cyclist and driver, I try to be as considerate to car driver as possible because I have been on both sides. I tried not to block the right turn lane so the drivers can pull through without wasting everyone's time. Good idea, right? Not really. After a while many drivers take it for granted -- speed through and nearly hit my bike, honk and shout as they turn when they feel I did not make enough space for their HEMI, and the non-turning cars also hate because I am blocking their HEMI... It is just horrible. Bike vs Car have never been a fair game, and it is not only the cyclists need education. Maybe I should keep on blocking the right turn cars on bike lane because cars don't give a damn.

When I took the written test for a motorcycle license, I seem to recall seeing a manual for bicycle riders right next to the manual for motorcycle riders.

However, there needs to be instruction also for kids, in language they can understand.

When I lived with my parents in Denmark, all children received written and verbal lessons on the rules of bicycle riding. There were probably fewer then, but we all got the lessons in the second grade, because most children rode bicycles to school by second or third grade.

Living in Palo Alto, I make my son walk to school, because it isn't safe to ride in the street. Both Denmark and the Netherlands have protected lanes, just off the sidewalks, for bicycles, and those bike lanes have a curb of their own. Plus, in Europe, if you hit a bicycle rider you will spend most of your life in prison.

These improvements make our city better!

There should be training for adults who are drivers and riders. The city knows well how to involve people and make something like that fun, respectful of rules, experience and creativity, creating an open discussion where best practices can be shared. The informal, "Palo Alto" rules need to be discussed as well. Cover all dangerous or new situations, not just about roundabouts. Instead of being directed toward kids, the class should be piloted with those who have been riding and driving for at least 20 years. Then the presenters would certainly learn something for future classes.

Celebration is good. Give those who complete the course a bike badge that hangs off the seat and share-the-streets bumper stickers for their cars.

I'd like to see automobile speed enforcement on Alma. There is only one "Your Speed" electronic sign stationed between Charleston and downtown. Drivers either ignore the sign or if they do slow to 35 speed back up as soon as they pass the "slow" sign. Palo Alto has a 35 MPH zone on the Alma Expressway for cars but drivers are speeding well over 50 mph. Traffic calming measures are very much needed on Alma as well. I got a postcard note in the mail from the city on how to save energy by minimizing car trips to the grocery store. How about another postcard sent regarding traffic calming and energy saving tips. This might help crazed people trying to get to and from wherever on many of the Palo Alto transportation arteries.

I'd like to see automobile speed enforcement on Alma. There is only one "Your Speed" electronic sign stationed between Charleston and downtown. Drivers either ignore the sign or if they do slow to 35 speed back up as soon as they pass the "slow" sign. Palo Alto has a 35 MPH zone on the Alma Expressway for cars but drivers are speeding well over 50 mph. Traffic calming measures are very much needed on Alma as well. I got a postcard note in the mail from the city on how to save energy by minimizing car trips to the grocery store. How about another postcard sent regarding traffic calming and energy saving tips. This might help crazed people trying to get to and from wherever on many of the Palo Alto transportation arteries.

Everyone happy with how they operate now? Haha.
Yes, advice for the other guy is rampant. Fix yourself, you're broken and you don't realize it.

Nothing will do a thing without enforcement, and if the city has turned its back on enforcing the traffic codes for the vehicles that are semi-regularly killing citizens, what motivation do you think they will have to enforce the simple irritant of cyclists.
If we march into strong enforcement, you MUST look at where the most damage is being done first...cars and their speed.

Yes, we absolutely need more enforcement. It doesn't matter what your rules are and whether you educate people about them if you don't enforce them. Enforcement is expensive, but so is the lack of enforcement (although the costs are paid by different groups). The rule for roundabouts is simple: when entering you yield to anyone already there, but yielding is not something that people are familiar with it seems...

As far as the behavior of kids being dangerous, the data don't show that. It may seem irresponsible and rude, and it may be annoying, but the crash data don't support concluding that it is dangerous. When kids are traveling in large groups and they take over the road they are quite safe, even if drivers are annoyed. I am not defending this behavior, just trying to look at the actual facts.

Note the comment from above that if you hit a bicyclist in the Netherlands you will spend most of your life in prison. That may be more important than all the traffic rules and bike lanes.

"There need to be some mandatory courses teaching the rules and safety because most of them [bicyclists] don't appear to have any common sense."

Save the money. The second part of your sentence says it all. Studies consistently show that getting on a bicycle lowers the IQ at least 50 points.

Hi all,
I have a 3.1 mile bike commute, all within Palo Alto. It's almost exclusively on secondary streets. I did a little data gathering, and here's what I came up with:
Over the course of my bike ride, I encountered 27 vehicles who violated CA Vehicle Code.

Infractions:
Failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. (I think the MAJORITY of vehicles failed on this one)
Failure to come to a complete stop when executing a right turn on red.
Failure to signal.
Running a red light.

Weirdly, I didn't see many bikes, so I didn't gather any data on them. (besides, I don't think I can do that much data gathering while on the move)
It's a quiet afternoon, and I am guessing that those 27 vehicle violations represent 30-50% of the motor vehicles I interacted with on the road this afternoon.

It's true, we DO have a problem on our streets. It involves ALL wheeled users.

BTW - I ran all stop signs where it was practicable - my rule is any empty intersection, or situation where the only vehicle is oncoming and going straight or right.

If there is interest, I would be happy to start filming my commute and providing a "scorecard". Does anyone think it will help provide a bit more introspection?

I went to the bike meeting the other night. The initial cost for the bike markings and roundabouts is $20 million. Yes, $20 million. It will actually cost more than that, but the city is hoping to get grants. A real boondoggle. The new Transportation Director doesn't appear terribly bright. The meeting was poorly run and it appeared the city wants to hide fheir plans from the public. They were sketchy and vague.

I was at the meeting too. It seemed transparent and open. Plans were openly displayed for comment and discussion. Input was solicited. Questions were answered. Democracy in action.

"If there is interest, I would be happy to start filming my commute and providing a "scorecard". Does anyone think it will help provide a bit more introspection?"

Don't push your luck. You've confessed to a few hundred bucks worth of violations already.

Let's be realistic, all of these road features are easy to navigate if you obey the speed limit and pay attention to the road. How hard is it to turn your phone off while you drive? Forget "hands free". Just turn it off and pay attention.

$20,000,000 for bike education and roundabouts and more consultants?

How about some "Keep Clear" signs in intersections that ate constantly blocked? How about fixing the traffic light timing on which we just spent $3,000,000 and now only 1 -- ONE -- car can get turn onto Newell from Embarcadero while the city holds more "community outreach" on how to fix Embarcadero when there's only making it worse by reducing the Newell turn from 3 to 1. Dumb dumb.

This city has too much money to waste. And if they get grants for this, other governments have too much money to waste, also.

I think $20 million sounds like a bargain compared to the hundreds of millions we spend on freeways. This is not all at once, it is spread out over years and many projects all over town.

You'd think there would be more pressing matters in life than trying to encourage more people to ride a rickety two-wheeled contraption. The real agenda here is not "safety", its trying to influence people's behavior because of climate change.

Oh god the bubble that is Palo Alto...

It's up to individuals to pay attention and drive diligently and with courtesy. Many people do. Sure there are lots of lousy drivers, but drivers as a whole are being inaccurately demonized.

I drive a lot in Palo Alto and I see cyclists doing just fine. There is a massive smoke and mirrors act going on here.

Here's Something Interesting
The law needs to be fixed so what you did was not an Automatic Violation so it is only a Violation when you steal the right of way from others.

Example: Park Avenue bike lane. There is a stop at Park where it meets Lambert. The only reason a rider going towards Caltrain needs to stop, is the Law. Not traffic.

BTW many Bike lane share (dashed lane marker) with Right turners. That is not a Right Turn Lane. There is no Arrow on the pavement

I live near Ross Road, and I am on it every day, as a pedestrian, a driver, and an occasional bicyclist. With regard to Ross Road, this program seems to be directed toward a non-existent problem, and its result will be to make driving on Ross even more annoying than it already is without providing much benefit to anyone. What is the evidence to support the idea that there is an enormous pent-up demand for more bicycling? Why isn't the existing Ross Road configuration more than adequate to handle such bicyclists as choose to ride there? As several other posters have noted, isn't the perceived danger of biking on Ross exclusively or primarily a matter of failing to enforce existing rules of the road? Why Ross Road, which, unlike Bryant, does not provide a path through the city which might be useful to bicyclists?

Here is a problem that really exists: pedestrian safety. I walk in the Palo Verde and adjoining neighborhoods every morning, and here is what I see: Adults, teenagers, and pre-teens who should know better riding their bikes at full speed on sidewalks, often refusing to yield to me even after they have seen me on the sidewalk. Drivers who consider a slowing to 15 mph to be adequate observance of stop signs. Drivers who move through intersections while I and other pedestrians are still in them. Drivers who drive in clearly marked bicycle lanes. Pedestrians who walk like zombies, eyes glued to their phones, apparently assuming that the rest of the world will keep them safe. Where is the City of Palo Alto's program for dealing with these very real problems?

One point regarding the Tuesday meeting. My wife, who attended, asked one of the City officials to provide the "research" that he cited to support one of his claims. His response was: "You can look it up." Not exactly democracy in action.

"Pedestrians who walk like zombies, eyes glued to their phones, apparently assuming that the rest of the world will keep them safe."

You way overrate those characters. Assuming anything requires a modicum of intrinsic mental ability on the part of the assumer. They don't just walk like zombies, they *are* zombies, enslaved by their apps.

Since we have lived in Palo Alto, we have had SEVEN bicycles stolen. My sister had four bikes stolen in four years at Stanford. We have had three stolen at our apartment complex. All of our bikes were locked. Some of the bikes were even secured with Kryptonite locks.

Bicycle theft is a big thing in Palo Alto. While upper income families can afford a yearly theft of bicycles, lower and middle income families feel the pinch a bit more in the pocket book.

Last night, we had another bicycle stolen. It was secured with an expensive lock.

I've owned bicycles since I was a little girl. Prior to living in Palo Alto, I never had a single bike stolen. In Palo Alto, we are on a once-a-year track of bicycle theft. We even had a cheap bicycle stolen -- one that had two flat tires, a broken chain and a brand new retail value of $99.

I am happy that Palo Alto is pushing bike education. However, Palo Alto needs a better system to fight bicycle theft. It isn't very encouraging to use a bicycle when you have a bicycle stolen once per year.

What about organizing biking and walking "buses"? If they become regular, they will also be community boosters.

Always an interesting topic.... the conclusion is always the same: bikes and cars do not mix, and painting roads with stripes is a waste of time. We need clear thoroughfares, protected bike lanes, and low-speed access roads to get to these. And anyone who advocates more stop lights in Palo Alto is completely missing the point!