News

Three bicyclists hit by car on Page Mill Road

Bicyclists taken to Stanford Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries

Three bicyclists who were hit by a vehicle on upper Page Mill Road above Foothills Park Sunday were transported to Stanford Medical Center with injuries ranging from minor to major, Palo Alto police said.

Police and medics responded to the collision at 11:49 a.m. in the 3900 block of Page Mill. Two of the bicyclists sustained moderate to major injuries and the third person's injuries were minor to moderate. The injuries were not life threatening, police said.

The driver of the automobile was uninjured. Members of the Palo Alto Serious Traffic Accident Reconstruction Team (STAR) were called out and are conducting an investigation.

"There are no opinions or conclusions at to fault for the collision and no other information will be released at this time," police stated in a press release.

Sue Dremann

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by what happened?
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:18 am

If the cops aren't going to say what happened, does anyone else know? Did the car run them down from behind? Or cross the center line and hit them head on? Very strange that the car hit 3 bicyclists at once.


Like this comment
Posted by Driver
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:25 am

I live a block away from where this happened. Page Mill Rd is an extremely dangerous place on weekends with beautiful weather. You have guys in Porches out for a joy ride, pro cyclists that refuse to keep right and amateur cyclists as well. And no shoulder on the road. That road has to be made wider!


Like this comment
Posted by robit noops
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32 am

I am sure the police will give results of the investigation in the next few days, nobody wants to spread rumor and speculation. 3900 page mill is up in the narrow windy section, so I am sure the police want to be thorough before releasing details. were cyclists climbing or descending, who was on what side of road, was speeding involved, etc.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:36 am

the_punnisher is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Stan
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:37 am

Everyone needs to travel with care on Page Mill Road, or any place else for that matter. Motorists have to be more mindful of cyclists, especially along popular biking routes. Equally, if not more important for their sake, cyclists need to follow the rules of the road and stay as far right as possible. To demand equal share of the road while completely exposed just isn't the smart thing to do.


Like this comment
Posted by John Murphy
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:47 am

How does wearing or not wearing a helmet make a crash more likely?

"cyclists need to follow the rules of the road and stay as far right as possible."

That is not the rule of the road. The rule is to stay as far right as is practicable. The difference being that if it is "possible" to be further right but it is "less safe" to be further right, then the cyclist is allowed to ride further left. On a road like Page Mill this will frequently be the case as it is physically impossible to take the corners without using the width of the lane.


2 people like this
Posted by Cyclist and Driver
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:51 am

It would be better to have the basic facts here. Overtaking or oncoming accident for example.

Let's not let this turn in to another bikes vs car tirade. Remember a few key facts:

1) Bikes and cars have equal rights to that road
2) Bike riders should be courteous about their usage of the road as they tend to be slower than the cars (going up at least). This means yielding roadway when safe. It does NOT mean cowering on the edge of the road.
3) Car drivers have to be courteous about the fact that they are driving 2 tons of steel in a mixed mode world. There WILL be slower moving vehicles on Page Mill and other roads in the hills. If you can't accommodate that, go rent some track time. Wait for a moment of safety and make the pass. It won't take long to find a safe passing opportunity.
4) While smart riders do wear helmets (and nearly everyone I see up in the hills does), not wearing one does not make the cyclist 'at fault' The writer is confusing 'fault' with tort liabilities. Not wearing a helmet is sometimes considered a contributing factor to the damages sustained and thus a shared liability.

All that said, 3 cyclists hit by one car does make me suspicious that the error was with the car driver in this case.


Like this comment
Posted by Careful driver
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:52 am

I find the "pro"cyclists to be extremely aggressive and consistently fail to ride as defensively as they expect cars to drive. I,d like to see them receive a couple of citations for their failure to follow the rules. Why is the driver of the car always to blame?

I know they don,t like to lose momentum but they are endangering the lives of many people. They take too many liberties, feeling entitled to cut in front of cars and run red lights.

I,m sorry 3 people were injured. I wish them a speedy recovery


Like this comment
Posted by slow down
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:12 am

Slow down and pay attention. If you can't see all the way around a corner, then slow down more. That is just common sense.


Like this comment
Posted by Seriously Sick of Bicyclists Endangering Themselves
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:16 am

I am all for the health aspect of exercising, but SERIOUSLY Bicyclists that ride on roads like Old La Honda, Arastradero and others with NO BIKE LANES and the roads are windy and curve with many many blind curves is not a logical or practical place to ride a bike safely. So why do they do it? What the do is put themselves in danger and endanger drivers at the same time. I have had too many a close call with them on Arastradero to have any respect for them....they stop in the middle of the road on a blind curve to check their bikes....they swerve in the "driving lanes" of this share the road pathway and I am sick of them having attitudes when drivers try to remind them of the LAWS associated with riding a bike...like STOPPING at stop signs...I wish there were more police patrols available so things like this would not happen...to both the riders and the drivers. Find roads with bike lanes to ride on! [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Big Al
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:24 am

I am seriously sick of heartless people who have no compassion for their fellow human beings. This road can be dangerous, but it really is not that bad if the people in there cars would actually obey the speed limit and not act as if they are rushing to put out a fire. Try to muster a little compassion in that dried up heart of yours.


1 person likes this
Posted by A Cyclist. Yes.
a resident of Los Altos
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:34 am

I agree with your logic. If it not possible to see around blind curves. Then the road should should not be used at all. Drivers and cyclists both have the same line of sight vision. Also, I agree with you about the cyclists who seem to feel they are exempt from followingt the Vehicle Code. A stop sign and a stop light both apply to vehicles. Weather the vehicle is human powered or internal combustion or electric. There is nothing the CVC that states bicycles are exempt from following the law.


Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:53 am

Request for clarification of a point of law...Virtually all of Page Mill between 280 and Skyline is marked with a solid yellow "no passing" line, for obvious reasons. Yet the road is narrow enough that it's seldom possible for a car to overtake a bicycle safely without crossing the center line, if only briefly. Is this technically a violation of the law?


Like this comment
Posted by Coach E
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:00 pm

A Cyclist - that's the worst spell of weather we've seen in some time.


Like this comment
Posted by Google-Streets-Is-Great
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:10 pm

> 3900 Page Mill Road

By the way, the Weekly has linked to Google/Streets, which allows a 360-degree view of that location, as well as the ability to move up and down the road.

Please take a moment to visit that location using Google/Streets.


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Jack,

Yes, it is illegal to cross the double yellow when overtaking, but it's not too dangerous if you wait for straight section of road to perform the maneuver.

Web Link

Bicyclists are exempt from the requirement to keep as far right as practicable (CVC 21202) on most of Page Mill because the lane is too narrow to be shared safely by a bike and a car. This means it's legal to ride in the center of the lane or ride side by side, but if 5 cars form a line to the rear the cyclist must pull over to let them pass per CVC 21656.

Web Link

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by robit noops
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:47 pm

I used to ride up moody road to page mill at least once a week, it is a challenging and beautiful ride. Exercise caution, and be aware of the risks.


Like this comment
Posted by alphonso
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Oct 31, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Sounds like both sides were at fault - bikes rapidly coming down the hill crashed as they tried to avoid a car entering the road from a driveway. Car driver should have entered more carefully and the bikes were going too fast considering the risks of that road.


Like this comment
Posted by mabro
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 2:45 pm

All this speculation and people jumping to conclusions (and pontificating) without any factual basis... I arrived a little after the accident (and it was an accident) and spoke to a witness. The vehicle was going uphill and made a left hand turn into a driveway, in front of the cyclists who were proceeding downhill. ANY vehicle, be it car, truck, motorcycle, or bicyle, traveling at the posted speed limit, would have likely impacted the turning vehicle unless the turning vehicle "punched it" and got out of traffic lane ASAP. The corner is not blind, but has bad sight angles, and the driveway is very poorly located. The motorist and the rest of us would have better served if she had proceeded further, made a u-turn using one of the clearly sighted driveways, and made a right into the driveway.

I watched the driver almost pass out about the whole situation...but she was in a hell of a lot better shape than the three guys spread out all over the road.


Like this comment
Posted by m
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 31, 2011 at 2:50 pm

I was one of the 3 that were hit. We were descending on the proper side of the yellow line. The car was ascending and after a moment's hesitation turned in front of us across the lane to pull into a driveway. We all hit it broadside. We were wearing helmets.


Like this comment
Posted by pretty clear
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Pretty clear that the car driver committed an unsafe and illegal turn. The cops likely declined to release further information because criminal charges are pending.


1 person likes this
Posted by Marianne
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 31, 2011 at 3:06 pm

This sounds like nice people getting into an accident, but I tell ya', there are cycling jerks out there who's personal sporting needs supersede the need for safety for all involved, including the home-owners who pay to keep up the roads.

There should be some sort of special license to insure these cyclists behave in these sort of streets given that in some areas there is no physical way to make the roads wider.


Like this comment
Posted by ChrisC
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 31, 2011 at 4:14 pm

As a driver of a car and not a bicyclist, let me please appeal to automobile drivers on these curvy roads to pay attention on all the blind curves, keep to your left as much as possible when rounding a blind curve, and slow down as you round the corner. You can't tell if what you'll encounter on the other side.


1 person likes this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 4:33 pm

@m, Were the 3 of your riding single-file, or parallel with each other?


Like this comment
Posted by pretty clear
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 4:38 pm

I cannot believe the extremists trying to blame the victims, even when guilt is very obvious. These are the same extremists that blame rape victims for wearing makeup.


Like this comment
Posted by Scott H
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:16 pm

Marianne - cyclists live somewhere, so they're paying taxes just as you are.


1 person likes this
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:17 pm


The question will be -how fasts were the bikers going down hill?

The driver is clearly familiar with the road and was turning int o drive way--may well be her own.

Some crazy bicyclists go hell for leather speeding down Page Mill endangering other cyclists, pedestrians, motorists and themselves.

The crazy ones go in excess of 35 + MPH-if they hit even a small a rock or tree branch in the roadway at that speed they are in very serious trouble.

Fortunately the motorist was not physically injured in this case--though she clearly has sustained great emotional pain and suffering and probably damage to her car.

Do the bikers have adequate insurance to cover the motorists potential claims against them?

Speed limits for bikers descending Page Mill should be posted and vigorously enforced by PAPD

--a reasonable speed limit for bicyclists is 12 MPH and they should carry adequate insurance to protect others interests.

Insurance companies will deny life and injury claims by reckless bicyclists for self imposed injuries or fatalities.


1 person likes this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:38 pm


Legally, if you are making a left turn, and there is a collision,
then you are at fault. Even if you could not see the oncoming
traffic before you started to turn left. It does not matter
whether the oncoming traffic is a bike, a pickup truck, or a bus.

I hope everyone can recover from their injuries quickly.


1 person likes this
Posted by Citizen Me
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Nobody is required to pay taxes to travel on a bicycle on a public road. For now anyway....


1 person likes this
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:52 pm



Actually-- no

If you are making a left turn and someone hits you because they are going at an unsafe speed -- or have gone through a red light or a stop sign--then the person/s who hit you are a fault.

It will a simple forensic matter to determine how fast a prudently the cyclists were traveling down hill on Page Mill--

Given the time of day there are probably a number of witnesses who can attest to the speed at which bicyclists were going.

Liability--if any--will be determined in due course


2 people like this
Posted by Actually I'm a driver
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:15 pm

I know the rules of the road, the left turner is at fault even if the bikes were going fast because they were visible to her before she began her turn. 12 MPH, get real, bikes legally can go the speed limit just like a car. Cars seldom go the speed limit anyway unless inhibited by other traffic. She may have had trouble judging the bikes speed, but thats no excuse. Sounds like she made an unintentional mistake, but the liability falls with her if the accident is as described above.


1 person likes this
Posted by Cyclists-Not-Paying-Their-Fair-Share
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:18 pm

> cyclists live somewhere, so they're paying taxes just as you are

Not if they are renting. And .. they don't pay sales tax, or road use tax, on gasoline. Nor are they buying mandated liability and hospitalization insurance. If they are property owners, then some small percentage of their property taxes might find its way into the State's general fund, but precious little. Any Federal tax that they pay will end up in the highway system just like non-cyclists, however.

Given how complicated a government funding is for large transportation projects, it is difficult to know how any given road is paid for. Page Mill is supposed to be a county of Santa Clara road, so maybe it might not be that hard to research its funding, tho ..


Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:43 pm

Renters don't pay property taxes? You think my landlord rents to me at a loss? Property taxes go up and my rent goes up.
Go ahead and put an initiative on the ballot that only gas taxes can be used to build and maintain roads. Find out how little money you have to do it. Roads are funded by income taxes, sales taxes, all the categories of taxes. The gas tax hasn't gone up in years, so we're at a point where the gas tax only covers about 65% of the cost of the roads.


2 people like this
Posted by rideToLiveLiveToRide
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2011 at 7:39 pm

I bike, I rent, I make over 200K a year and have a substantial net worth. Last I checked, I pay close to 10% CA state income tax and 25% Federal income tax. I also own two motorized vehicles registered with the DMV. Don't tell me that I don't pay taxes ...

Also, would the comments be different it motorcyclists had been involved instead of bicyclists?


Like this comment
Posted by Hun?
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 31, 2011 at 7:39 pm

Dear Cyclists-Not-Paying-Their-Fair-Share
I bet those cyclist have cars and buy gas.
You also forgot about pedestrians, they should not be allowed
to walk on your road.


Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:02 pm

Cyclist are only "supposed" to stay to the right when going slower to allow faster vehicles to pass, otherwise they have the same rights as a vehicle. If they are going down hill they by all means have the right to take up the entire lane especially around corners. It is because they have these rights that they ride on these roads and apparently what makes it dangerous are vehicles. I'm so tired of drivers saying,"they shouldn't be on that road its too dangerous" when its because of drivers with this attitude that cause these accidents. Guess what, I'll bet anyone the driver was at fault, just like 90% of car-bike incidents!


Like this comment
Posted by Actually I'm a driver
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Or electric cars, or trailers. Neither of them pay gas taxes. I dont know any bikes that cause road maintance problems, so I dont know exactly what the taxes would go for. Also since Gray Davis, the government has raided the gas taxes for the general fund, so its not clear that gas powered vehicles are paying their way either.


Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm

Please, give up with the lousy gas tax argument people! It get torn to shreds everytime some non-thinker brings it up. THE ROADS ARE PAYED FOR BT EVERYONE. If you do not drive hen we are subsidizing drivers, this is fact! look it up!


1 person likes this
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm



The criticism of bicyclists comes from objective experience.

We have one of our houses close to Waverly and California

Every night when we walk our dogs and children north on California we experience bicyclists blowing through the stop signs at Bryant and Waverley--they regularly hit cars and pedestrians who are obeying the law-last year they hit our dog -- who was on a leash--fortunately our dog-- nor our children were injured.

The cyclists broke his collar bone and arm--he was not wearing a helmet
--he was very lucky

--hopefully it taught him a serious lifelong lesson

Do not be an idiot-

If he had crashed into a car rather than a dog he would be brain damaged or dead.

Our dog fortunately survived without injury

If our dog or worse our children had been injured -- what then-- the cyclist did not have insurance

Insurance should be mandatory for bicyclists in Palo Alto


Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Duh, I pay rent I don't pay property tax,duh! Are you people for real? Can you please at least think before you state something?


Like this comment
Posted by Actually I'm a driver
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:14 pm

My objective experience is most bicyclists are nice.
Sorry about your dog, amazing that you were not hurt since the dog should have been close to you, if it was on a leash.


Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:19 pm

@Sharon
And what about dogs. It seems they can be uncontrollable and bite people, even seriously injure people. Maybe they should be insured also! See I comparing apples to oranges just like you, lets keep going on with that ridiculous argument. The fact is cars kill and injure thousands every year because of their mass and speed and numbers this is why insurance is required. Bikes and dogs do damage but a relatively trivial mount.


Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:29 pm

@Sharon
Your left hand turn argument is weak at best. If someone was making a left hand turn but a cyclist was coming through that same intersection and the light was red than both were going through a red light, however the person doing the turn must yield to on coming traffic therefore , although both would be in the wrong, ultimately the person not yielding would likely be at fault. The bottom line is cyclist or driver, if you are doing a left you are responsible for making sure it is safe to cross the oncoming lane.


Like this comment
Posted by driver-homeowner-bicyclist
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:56 pm

Dear Sharon,

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

You presume the cyclists were speeding down Page Mill. At that part of the road, it's pretty darn hard to exceed the speed limit, even if you're a terrific rider. When you assume, you make...

And then you create all these incredible requirements: a different speed limit for bikes than cars; insurance requirements, and/or licensing requirements; etc.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

I suggest you station yourself at Waverly and N. California, and start making citizen's arrests of bicyclists. I'm sure the police will thank you. Vendetta, posse comitatus, just fits with your persona. And will of course convince all of the righteousness of your position.


Like this comment
Posted by Hulkamania
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 1, 2011 at 7:11 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 1, 2011 at 7:27 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Cyclists-Not-Paying-Their-Fair-Share
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2011 at 7:34 am

> Renters don't pay property taxes?

Absolutely NOT! Property taxes are paid by people whose are registered with the county, on a parcel-by-parcel basis. If you rent, you are not the registered owner of the property you occupy. You do not get a property tax bill with your name on it, your address, and a parcel number. If you rent, you are not responsible for paying these taxes. If they are not paid, you can not be evicted, nor can you have any other property that you might own attached, or seized by the State, for non-payment of taxes on the property where you happen to rent.

If you rent .. you pay rent. It's up to the property owner to pay the property taxes.

Really .. don't you understand anything about taxes in California?



1 person likes this
Posted by Cyclists-Not-Paying-Their-Fair-Share
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2011 at 7:40 am

> I bet those cyclist have cars and buy gas.

Maybe .. but not all do. And, when they are cycling, they are not buying gas.

Also, cyclists are not being required to register their bikes, and pay registration fees. Both vehicle registration fees, and gas taxes, are allocated back to local communities for road maintenance. Cyclists contribute nothing, via these revenue sources, to our roads.

Cyclists do pay sales tax on new cycles, to be fair. For bicycles costing more than cars, this can be a sizable amount of money.

As to pedestrians .. they generally don't walk on the roads. Certainly not major highways.


Like this comment
Posted by Actually I'm a driver
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2011 at 8:18 am

"Property taxes are paid by people whose are registered with the county"

I am also a landlord and while the tenants do not pay taxes directly, they pay it indirectly. Not clear why you think bicyclists are renters anyway. I bet their home ownership percentages mirror general society.

"As to pedestrians .. they generally don't walk on the roads. Certainly not major highways."

Every street has an intersection. With walk signals made exclusively for walkers, lines painted on streets, signs for cars about walkers, and El Camino is a major highway, people walk there. All that infrastructure for walkers and no gas taxes paid. They too are just a leech on the car world. ;-)

The argument that anything that does not use gas should not use the road is silly anyway. Bikes and pedestrians are not going away just because they dont use gas. They are just going to be out there, getting healthy on your dime. ;-)


Like this comment
Posted by Rubbersidedown
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

I'm a cyclist, and was caught by police for running a stop sign (at a T-junction, but still a stop sign), got a hefty fine, and paid it. That's evidence that we are bound by the same rules as cars - responsibilities, AND priveleges. My fine was for the stop sign, not for being on the road, I learned my lesson, but I will not, and don't have to, stop riding on roads where I have the legal right to ride.

The cycling clubs in the Bay Area emphasize following traffic laws - we understand that it ticks motorists off (I was riding solo when I got the ticket). Any clowns that nearly hit dogs, ride on the sidewalks, blatantly run stop signs especially at four way junctions etc. are as much a concern to us as they are to non-cyclists.

Unless someone is an extraordinary cyclist, good luck flying down Page Mill over the speed limit. Two members of my club have crashed on Page Mill in the past year, so we're slowing down.

Responsibility for this accident will be apportioned later, but almost weekly I have one incident with a motorist telling me to get off the road, or doing something fundamentally dangerous or stupid that could get me killed. I rarely see cyclists doing this, but this is my personal observation, not a scientific experiment. It's a two-way street - and we are too often the losers in this.

And yes, I pay taxes, and perhaps reduce everyone else's taxes through less pollution, less road damage, and good health.


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of the hatred
a resident of Menlo Park
on Nov 1, 2011 at 11:23 am

@Rubbersidedown Thank you. A rational, correct observation.

To the rest of the people mixing their anger, please focus. Feel free to be upset about people who blow through stop signs and lights. I ride and drive and they make me mad in both contexts. It's unsafe, wrong and raises the hostility level. BTW, for those who don't know: The law for stopping on a two wheeled vehicle does NOT require putting the foot down any more than a four wheel driver has to open the door.

Operating bicycles on public (note 'public') roadways is the right of all (taxpayers, owners, renters, visitors, etc.). No matter what vehicle we operate, we must operate it in a way that is safe FOR THE CONDITIONS. Don't block the road any longer than needed when going slowly. Don't ignore the slower, or vulnerable others when the opposite. Share, cooperate and be responsible


Like this comment
Posted by Phil
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Nov 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

At the risk of repetition, I'd like to add to a couple of points that others have already made. I don't know if any gasoline or registration tax is used to pay for the upkeep of Page Mill Rd, but most local streets are supported by sales tax. With bicycles costing $100's to $1000's of dollars, I'm sure the taxes paid directly by bicycles more than pays for their share of wear and tear and subsequent upkeep of Page Mill and other roads. And of course just because I paid to register my two cars doesn't meant I should use only them to travel on the roads I have helped pay for--I'm saving the county money by not driving a car on Page Mill when I have a choice.

From the early posts, it appears a lot of people have not been well educated in terms of the vehicle code as it pertains to bicycles (e.g. when bicycles are allowed to, and or even should, "take the lane.")

The worse thing is the assumption on some peoples' part that the bicyclists must be at fault, before knowing anything about the facts. Even after more information was known, some start to argue the bicyclists must have been speeding--even though their speed limit for bicycles is the same as for motor vehicles. It is unlikely any bicyclist or car could exceed the maximum limit there (55 on rural roads, but the basic speed law takes precedence here). The only speed limit sign I recall on Page Mill is an "End 25 MPH" sign going up before one reaches Foothill Park (even though the speed limit is 35 at that point). It is true that we see bicyclist breaking the law all the time, but we also see motorists breaking the law all the time. Stand along Arastradero by the flashing speed limit sign (when traffic is not backed up) and count how many cars are going 25 mph or less. Watch what proportion of drivers who make a complete stop at a red light when turning right from Quarry onto Welch. Just because most if not all motorists break the law at times, we do not jump to the conclusion that a motorist must be at fault in an accident involving a non-motorist. But many do quickly make that assumption about bicyclists involved in accidents.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 1, 2011 at 11:44 am

Gosh, it is amazing how in an area known for intelligence someone would make the comment that not wearing a helmet contributes to being hit by a car?

Even if people are wearing helmets and they have accidents it does not mean they will be OK. There was that incident years ago where a women wearing a helmet and not even with any traffic hit a rock or something and crashed and died from her injuries ... and then the family sued the city or the contractor who put up the barrier.

Mind your car and you do not need to worry if the people you don't hit will be wearing helmets.


2 people like this
Posted by I drive. I bike. I walk,
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm

I agree. There are plenty of good and bad drivers of both bikes and cars.

Please be thoughtful out there. The life you save may be your own.

Share the road safely and politely.


1 person likes this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 6:31 pm

* Roads are a transportation facility, not a recreation facility.

* Motor vehicles don't use pedestrian walkways or hiking trails. Why? Because they were not engineered for motor vehicle usage.

* Roads are engineered for motor vehicles, not for pedestrians, equestrians or cyclists. They are unsafe when not used for their designed purpose.

* Laws allowing improper use of roadways by bicycles are unsafe, illogical and defy the laws of physics. Like the Jim Crow laws of the deep south, they have no legitimacy, and like the Jim Crow laws they too were brought to you by Democrats.



Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 8:28 pm

Outside Observer,

*Bicycles are a form of transportation. Many people use them to commute to work. Many people also use motor vehicles to go on recreational drives in the mountains.

*Roads are designed for travel by the public, not for motor vehicles only. This is in the California Vehicle Code, which you as a driver are required to know and obey.

*Page Mill Road in particular predates the automobile. It was designed and built in the 1860s for horse drawn vehicles transporting lumber from a sawmill in what is now Portola Redwoods State Park. It's construction was not funded by motor vehicle taxes. Since it wasn't designed for motor vehicles you had better stay away!

*Current laws governing bicycle use are considered legitimate by reasonable people. The right to cycle on roads is recognized internationally.

*Your comparison of the CVC with Jim Crow laws is asinine.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Actually I'm a driver
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2011 at 8:42 pm

Alex,

Outside Obsever thinks hwy 17 through the santa cruz mountains is a freeway, his knowledge of local roads is exagerated.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 8:57 pm

I guess he/she missed the large END FREEWAY signs posted on the road where the climb starts in Los Gatos. The numerous at-grade intersections should have been a hint as well.


1 person likes this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:05 pm

Sorry folks, but the laws of physics trump the laws of man, and especially the laws of liberals.

Why don't you ask the 3 recreational cyclists on Page Mill Road how their health was benefited by their misuse of the road.


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:19 pm

Which laws of physics are those, and how does the vehicle code defy them? I suspect you are as ignorant of physics as you are the of the CVC.

As I wrote above, The road in question was not originally designed for motor traffic, therefore by the "logic" in your first post it was the motorist who misused the road.

But in California the CVC governs the use of public roads. The only way one can misuse these roads is to disobey the code. Riding a bicycle on the road is not a violation.


Like this comment
Posted by Actually I'm a driver
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:29 pm

OO,

by your laws of physics, cars should not be on the freeway. Freeways were built for interstate commerce and thus semi trucks are the rightful vechicles on the freeway. Since car / truck interactions often result in the death of the car occupants, by your logic, cars dont belong on the freeway and should be outlawed from them.


Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Which law of physics? Conservation of momentum. When a bicyclist and a motor vehicle collide, the bicyclist always gets the short end of the stick.

As for the founding of Page Mill Road, I might agree with you there. Lets remove the pavement and make it horses only ;)


1 person likes this
Posted by Dave
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm

Was the accident near the Day Worker Center?
Were the cyclists or the driver Day Workers?


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:40 pm

I don't see how the vehicle code defies Newton's laws of motion, since minimizing collisions is the primary purpose of such laws. For a collision to occur, one or more parties have to violate the law.

Page Mill was paved before cars were around. The macadam surface was badly damaged by the 1906 earthquake. A kink in the road is still visible (near the intersection with the unpaved portion of Alpine Road) where the San Andreas fault shifted several feet.


2 people like this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:48 pm

When logic was more prevalent in California law, trucks were restricted to the right-hand lane on freeways, thus mitigating your legitimate concern. Even to this day large trucks are prohibited from many roadways.

Unfortunately, there is no "right hand lane" for bicyles and no restrictions on unsafe roadways.

Like sidewalks and hiking trails, Bicycles need their own separate and dedicated infrastructure.


Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:54 pm

OO,

"...the laws of liberals"? Do you happen to know which liberals concocted the California Vehicle Code, specifically the sections that relate to bicycling? Perhaps you can enlighten us. If you can't, then why don't you lay off the juvenile name calling; it serves no useful purpose. Such childishness certainly doesn't advance your arguments.

Thanks.


1 person likes this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:01 pm

@Alex, If "minimizing collisions" were the primary purpose, we would have a drivers licensing procedure that actually required driving skills and knowledge, and we would apply that to all users of the roadways.

Were we to do that, 30-50% of those licensed to drive in California now would fail.

"Minimizing collisions", wish it were true. There is lots more unfit for the roads than just bicyclists.


1 person likes this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:08 pm

@VoxPop, Before Liberals took over California, roads were for cars and bicycles were for children.

Not to worry though, the misuse of roads is not the only thing Liberals are responsible for.


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:09 pm

"trucks were restricted to the right-hand lane on freeways"

That law, CVC 21655, is still in effect. It applies to all roads, not just freeways.

Web Link

"Unfortunately, there is no "right hand lane" for bicyles"

Actually, there is. It's either the right hand edge of the right lane or, if there is one, the bicycle lane. Bicycles are also allowed, but not required, to use the shoulder.

"Bicycles need their own separate and dedicated infrastructure. "

Separate but equal, eh?


Like this comment
Posted by Actually I'm a driver,
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:16 pm

OO

Unfortunately, cars do travel in the right lane.
Trucks are not retricted to the right lane.
Cars pulling trailers must travel in the same lanes as semis.
So I think your logic requires no cars on the freeway


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:20 pm

"Were we to do that, 30-50% of those licensed to drive in California now would fail."

Based on several of your comments, you are one of the 30-50%.

Yes, road safety is the main objective of traffic laws. A secondary objective is to aid efficient traffic flow. Some laws are more successful than others, but the purpose behind them should be pretty clear to a reasonable person.


Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:22 pm

@Alex. My last comment for the night - it's getting late.

OK, so when was the last time you saw the "trucks in the right hand lane" actually being adhered to? 20 years ago is my last recollection.

"Separate but equal", no. Separate and superior for the intended purpose. Bicycle infrastructure engineered for bicycles will be safer, faster and less stressful than using the motor vehicle roads.


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:32 pm

California has a lower traffic fatality rate than many red states. The current rate of 0.95 deaths per 100 million miles is well below the national average. Maybe the Libs who wrote the Jim Crow California Vehicle Code are on to something.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2011 at 10:51 pm

"OK, so when was the last time you saw the "trucks in the right hand lane" actually being adhered to?"

Every Day when I drive to work on I-280. There are four lanes in one direction, so they are allowed to use the two rightmost lanes. I have not seen any tractor-trailers on the left lane.

"Separate and superior for the intended purpose."

I can agree with that. Such a system works well especially in urban areas, as we have seen in Europe. Unfortunately, separate infrastructure would be extremely expensive to implement in mountainous areas like the location of Sunday's crash. But I think the current arrangement is adequate if cyclists and motorists obey the law.


1 person likes this
Posted by Dave
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 2, 2011 at 1:11 am

Are the trucks hitting cyclists being operated by Day Workers?


Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 2, 2011 at 9:14 am

I started road biking a bit over 11 years ago and ride Page Mill and many other 'backroads'. They have all become more crowded and dangerous. A lot of distracted or careless drivers. I have had a number of close calls with autos.

I think a small practical step is strobes front and rear on the bike day and night,


Like this comment
Posted by Phil
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Nov 2, 2011 at 9:30 am

I would guess that Outside Observer is trolling but only partially succeeding in provoking emotional or extreme responses. The clue is that he/she accuses democrats of bringing us Jim Crow laws in the deep south (a provocative irrelevant statement), but then later proposes separate (but not equal) infrastructure for automobiles and bicycles. How many conservatives republicans would propose spending tax payer money to build a separate Page Mill route just for bicyclists? Even alternate routes suitable to mountain bikes have recently been closed to bikes (the Page Mill trail in Los Trancos preserve) or never open to bikes (the Black Mt Trail in Rancho San Antonio and the Los Trancos trail in Foothill Park). And even those would not be suitable for road bicyclists, such as my daughter's friend who lived off of Page Mill on a road about 350 feet north of the accident. He used to ride a road bike down to Gunn and back much of the school year (obviously a transportation rather than purely recreational use of the road). In contrast, when we were graduate students with little money, we used to drive up Page Mill in our little Toyota just to look at the view or to feed the ducks in Foothill Park--a recreational use of the road. I'm sure no conservative republican would want check points on public roads determining whether ones' use was for recreation use rather than transportation.

Since Outside Observer has succeeded in getting us to respond to his/her provocative posts, I guess he/she has been somewhat successful.


1 person likes this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 2, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Small quibble, but I still wonder at the headline: Three bicyclists hit by car. Wasn't it a car hit by 3 bicyclists? Even the first-person account says "I was one of the 3 that were hit" before proceeding to say "We all hit it broadside." I guess the effect on the cyclists is the same either way.

Page Mill was my favorite ride in younger days. Never had a problem with cars until they just got bigger and bigger. Whatever happened to that dire prediction way back in high school that we would be out of oil long before this?


1 person likes this
Posted by Dr. Smith
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 2, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Everything will be okay with hope, change and Obama care.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 2, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Why is it in this forum everyone who just has to make a stupid point also has to top it off by blaming or saying something insulting about liberals or Democrats. I am really sick of it, and vice versa though the opposite does not happen nearly as much. Why do mean-spirited and closed minded authoritarian people constantly have to pick fights? Is it their only interaction with other people because in their personal lives they are so miserable no one wants any part of them? I'd really like to see the editors here start deleting posts that have unnecessary and foolish political points to them.


1 person likes this
Posted by Anon as well
a resident of Portola Valley
on Nov 2, 2011 at 5:07 pm

Anon,

Personally I think the vitriol you refer two is generally against the party/president currently in office. How many times from 2000 to 2008 did you see comments "blaming or saying something insulting" about conservatives or Bush/Cheney? I know that I saw that quite often.

That being said, I agree that such comments really don't belong in *most* of the threads in these groups... they simply aren't relevant... and they make me discount the rest of the post submitted by that person.


1 person likes this
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm

@Anon,

>>"I'd really like to see the editors here start deleting posts that have unnecessary and foolish political points to them."

If they did that they would have to shut down "Town Square" ;)

If the republicans/conservatives were responsible for the illogical bicycle laws I'd be just as critical, because I'm not one of them either.


Like this comment
Posted by EricCartman
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm

@Dr. Smith, Maybe Obama care will pay for your lobotomy, finally.


Like this comment
Posted by Alex
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2011 at 10:15 am

Most of the current bicycle statutes were signed into law by a Liberal named Ronald Reagan back in the 1970s. Prior to that, bicycles were considered vehicles by the CVC. Now they are "devices", but riders have most of the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers. Those Bolsheviks.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2011 at 10:41 am

I feel it is time that some of our traffic laws were revisited, particularly those in relation to bicycles. I know they are vehicles and have the same rights, but when these laws were written there were not so many bikes on our roadways, we didn't have the recreational type cycling we have now and bike lanes didn't exist. Apart from helmet laws for under 18s, I don't think there have been any changes.

Bicycles should be registered at time of purchase. This can help if stolen and also if the rider has an accident and can't be identified.

Bikes must use lights between dusk and dawn, reflectors are not enough.

Bikes must stop for school crossing guards and not be treated as pedestrians unless they dismount.

Bikes should be allowed to do a Californian rolling stop at a stop sign provided there is no motorized traffic stopped or approaching the stop sign, otherwise they must stop.

Bikes should give way to pedestrians.

Bikes must treat other bicycles as another vehicle and obey traffic laws.

Bikes must not travel two or more abreast.

Cars and other motorized vehicles must treat bikes as a vehicle and the bikes must act like vehicles.

There are some streets where bikes should not be allowed particularly when there is a good alternative. Alma in Palo Alto is one that comes to mind since Bryant is such a good alternative.

These rules would just make sense to me. It is definitely time to rewrite some of our traffic laws. Just because something is the law it doesn't mean it is a good law. Laws for cars have been changed for safety, eg seat belts, lights on when using wipers, etc. and some bicycle laws should be changed also.


Like this comment
Posted by M5
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2011 at 3:04 pm

A bit of background, I ride a bike as my primary form of transportation. (I don't like paying $9/day to park and don't like wasting time waiting for buses). I have a car though I primarily use it for recreation/long trips or when buying something heavier than a few bags of groceries.

Resident--

most of the laws you mentioned are already on the books, just frequently misunderstood and/or not enforced.

At least a headlight is required in CA at night. I personally run very intense headlights (strong enough to actually see the road with not just a blinking LED) and taillights on my bike at all times, even in the daytime.

Bikes are required to give way to pedestrians, and stop for crossing guards.

Cyclists are technically required to dismount and walk to be considered a pedestrian.

It's illegal to ride more than two abreast. A law strictly preventing riding two abreast would be bad as it would make it illegal for one cyclist to overtake a slower one. Also, permitting only one cyclist at a time to proceed through a four way stop per "turn" would also totally wreck the flow of traffic compared to allowing groups of small groups of cyclists to go through simultaneously.

I think the Calfiornia stop rule would be a good change. This is what I usually do anyway-- I don't ever "blow" through stops, I slow significantly first so that I *could* stop in time, check thoroughly, and always stop/give way to approaching traffic or pedestrian.

Unfortunately many drivers whose turn it is to go usually expect me to run the stop, wait for a while, then get frustrated and wave me to proceed into the intersection out-of-turn. I almost always refuse as this is usually extremely dangerous (no guarantee the car in the next lane over who actually has right of way won't hit me).

A lot of this confusion has to do with the fact that many intersections with stop signs also have crosswalks. If I were considered a pedestrian (not a vehicle), the car in the situation actually would be obligated to wait for me in the crosswalk. This is why requiring dismounting to use a crosswalk/be considered a pedestrian makes sense and IMO should be enforced.



I would be in favor of a law requiring licenses and registration to ride a bike on the street provided they were free or next to no cost to obtain. (IMO the last thing CA legislature needs is another way to gauge people with more "fees"...) if riding a bike on the street, one should be competent to make a hard panic stop without locking the wheels, make quick evasive maneuvers etc. similar to the kinds of things tested to get a motorcycle permit.


Like this comment
Posted by Phil
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Nov 4, 2011 at 8:46 am

I think bike licenses are required by most of not all municipalities. From the Palo Alto website: "The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 10.64.010) requires residents to license their bikes before riding on City streets and public property." From Stanford's website: "Bicycles used on campus may be licensed with Santa Clara County. Register your bike at the Parking & Transportation Services office; it's your best chance of recovering it if stolen. The registration fee is $3.50 and lasts for three years." This is another law that is largely ignored, but changing it so that registration must occur at purchase would help.


Like this comment
Posted by Citizen Me
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2011 at 7:49 am

Phil,
Thankfully, most municipalities in Ca (and the US) do NOT require any type of license or bike registration. College campuses are a different matter; they are attempting (illegally?) to regulate juvenile behavior (as well as collect revenue).
If you look close at any existing city programs (like Palo Alto's), you will find them un-enforced, unsuccessful at theft recovery, and generally a waste of citizens' time/money.
Regulating human-powered transportation is born of folly!


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2011 at 8:40 am

I see nothing wrong with registering a bicycle at the time of purchase for a small fee.

This is done for tv purchase, the argument being that they are difficult to dispose of.

There is a more valid reason for bicycles than tvs. The majority of bicyclists are not carrying any form of id. Bicycles are involved in accidents and if the rider is not able to give their name or are not carrying id there is a long delay in finding out the identity of the person. This could in fact make the difference of getting parental permission on lifesaving treatments in the worst case scenario and getting information to parents if nothing else. With adult riders, there are still those who may not carry id with them if they feel they do not need it on their fun ride. Phones are not always a good place to find id from and neither are keys.

Bike registration would not necessarily mean that the original owner of the bike was the rider, but it would be a good start for authorities to start looking to identify the rider.

The reason bike registration does not help with found bikes by police is because so few are registered. If you report a bike stolen with them they ask for frame number which most people do not know. Knowing your frame number from your receipt of registration would help when bikes are stolen and subsequently found.

I see nothing wrong with a minimum fee for the registration. A bicycle is possible with causing injury to others as well as the rider. It makes sense to me that pointing out that a bike is not just a toy at the time of purchase is underscoring to the buyer that a vehicle used on the roads in traffic is a serious undertaking and shouldn't be viewed lightly. The fee and registration process would do this.


Like this comment
Posted by phil
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Nov 8, 2011 at 11:10 am

I actually did have a stolen bike returned after a couple of years, because I had registered it and reported it when stolen (in Palo Alto). A policeman stopped someone carrying two bikes in Belmont and one was mine.
I suspect that the revenue ($3.50) that is collected for bikes registered at Stanford ends up with Santa Clara Co., so I doubt that is the reason for Stanford's requirement. I don't know about Palo Alto, but I can report that the last time I bought a bicycle, the hours for registration (at the local fire station) were so restricted that I gave up and rode up to Stanford to register it. Campus bike shop advertises on their webpage that when buying a new bike with them, they take care of "required registration at no hassle and no cost." I imagine other bike shops can (or could) do the same thing.


4 people like this
Posted by Ramos
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Apr 25, 2015 at 10:53 am

Page Mill Road is not safe at all. I cannot understand why Palo Alto Police don't patrol more this road. You can see people riding thier bikes down he hill in full speed. I believe there are Palo Alto Rangers up there! The city should make them drive up and down the hill patrolling Page Mill.


Like this comment
Posted by Lylli
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Apr 25, 2015 at 10:57 am

You 100% right Ramos. Put those Rangers to patrol the hill. We should take this matter to the city council.


2 people like this
Posted by Noma
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 25, 2015 at 11:06 am

Patrol and start giving tickets for speeding. I have seen people coming down the hill so fast that made me think twice to go back up there again. Few days giving tickets people will slow down. Now,it is a matter of care IF Palo Alto City Council Member cares we will see changes soon.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2015 at 11:23 am

I think the big problem here, and I have been reading some of the thoughtful posts put up by experienced cyclists is that riding down Page Mill is a dangerous ride and even expert riders know this.

For those experienced riders, they are looking at this as how to ride a difficult course, with bends, how to control their speed and how to control their bike. If this was a closed road, all they say would make perfect sense.

But, and the big but, is that this is not a closed course for expert bikers. It is a mixed use, country two lane road. It has residential streets and driveways. It has animal habitats. It has cars, motor cycles, horses and other bikers, and even pedestrians, all using this road. We have to forget the physics to some extent and remember the rules of the road. Of course riding on brakes is not an option that bikes relish doing because for them that is not the safest way to ride. But they are sharing the road with other lawful users and ultimately the laws of the road have to trump their idea of what is safe.

I can see what they say about how to ride this course safely if it was a closed ride in the tour de California. But we are sharing the road with each other. We have to obey traffic laws. We have to consider others may be around the next bend, after all it may be a traffic accident around the next bend that you have to suddenly stop for.

These blind bends have to be taken slowly by vehicles. Vehicles who are silent must understand that they are going to be a complete surprise to someone crossing the street where there are no crosswalks.

We need a lot more consideration on Page Mill.


7 people like this
Posted by Think Twice
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2015 at 2:04 pm

Page Mill Rd was built as a one-way logging road. There is very barely room for one car in each direction, much less a bicycle.

Many bicyclist ride in the MIDDLE of the road, forcing cars to pile up for a mile behind them.

Other bicyclists ride two, three, even four abreast, so they can talk. The bicyclist handbook available at any DMV or AAA Office states that on ANY road, bicyclists must ride single file--for their own safety. I don't think many cyclists, especially Paly students, ever follow this one. On a narrow road like Page Mill, this can prevent Emergency vehicles from getting to the scene of an accident-- and it HAS delayed them dangerously in the past. Obviously, it can be very difficult if not impossible for a car to get around a cluster of bikes, but on a blind curve, it is death stalking a group of bicyclists! DON'T DO IT!

PULL-EAZE don't fly down a hill faster than 15 mph. Upper Page Mill is full of potholes, rough patches, gravel, dirt, and sometimes mud and ice-- it is NOT a well-maintained road ( only Empire Grade is worse). If you hit any of the aforementioned issues at speeds above 15 mph, you WILL go down HARD. Road rash will be the least of your worries. Other bicycles, cars, motorcycles, hikers, trees, and any kind of obstacle in your downhill path will compound your injuries exponentially as you hit them/they hit you. You do not want to die this way!

Keep in one that if you are injured on Upper Page Mill, it will take a LONG! LONG! time for any ambulance, fire truck, paramedic, or the Stanford Life Helicopter to reach you. You could die before they do. And your family will have an ENORMOUS bill for the ambulance or helicopter ride down the hill--which may not be covered by health insurance if you were doing some risky activity--like speeding down bumpy, windy, narrow, steep Page Mill Rd at speed on a bicycle.


3 people like this
Posted by parent
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 25, 2015 at 6:11 pm

Cars need to stop speeding, too. Make the speed limit 15mph for cars as well as bicycles.


2 people like this
Posted by Think Twice
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2015 at 2:20 pm

Talked to. CHP officer at Alice's Restaurant this morning who informed me that the MINIMUM cost for the Stanford Helicopter to pick you up and take you to the Stanford Hospital is $50,000--- and is never covered by health insurance.

However, if you anticipate eventually needing this service, special helicopter emergency transport insurance can be purchased in advance--but the premiums are not cheap, either.


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 26, 2015 at 5:04 pm

Figure $10M for the helicopter purchase and $500 per hour for fuel.


2 people like this
Posted by MJP_Cyclist
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 27, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Think Twice:

Your summation of the state of Page Mill Road, upper or lower is way off.
I ride it up and down several times a month.
It is mostly very smooth with a few small bumps, that can be either avoided or even at 30 mph cause no
issue with the stability of the bike.
However this discussion really is in response to a car turning across the line of traffic that caused an accident.
All other discussion or point raised here are not relevant to what caused the accident.
It was simply and sadly an error of judgment by the car driver.

In the other 10,000 movements of cars and cyclists up and down Page Mill Rd over any given time, there have not been any accidents, be it due to or not due perceived unpaid taxes, pot holes or disgruntled disposition or cyclists or motorists traveling down the hill under the speed limit.
No accidents, bar one and that was a motorist turn across the line of traffic and that being the sole cause.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Drop Your Keyboard!
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 6,757 views

Tell Me: Are Parents Today Overreacting to Child Safety Concerns?
By Diana Diamond | 18 comments | 2,193 views

Coffeebar to expand to Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,758 views

A Concrete Joy: The Life and Love of Charlie Foley-Hughes
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 774 views

Climate Friendly Cuisine Conference
By Laura Stec | 12 comments | 559 views