Local Politics

Kids Safe on Bikes?

Fewer and fewer kids bike to school. Instead you see daily traffic jams around schools as parents drop off and pick up kids for their one-mile commutes. Why? Parents fear for their kids getting hit by cars or abducted. And no wonder. TV news delivers a steady diet of kids in peril.

But here in Palo Alto [a college town with 56,000 population] the Police Department reports that since 2000 there has been ONE fatality involving a juvenile cyclist—and no stranger abductions at all. There have been nonfatal collisions and three attempted abductions, but still, Palo Alto’s streets are hardly a jungle.

Meanwhile our “protected” kids get fatter and fatter, impairing their quality of life and shortening their life expectancy.


I’m not saying just push your kid out the door on a bike. Too many kids ride obliviously, often with helmets unfastened, tilted back, or dangling from handlebars.
The answer is training and supervision. Want to be a helicopter parent? Fine. Accompany your kid to school on a bike, wearing your own helmet (I see way too many parents riding helmetless). Put your kids through safe cycling classes. Afterwards, if you do see them riding unsafely (and you should check periodically) make them walk for a week. Lastly, get them safe bikes from local bike shops. Some hints: aluminum wheels work in water; steel wheels don’t; forged brake caliper arms work; stampings break—and even a kid’s first bike should have hand brakes.

For example, this Trek Float, for kids aged 6-9 (thee's a girl's model too), has hand brakes and easily removable cranks. So instead of putting on training wheels you can just remove the cranks/pedals and lower the seat. That way the kid can learn to balance a bike naturally, getting it rolling with his own feet, using the hand brakes to stop. Then he doesn't have to unlearn the unnatural riding style of a bike with training wheels, and he's using brakes the way he'll use brakes on bigger bikes when he gets older.

----------------------------------------------------------

Neighbors have responsibilities too

Every week the Daily News runs letters from folks in a particular neighorhood or interest group. They generally say "City Hall [or the Daily News editorial page] isn't respecting our rights sufficiently." The latest is Alma Plaza, but before that we had "traffic calming" measures in north Palo Alto, Rickey's Hyatt hotel, Fry’s Electronics, a special Mandarin immersion program...someone’s always on the warpath about something.

In every case what certain neighbors or the special interest group mean by "their rights" is “what everyone else in Palo Alto owes us.” But they never talk about what they owe the rest Palo Alto’s residents.

Since Proposition 13 passed long ago, Palo Alto’s best source of revenue has been businesses. Property taxes don’t rise commensurately with everything else and generally produce a lot less tax revenue than a business does in the same place. Those business taxes fund our services and infrastructure (and generous city employee pensions).

So to the City Council I say yes, listen to the neighbors and the developers. But consider the rest of us as well. And we object to your dithering about commercial projects. It continually makes us lose businesses we need in favor of housing developments.

Please manage the city for the benefit of all, not just developers’ elaborate presentations--or the few angry people who get in your face at every Council meeting.