It would be great to know the answer to this. Thanks for raising this question.

I walk where I feel safe on the Ohlone trail. Given plants, curves in the trail, minimized visibility to/from the walking trail in places, and people 'hanging out' on the walking path, I sometimes walk on the bike trail. Sorry bikers/runners for sharing your space but I'd rather not be shot/stabbed/mugged.

Though in all reality, people will probably just continue to walk in the bike lanes, marked or not.

Kinda like when bicyclists ride on the sidewalk or blow through stop signs without stopping.

Yes Brian, exactly like that. I never ride on the sidewalk, except in short stints where there is no option that feels remotely safe, such as coming back from the Bulb along Buchanan Street, where I'll slowly ride on the sidewalk until I can get to a street where the hill up to Solano isn't too terribly steep. Pedestrians walking in lanes that are designated for bikes, such as on the greenway creates EXACTLY that situation though. I'm supposed to stay off the sidewalks so as not to detract from their safety. If they're walking right where I'm supposed to bike, where does that leave me? Well, mostly, back in the street. If I had a child as it appears you do, then I would not feel safe with that situation at all.
And regarding stop signs, same deal. Yes, I roll through plenty, but only when there is no one around who will be affected. If cars or peds or other road users have the right of way, you better believe I'll give it to them and stop. But it's frankly a total waste for bikes to come to a complete stop otherwise. On a bike you're already going slower and can easily see if others are present at the intersection and yield to them.
I was simply commenting on something that affects me every single day as I ride to the BART station (people walking at least two-abreast on the bike path when there's a perfectly good walking path right next door) and detracts from the safety of ALL users of the paths.

I have gone more than a decade without a clear opinion regarding people cycling rolling stop signs. My thinking finally crystallized recently. The rhetoric focused on this behavior is out of proportion to the rhetoric regarding motorists' speeding. If a person cycling rolls a stop sign and gets in an accident with a motorist, the person who is at fault suffers the physical consequences. If a speeding motorist hits a person cycling or walking, statistics show the extra speed causes disproportionally greater injuries, but the injuries are to the person who is not at fault.

Do we routinely castigate motorists because virtually all motorists speed? No, because almost everyone is a motorist. Rather, we accept motorists are going to speed, engineers study out how to better manage this speed, and we budget funds to install the resulting devices (humps, bulbouts, etc.).

We have not yet reached the same pragmatic point with regard to people that cycle. This will probably continue until the percentage of people that cycle grows to the point where an actual solution is required.

I learned the other day that Emeryville is contemplating the Idaho solution, which is to make stop signs legally yield signs for people that cycle so that the law matches the reality on the street.

(Zack, please email me at pdjordan@lbl.gov is you are interested in joining Albany Strollers & Rollers.)

Sorry but bicyclists can't have it both ways. Share the road just not the rules? As my son and I were walking up Solano a few minutes ago we saw a bicyclist blow the light at a pretty good clip and nearly hit someone who was in the crosswalk. Bad drivers and bad cyclists are both dangers to the public, just as the family of Dionette Cherney

Cars kill hundreds of times more pedestrians than bicycles: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041
As the roads become better designed for bicycling, there will be fewer pedestrian vs. bicycle crashes.

My suggestion is that the rules change Brian. As Preston mentioned, Idaho has a law that allows bicyclists to approach stop signs and if things are clear, ride through without stopping. In the 30 years they've had it, police say they've had very little issues with the law. Paris is testing the same thing with redlights. In this case, the biker you're talking about clearly broke the law and, had a police officer been around, clearly should have been cited, I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is that not ALL bicyclists act in such a manner.
And if you just want to throw examples of bad behavior around, that's an easy, though pointless game to play. Myself and friends were walking to Golden Gate Park just now to eat lunch and a car just blew through a stop sign (literally without even slowing down) as we were in the crosswalk. There are bad examples everywhere in all modes of transit (drivers, peds, bikes, transit riders). The productive way to address such problems is to think about ways to address the problems and conflicts and make transporation safer for everyone, not play a blame game.
In any case, we should probably just stick to trying to get the city council to let the proposed taproom go in. I think we both heartily agree on that!

Zack, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to compare bikes to cars or give drivers a pass. One need only visit one of Albany's three elementary schools at 3:00pm to see some terrifying driving.

However many cycling advocates turn a blind eye to bad and dangerous behavior by bicyclists. You are right that there is more than enough blame to go around and I to hope we can continue a spirited debate at the newly approved taproom, sooner than later.

Brian, I have to disagree one last time here. I think most bike advocacy groups take bicyclist behavior very seriously. Both the East Bay and SF Bicycle Coalitions offer free bike safety classes on a regular basis to train people in proper riding behavior.
http://ebbc.org/?q=safety
http://www.sfbike.org/?edu
But the facts are, when it comes to pedestrian and bicyclist deaths, the majority involve cars. While tragic events like the death of Dionette Cherney cannot be overlooked, they are the vast minority of such fatalities. That's why bike advocacy groups also push really hard for safer streets and infrastructure for all users.

Whoever said that the driver wouldn't be affected? Also, there are sadly plenty of people out there without an ounce of compassion. Read through the comments section of any anti-cycling editorial and you'll find tons of people who seem to feel that running over cyclists would be great fun. Luckily most do have compassion, and sadly, they of course suffer as well in the event of an accident. But they aren't usually the one to end up in the hospital or dead.

Are you 100% sure that the driver involved in Tyler's death wasn't speeding a teensy weensy little bit? I have not seen a final report of the facts.
I'm sure the person does feel horrible as anyone would. Frankly, this plane of existence can really suck. Accidents happen and some people do malicious things.
From when I took driver's ed last century, I believe that 15mph is the safe speed for a turn.
I'm glad to see more people actually driving 25 on Marin, but still way too many speeders.
Be careful, be thankful, and appreciate life.

As I understand it, El Cerrito is eliminating their pedestrian path and going for a unified path along the entire length of the Greenway. So, presumably, they will stripe a lane for pedestrians on their Greenway. If that's the case, 2 stripes would be consistent with what El Cerrito will do.

http://elcerrito.patch.com/articles/bike-ped-compatibility-on-bart-path-discussed
City [El Cerrito] Defends Bike-Ped Plan for New BART Path

May 19 will be the day for the bicycle rodeo at Cornell School. Save the date and more info will be coming soon.

Thanks, Mary! I added a note in the story about the shoulders. I really appreciate you looking into that.
@Preston: Have you found any additional information about the striping plans?