Safe or Not Safe? That Is the Question
The actual usage of Richmond Street by bicyclists before or during the Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project was not monitored by the City of El Cerrito and their consultants. (If they did, they did not disclose the results.) In January 2025, Richmond Street residents conducted a bicyclist usage survey themselves. They observed an average of 25 bicycle trips per day, making up 0.3% (three-tenths of one percent) of total traffic.
The City of El Cerrito justifies the Richmond Street Complete Street Improvement Project as part of its broader sustainability efforts to promote alternative transportation, but a policy that forces a neighborhood to sacrifice essential resources is not equitable or sustainable. Under cover of the mostly untried “Complete Streets” plan, the City and its consultants are claiming safe passage for all. Despite their good intentions, the changed streets are likely to produce new accident patterns and many near misses, proving that bike lanes are not inherently safe. No one wins.
The Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project
when implemented as proposed – does it really
PROTECT BICYCLISTS?
When members of our association went door to door with our petition, we discovered five bicyclists among the 154 households on Richmond Street who opened their door to us. Two households each sported two bicyclists, one household had one bicyclist. One household was for the bike lanes, two households were against. A small majority of local bicyclists was therefore against the plans.
Who are the bicyclists speaking out in favor of the plan?
Walk-Roll
El Cerrito/Richmond Annex Walk & Roll (ECRA Walk & Roll) advocates for “mobility choice — streets that safely welcome sustainable, equitable and alternatives to the automobile for both necessary and fun local travel in El Cerrito and adjacent neighborhoods.”
Walk/Roll envisions a car-free society. Although we may sympathize with that vision, it is unrealistic and unworkable in the here and now of contemporary American societies. Incomprehensibly, the Walk/Roll advocacy group, which has only one member living on Richmond Street, was included in the stakeholders’ research, while Richmond Street residents were not.
Bike East Bay
Bike East Bay (BEB) says that it “promotes healthy, sustainable communities by making bicycling safe, fun and accessible. Our approach is grounded in principles of mobility justice, community organizing and shared leadership, care and support, and fierce joy.” BEB is based in Oakland and has millions of dollars in funding that it uses to encourage bike supremacy.
These organizations do not represent our Richmond Street community. It was quite shocking to observe when several members of these organizations rallied at an El Cerrito City Council meeting in December 2024 after they learned that our community intended to speak out against the Richmond Street project. The bike advocacy members were allowed to speak during public comments, while 40 of our residents were not. These are violations of the Brown Act. These bicyclists are not part of the Richmond Street community, nor is it very likely they use Richmond Street for their commute. They claim they live in El Cerrito, but they do not disclose where. Their speeches were clearly organized and staged to undermine a democratic protest from the Richmond Street residents, who have a real stake in the process.
Even if the bicyclists who spoke in favor of the Richmond Street project truthfully use Richmond Street for their commute, they only make up 0.3% (three-tenths of one percent) of traffic. How is it possible they are heard while residents who live, work and commute 100% on Richmond Street are not?
There are ways to promote walking and biking without destroying the livability of whole communities. Only by actively showing empathy and caring towards others can we create a positive ripple effect, leading to a more just, kind and supportive society. Self-serving behavior that hurts others does not create community benefits. The Richmond Street Neighbors Association includes bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, young families, older and disabled residents, professionals and retirees, and we all oppose the plans for our street.
Bike lanes are often celebrated as solutions for cyclist safety, environmental sustainability, public health and urban transformation, yet the reality is far less rosy. These bike lanes frequently fail to deliver on their promises. Instead, they create significant trade-offs, often compromising cyclist safety, marginalizing drivers, perpetuating dangerous misconceptions about road use and hindering urban mobility for everyone.
To Recap:
In the United States, about 1% of trips are made by bicycle. The National Travel Survey states that 83% of cyclists own a car. The majority of the remaining 17% who do not own a car, such as students, cannot afford one. Therefore, it is predominantly a financial—not an ideological consideration—to not own a car.
Since 1980 the proportion of commuters bicycling to work in the United States has largely remained constant at 0.5%, while the proportion of commuters who walk to work has fallen from above 5.5% to approximately 2.5%. (Data before 2005 is from the U.S. Decennial Census. Data from 2005-2021 is from the American Community Survey.)
One big design flaw of the project comes from the urban planning method of “build it and they will come.” But coercion does not change someone’s belief. When there is no room for bike infrastructure, do not force it. It threatens the environment, makes for bad traffic planning, and it causes an unnecessary division between bike advocates and others.
There have apparently been no bike accidents on Richmond Street, and there have been only four accidents involving more than just a car or cars overall. Pedestrians, not bicyclists, are the people who are getting hurt.
The City’s project presentation lists many concerns for pedestrians on Richmond Street, but not ones for cyclists. Bike lanes do not make pedestrians safer, despite the City’s contention that all users are safer when bike lanes are added.
Everyone favors safe roads, safe walking and safe cycling, but bike lanes are not safe. They give the illusion of safety. It is time to accept that the tide has turned against paving over the world with new bike lanes. At the end of the day, bicycling is just not that practical a form of transportation for most (99%) people in the US.
Seasoned bicyclists and social influencers Jan Heine and Frank Lehnerz are speaking out against bike lanes as the cure for all, and instead favor education and bike boulevards on quiet streets which, unlike Richmond Street, display minimal traffic volumes, less frequent intersections with roads and driveways and far less complexity. See their articles below.
Promoting Richmond Street as a safe bike route to get to school puts children in danger.
Conclusion: The bike lane experiment has failed to shift transportation habits, and it has created a domino effect of unintended negative consequences. In addition, studies have proven over and over again that bike lanes are not safe. They do not take away any of the hazards that actually cause accidents, such as intersections, driveways and imprudent behavior of motorists and bicyclists alike.
In addition, injustice is a barrier to progress. Favoring a few bicycle activists and giving them an undue advantage at the cost of whole residential communities is incredibly unfair and unethical. It creates severe and lasting consequences for hundreds of taxpaying residents, disrupting daily lives and ignoring the needs of seniors and disabled residents, who now face greater challenges in living independently. If the City truly values equity, sustainability and community well-being for all, it must stop The Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project as proposed.
Further Reading:
“Perspective: A cyclist’s case against bike lanes” by Frank Lehnerz The Denver Gazette
“Separated Cycle Paths: Who Asks the Cyclists?” by Jan Heine ReneHerse Journal
“Can we ever have a European style bike culture in the U.S.?” by Paul Udstrand, MinnPost