Skip to Content
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Streetsblog Los Angeles home
Log In
1_5_10_enci.jpg

(Anyone who was at last December's Bike Meeting in City Hall witnessed a mini-shouting match between Enci Box and Councilman Tom LaBonge over whether or not there are "bike facilities" in LaBonge's district.  Enci contends that a bike path is not a real facility, and she elaborates and explains that point here.  - DN)

Cyclists who get into a discussion of safe and effective cycling on the
streets of Los Angeles often encounter the wistful suggestion that "we
need Bike Paths!" and then the conversation is taken over by the world
travelers in the group who tell tales of Bike Paths from around the
globe.

As someone who was born in Hungary, grew up in Germany, and has
traveled extensively in Europe, Australia and North America, I'm
familiar with the many variations of "Bike Paths" that can be found
around the world and it's from this point of view that I find myself
taking the lonely position that "Here in Los Angeles, Bike Paths are
not a 'safe and effective cycling' solution and in many cases, they are
a problem."

A Bike Path is a paved
and separate right-of-way path (also referred to as a Class I Bikeways
facility in California) and is, for the most part, intended as a
shared-use path for non-motorized traffic, in spite of the "Bike Path"
name. In other words, Bike Paths are typically open to pedestrians,
joggers, baby strollers, roller-bladers, dog-walkers and other
non-motorized users unless there is a separate path for their use.
(such as the Santa Monica Bike Path). The key element of a Bike Path is
that it is "separated" from street traffic by open space or in most
cases a barrier.

My objections to Bike Paths are based on my desire to ride safely, to
get where I need to go, and to ride on the streets in a city that
incorporates cycling as a transportation solution. I feel that the Bike
Paths designed and built in Los Angeles are unsafe, secluded, isolated,
disconnected from meaningful destinations, and show a municipal desire
to remove cyclists from the traffic mix. To top it off, they squander
the money set aside for Bikeways improvements with little if any
transportation mode-share benefit. If that isn't enough, cyclists who
ride on Bike Paths ride at their own risk while cyclists on the street
enjoy the protection available to all Californians who are hurt on a
public road, sidewalk or bike lane due to the negligence of a
municipality.

But my real objections against Bike Paths are based on what I
experience when I ride on the LA River Path, the Orange Line Bike Path,
the Chandler Bike Path, the Ballona Creek Bike Path and the Bike Paths
at the beach.

Here are the reasons for my Objection:

Safety:  In LA, the Bike Paths are often segregated from the
community with walls, fences and shrubbery that create a closed off,
hostile environment. The sound wall on the Orange Line protects the
neighbors from the sound of the Metro buses but it also means that a
cyclist who needs help can't be heard by the community. The seclusion
is so effective that the Orange Line turned into a homeless encampment.
It was then that the community discovered that both the LAPD and the
Sheriff's Department both thought the other agency was in charge of law
enforcement for the Orange Line Bike Path.

    • When one falls, gets injured, or has a medical emergencythey aren’t able to call for help because the walls and fences shieldtheir cry for help. 
    • When people are attacked on a Bike Path, there aren’t any witnesses and again, their cries for help aren’t heard. Rape, gang attack, punching, mugging, assault and murder are just afew of the incidents that happen on Bike Paths, and these incidentshappen at any time of the day. Bike Paths that have chain link fencing,sound walls and landscaping that offers hiding places are not safe.Adding to the risk is the fact that if something happens and a cyclistuses a cell phone to call for help, what's the address? Metro tunnelshave markers, hiking trails have markers, why not the Bike Paths in LA?
      • Tom Ward, policy director for the International Mountain Bicycling Association, was sent to the hospital when a youth threw abike in Ward's path, sending him flying and breaking his hip. As Wardsprawled on the ground, his hip broken, the assailant hit him with apole and threatened to kill him. The police responded by advising cyclists not to ride alone.
      • David Santor, a Ballona Creek regular, was "ambushed" as he rode the Bike Path in the late afternoon by four young men whothrew him over the rail and stole his bike, leaving David battered andbruised and with broken bones. 
      • Another cyclist on Ballona Creek was riding at 1pm when he was attacked by two men who threw a bike at him and knocked him down, dosed him with pepperspray and then stole his back pack. When the cyclist went to the localpolice department, the officer taking the report kept asking "but whatstreet were you on?" 
      • Theincidents on the Ballona Creek Bike Path prompted the City Council'sTransportation Committee to get involved and it was there that I argued"Closing off access hardly makes it safer and would result in lesstraffic which will contribute to an even more unsafe environment."Councilman Bill Rosendahl and the LAPD chose to close the gates and to furtherisolate the cyclists. Closing off access hardly makes it safer andwould result in less traffic which will contribute to an even moreunsafe environment. Grrr!
  • If one feels threatened by a group of people, they don’t have enough
    room to turn around quickly or find a nearby exit to escape the route,
    which then can lead to any of the above mentioned incidents.
    • If the path is closed down, people have to figure out how to get totheir destination on streets that they’re not familiar with.

Liability: In a clear demonstration of the City of LA's
commitment to safe and effective cycling, the City of Los Angeles
fought all the way to the California State Appellate Court to have Bike
Paths declared "trails" and arguing that cyclists who ride on Bike
Paths "ride at their own risk" just as in other recreational pursuits.
The case involved a cyclist who was riding the Los Angeles Rive Path
and was injured by what he claims was a poorly designed gate. The City
avoided debating the design and maintenance of the Bike Path and
instead simply argued the "ride at your own risk" defense. Sadly, the
City prevailed. This means that the city is not liable for any injuries
that occur on Bike Paths. Maintaining the Bike Path, the lights, the
landscaping, the fences, the walls all become low-priority. (see Caution for the Arroyo Bike Path) Bike paths are
considered recreational paths, not transportation paths. (Now this
explains why they lead to nowhere.) California Government Code Section 831.4.

Maintenance:  Bike paths need special funding to be maintained.
Maintenance on Bike Paths includes illumination, removal of debris
(tree branches, trash, broken glass, etc.), fixing of fallen, bent or
cut fencing that stick out, repaving of broken pavement, removing of
obstruction, like shopping carts, dumped items or car parts that have
been left there (insert photo of LA River when car drove into path),
tree and bush trimmings, etc. If there is no funding, you are left
literally in the dark.
Of course, since the funding for Bike Path maintenance is in short
supply, it makes sense why the LADOT doesn't want to be liable to
maintain it. I'm starting to make a connection here.

Destination: In LA, the Bike Paths are usually built where there
is right-of-way, not where they belong. This means that cyclists won't
find Bike Paths that take them to employment centers, schools,
entertainment opportunities, museums, shopping centers, city centers,
or any of the other places that people in cars, on buses, on trains and
on foot go to on a daily basis. Don't cyclists have places to go to? If
so, why don't Bike Paths go there?

Design: In LA the Bike Paths are not "integrated" with traffic,
meaning that there are no triggers for traffic lights. One must become
a pedestrian to push the crossing button. Oftentimes, one has to
dismount when leaving the path to become a pedestrian to then mount the
bike again to get back into regular vehicular traffic. (What would
drivers say if they would have to get out of their cars when exiting
the freeway, push the car all the way to the end of the off ramp only
to then get back into the car, start it up and slowly turn into the
urban traffic flow.)

    • The curb cuts are diagonal atintersections, so that when one rolls off the path into the crossing,the front tire is actually facing into right turning traffic and ofcourse pedestrians, people pushing strollers, and wheelchair users arecompeting for the same space in both direction, creating a jam at thesmall curb cut right at the corner of the sidewalk where most accidentshappen with motor vehicle drivers.
    • Bike Paths such as the Chandler Bike Path sit in the middle of vastopen space with no restrictions but the problem is that they squeezetraffic moving in both directions into a small area, often with tragicresults. Two League of American Bicyclist (LAB) cycling instructors were riding on the Chandler Bike Path, only to encounter a roller blader comingthe other direction. The collision left both cyclists with broken arms.
    • The Chandler Bike Path, even though it's open to the environment, isstill segregated from the neighborhood by landscaping and gates to thesouth side development. One can't enter the path from the neighborhoodwithout having to carry their bike over the high curb and landscapingunless they live at the major intersections.
    • Bike Paths, by design, are popular with families who are encouragingsmall children to ride. This creates a dangerous environment where theyoungest and most vulnerable are at odds with cyclists who are ridingfast to get to a destination. In other words, the separated benefitsare also the liabilities. Of course, the faster cyclists could slowdown but now it simply makes sense for them to ride on the street.Which is my point. Cyclists who want to get somewhere are better offriding in the street.

Closures: Secluded Bike Paths are often closed,
usually for reasons that are related to being...secluded. The Arroyo
Seco Bike Path is in the river channel, it gets closed when it rains.
The Ballona Creek Bike Path gets closed because of the crime. The Sepulveda Bike Path is built in a flood zone. Bike Paths will never be transportation solutions if they are closed without warning and without options for those who
use them.   Again, Los Angeles builds Bike Paths where they fit, not
where they are needed.

Cost: The 1.8-mile stretch of the San Fernando Road Bike Path,
from Roxford to Hubbard streets cost $4.2 million compared to bike
lanes that cost approximately $5,000 to $50,000 per mile (depending on
the condition of the pavement, the need to remove and repaint the lane
lines, the need to adjust signalization, and other factors). This means
that $4.2 million could cover between 84 to 840 miles of bike lanes in
Los Angeles. The City of LA's current Draft Bike Plan proposes Bike
Lanes costing $4,202,687 and Bike Paths costing $152,303,135! Every
dollar spent on a Bike Path is a dollar that the city of Los Angeles
does not have to spend on a Bike Boulevard or a Bike Lane. Every dollar spent on a Bike Path is a dollar not spent on encouragement and education and enforcement.

Studies prove my point: Many studies have been done in Holland,
Germany, Denmark and even in the US, that suggest that segregating
cyclists actually increases accident rates.

A 1990 research found that "crash risk" for crossing the intersection on a set-back path are up to 11.9 times higher than when biking in a bike lane.

Here is an excerpt from Wiki about Bike Paths and accidents:

In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on roads with traffic than when using
the city's 800 kilometres (500 mi) of cycle paths. The Berlin police
and Senate conducted studies which led to a similar conclusion in the 1980s.
In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths, but these produce 75% of
fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists. In the English town of
Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the off-road Milton
Keynes redway system have on a per-journey basis a significantly higher
rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions (significantly higher rate of
fatal car-bicycle collisions) than cyclists on ordinary roads. Cycle
lanes and bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban
situations but even well-implemented examples have been associated with
10% increases in casualty rates.

When I hear some of our leadership talk of Berlin and how great the
European bike facilities work, it makes me angry because our leadership
should do some research before they make any blind statements. Just
because they went on a bike ride during their vacation, it doesn't mean
they don't have to do the research before they spend millions of our
dollars on facilities that are unsafe, segregated, lead to nowhere and
end up being closed down. It is easy to do some research online, in any
language, to find out what works and what doesn't.

I don't expect the average commuter to do this research but I want them
to know what they are lobbying for and what their risks are. We need to
be able to differentiate between actual and perceived safety. A recent Copenhagen study
found that their newly built bike paths and bike lanes had negative
effects on road safety.

Segregation has never worked! Not in countries (I come from a communist
country, so I know that segregation doesn't work), not in people
(women, people of color, sex and religion stood up and are still
standing up against being segregated and being treated differently not
equally) and not in our freedom to move about.

Before
it engages in developing recreational pursuits, the City of Los Angeles
needs to commit to supporting all cyclists on the Streets of LA!

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog Los Angeles

Incomplete Streets Part 2: in OC Caltrans Ignores Caltrans Policy on Bike and Pedestrian Needs

Caltrans has a policy requiring Complete Streets in its projects, but Caltrans Districts routinely ignore it

July 24, 2024

Supervisor Hahn and Councilmember Ricks-Oddie: “Pull the Plug” on Metro/Caltrans 91 Freeway Expansion in Long Beach

Supervisor Janice Hahn: “I think it’s pretty clear that we’re going to need to pull the plug" on planned mile-long $174 million 91 Freeway project

July 23, 2024

L.A. Street Vendors Celebrate Removal of No-Vending Restrictions in Huge Win Against City

The victory is the product of a decade-plus-long battle to legalize sidewalk vending on our city streets

July 23, 2024
See all posts