As a lifelong bicyclist, I’ve logged tens of thousands of miles commuting in urban areas, pedaling to and from work, enjoying weekend rides through suburban and rural areas, and taking on multiday touring trips. These miles include several Latin American counties and Japan. Over the years, I’ve also been knee-deep in bicycle advocacy circles, most notably in the San Diego area, where I sat on the board of the local bicycle coalition and regularly participated in groups like the California Association of Bicycling Organizations.

Given my history, one might assume I’m excited to see the growing network of bike lanes popping up in cities across Colorado, which I once again call home. After all, cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian safety is a shared concern for everyone on the road.

But my enthusiasm for bike lanes — specifically those built within the rights-of-way of public highways — is far from absolute. In fact, I’m against them more often than not, especially as “protected” bike lanes have become the new default tool in the bike lane visionary’s toolbox.

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 lanes frequently fail to deliver on their promises. Instead, they create significant trade-offs, often compromising cyclist safety, marginalizing riders, perpetuating dangerous misconceptions about road use and hindering urban mobility for everyone.

The promises

Bike lane advocates make compelling promises that resonate with visions promoting healthier, safer and more sustainable cities. These promises can be distilled into five main areas: safety, environmental sustainability, health, urban renewal and transformation.

Bike lanes, especially those separated from motor traffic by barriers, are promoted as life-saving infrastructure that will prevent collisions and encourage “interested and concerned” cyclists or noncyclists to take to the streets. These bike lanes are further touted as aiding in increasing mobility options, including reducing car dependency and providing a transportation option for those who cannot afford automobiles or are unable to obtain or keep a driver’s license. There’s also an environmental angle since bicycles emit no tailpipe emissions and do not combust hydrocarbons. Advocates also regularly point out the poor health of millions of Americans, including the obesity crisis.

These promises are aspirational, and the rhetoric behind them has become a powerful force in bike lane advocacy. However, as economist Thomas Sowell once said, “Visions are the foundations on which theories are built. The final structure depends not only on the foundation but also on how carefully and consistently the framework of theory is constructed and how well buttressed it is with hard facts.” Sowell also wrote, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”

Bike lane advocates often fail to acknowledge the trade-offs that come with their implementations instead relying an “anointed vision.”

Safety

One of the most common justifications for bike lanes is safety. Advocates argue that today’s roads “feel” unsafe to “all ages and abilities” and claim that only the “athletic” or “strong and fearless” are comfortable riding without dedicated lanes separated from motor traffic. Separating cyclists from cars will reduce collisions and encourage new riders, they also say.

However, hard evidence often contradicts these claims as the most common crash types between cars and bikes are turning and crossing movements which most bike lanes do little to nothing to mitigate. While bike lanes might “feel safer,” particularly to less experienced riders, they introduce new dangers at intersections, driveways and merging points where conflicts with cars are more likely. Feelings aren’t always reality, but they’re potent and persuasive in grand, anointed visions.

In my riding experience and in my years of independent research on crashes, I’ve seen how bike lanes can lead to collisions — referred to among cycling-safety enthusiasts as right hooks, left hooks, drive outs, pullouts and doorings. Many of these collisions are fatal, and surprisingly many bike lane advocates either don’t know what they are, downplay them or outright ignore them.

Cyclists using “protected” bike lanes regularly collide with the very bollards, flex posts, wheel stops, or other elements that are supposed to protect them. I saw these crash types increase dramatically firsthand with many protected bike lane projects in the San Diego area despite decades-long warnings from both myself and cycling safety experts on these issues.

A lot of cyclists don’t like to hear it, but much of their safety is under their control. This, of course, doesn’t dismiss reckless, inattentive, intoxicated motorists or those ignorant of traffic laws pertaining to cycling, but many crashes are at least in part the fault of the cyclist for not obeying traffic rules. Cyclists fare best when they learn to navigate roads as vehicle drivers, following traffic laws, riding visibly, predictably and in cooperation with other road users. This approach is taught in “bike-ed” programs such as Cycling Savvy. Training cyclists to ride competently is a far more effective and sustainable solution than relying on infrastructure that may introduce new risks.

True safety in most on-road cycling encounters comes not from segregation by “protection” but from integration by cooperation. Bicyclists who embark on this journey of education and empowerment often go through a paradigm shift, viewing existing roads suitable and safe for their needs while recognizing the vast trade-offs of bicycle lanes.

Promoting bike lanes over education, which is done dogmatically by many of these activists, often promotes and encourages unsafe cycling and problems with other road users, such as motorists. Furthermore, the constant fear-mongering that the roads are inherently unsafe and the cyclist has no control over their situation further discourages cycling. Instead of reducing danger, poorly designed bike lanes following flawed traffic engineering standards can create a false sense of security for cyclists and motorists alike.

Sustainability

Bike lanes are promoted as a way to combat climate change by reducing car use and emissions. Yet, the impact is often overstated. Many bike lane users are recreational cyclists or existing riders, not drivers switching modes of transport. As a result, the carbon savings are modest at best. Many cyclists also own cars, especially in Colorado, with long travel distances and the varying hobbies which are impractical by bike.

Bicycles have severe practical limitations for most people given their limited range in practical times, minimal cargo capacity, and the inability for most bicycles to carry passengers. While places such as San Diego have a year-round mild climate with few days of precipitation, Colorado, and most of the country have four proper seasons.

Only extremely dedicated and passionate cyclists with proper equipment and mindset or those with no other transportation choice take up riding in rain and snow.

Moreover, the construction of bike lanes comes with its environmental costs, including resource use and emissions. One proposed “protected” lane project in San Diego requires the use of eminent domain to seize part of the adjacent canyon, home to a rare swath of California chaparral and bird nests, to make room for the new right-of-way of the protected bike lane.

One of the photographs in a recent Gazette Editorial showed two gas-powered generators being used to power the equipment for the construction of one of Denver’s protected bicycle lanes. A lot of bike lane activists tie their beliefs to the absurd idea that we can eliminate hydrocarbons or bring on their utopias without environmental impacts.

Poorly planned networks can even exacerbate congestion, as reduced road capacity leads to idling motor vehicles and longer commutes. Competent cycling on existing roads achieves similar environmental benefits without these trade-offs.

Health

There’s no denying that cycling can improve the health for those who engage in the activity. One doesn’t have to be an athlete to see the benefits, as even regular short and slow cycling trips can improve one’s heart, blood pressure, mental health, and waistline. However, it’s worth questioning whether bike lanes are the best way to achieve this goal.

There’s a massive diversity in how people get or stay active, with many who don’t see cycling as part of their exercise programs. Encouraging cycling through education, workplace incentives, and secure bike parking can be just as effective — if not more so — without the expense and challenges of building segregated lanes.

Public parks, recreation centers, or gyms might warrant a second look, as well as restoring the safety in parks. In places such as Denver, petty crime and public camping pose safety and quality of life concerns among many residents. In recent years, homeless encampments could be found in many of Denver’s parks and even some of the urban protected bike lanes. This is the case, too, in other cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, where the bike lane expansion projects are also underway.

Renewal and transformation

The vision of bike lanes as a catalyst for livable cities is appealing. Bike lane advocates look to car-light and bike-heavy cities such as Amsterdam or Copenhagen, viewing these places as utopian blueprints for transforming cities back in the United States. In truth, these cities have significant safety issues with their bicycle infrastructure as well, especially thanks to the rise of e-bikes and scooters. But these visions often oversimplify the complex factors that make cities thrive.

These visionaries also ignore the cultural differences surrounding the American desires for larger private property and the popularity of the automobile for individual mobility. Most of these people dogmatically demonize single-family housing, zoning, and the popularity of the automobile while insisting they know what’s best for everyone else. That includes feedback from actual taxpaying and contributing locals over political special interest groups or unaccountable bureaucrats.

Much of the backlash against building these bike lanes stems from long-time property owners frustrated with the lack of accountability and transparency from the governments that impose them and grow frustrated at the declining quality of the roads, schools, or public safety. I saw this numerous times in the San Diego area, and it appears to be repeating in Denver. Bike lanes cannot achieve these urban transformation outcomes, and their alleged benefits often flow disproportionately to affluent or politically connected neighborhoods, leaving underserved communities behind who may be served better by increased public transportation or even automobiles.

Another tack

Instead of doubling down on bike lanes, I propose a few alternative ideas if governments and cities want to continue encouraging cycling. These proposals cost less taxpayer money, benefit a greater number of people, including noncyclists, and are less intrusive.

Training and education are a must for road users. The Colorado Department of Transportation has a bike safety manual similar to the motor vehicle driving manual people use to study for their driver’s licenses. While it’s a great start, the cover shows a woman and child cycling in a dangerous door zone bicycle lane, and it contains other questionable safety items. Such manuals have their place but need improvement. Formal bicycling education courses need to be normalized.

I’m a huge fan of Cycling Savvy’s program because they understand the safety issue, but they also help cyclists adopt an empowering, cooperative, and nonvictim-oriented mindset. They also have programs targeted toward group recreational riders and teenagers on e-bikes. More effort to reach out to noncyclists needs to be made as well.

The city of Fort Collins hosts an excellent program geared toward motorists about bicycling safety. With education comes enforcement in the form of police handing out warnings for minor infractions along with ticketing and mandatory educational programs for the more severe infractions or for repeat offenders. Also, law enforcement needs to take the issue of bike theft seriously.

Bicycle lanes have their place in some contexts and in certain conditions, but their designs need to be scrutinized for safety issues, and most “protected” bike lanes fail miserably for their safety.

If governments are going to promote them, they need the backing of their residents, and they need solid safety and use studies of both before and after their installation. Bureaucrats and activists need to be open and honest with shortcomings, especially when their promises do not materialize.

Even with these efforts, we shouldn’t be surprised if the mode share for cycling remains relatively low in most cities. At the end of the day, it’s just not that practical a form of transportation for most people.

Bike lanes promise a better future, but they often deliver less than advertised. They create trade-offs that compromise safety, marginalize cyclists, and fail to address the root causes of urban mobility challenges.

As someone who has spent decades on the road and in the advocacy world, I believe we need a paradigm shift: from segregation to integration, from symbolic infrastructure to meaningful cyclist empowerment.

But I also believe individuals should be able to choose the mode of transport that suits their needs best. When we abandon the utopian vision of bike lanes and embrace the realities of trade-offs, we can chart a more practical path forward.

Frank Lehnerz is a Fort Collins-based engineer who works in the electric energy industry. His roles in bicycling advocacy included board positions in the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and the San Diego Bicycle Club. He also participated regularly in the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. In addition to his passion for bicycling he’s a car enthusiast, telemark skier, shooter, and student pilot.