I appreciate Council’s efforts to improve safety and mobility in our community. As a Bunts Road resident, I support the goal of creating safer options for people who walk and bike. However, I am concerned that the planned shared-use path on Bunts may not provide a meaningful safety improvement. According to crash data, most cycling accidents involving vehicles occur at intersections and driveways, and the proposed path does not address this issue.

Unlike Metroparks trails—with few crossings and long, predictable sightlines—Bunts Road has many residential and business driveways. These frequent intersections create situations where even alert drivers may have difficulty seeing a cyclist approaching in the same direction of travel. This makes it especially important for cyclists to travel at controlled speeds, ideally less than the 12 mph limit, and to be prepared to slow or yield at driveways. This is not hypothetical, please look at the Detroit Road incident on 11/14.

At the same time, improving safety on Bunts requires addressing vehicle speed and traffic levels. Reducing traffic and lowering vehicle speeds would benefit all road users—drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists—and help make any new facility function more effectively. And enforce speed violations and distracted driving.

The ordinance would benefit from clearer expectations for shared-use path behavior, driveway-crossing protocols, and speed management. Strengthening these elements will help ensure safer interactions for everyone and support the broader goals of the city’s transportation plan. Please everyone - emphasize safety over convenience.

I respectfully request more consideration be made to the proposed changes to LCO 373.101, specifically part (c), which states: 
“No adult…shall operate a mobility device on a bikeway or shared use path, except when necessary to go on or off adjacent properties or to park.”

As currently defined in Section 301.182, a "mobility device" includes “an e-scooter, e-bike, or other similar devices.” This, combined with the definitions of “Bikeway” and “Shared Use Path” as outlined in this proposal, would prohibit adult e-bike riders (regardless of the class or use of e-bike features) from utilizing safer routes that were specifically designed to help protect vulnerable road users. E-bikes provide a sustainable alternative to car dependence by offering easier commutes and fitness options, the ability to carry loads or transport children/family members, and greater overall accessibility, including for those who may struggle with the physical demands of regular cycling. In fact, I rode recently with a resident who was recovering from being hit by a car. Use of on e-bike allowed him to ride more comfortably and stay active amidst his recovery. This would have been more difficult to accomplish on a traditional bicycle. The proposed language here would have added even more of a challenge to simply enjoy what is meant to be Ohio’s most bikeable city.

Other proposed changes in this proposal refer to consistency with neighboring ordinances. The Cleveland Metroparks currently allow Class 1 and 2 e-bikes on roadways and all purpose trails. Why would we not, at minimum, follow similar guidance instead of proposing to exclude e-bikes altogether?

I strongly encourage you to reconsider the definition of mobility device and to ensure that e-bikes remain permitted on our bikeways and shared use paths. Doing so will promote safety and accessibility for members of our community, allowing people to choose active transportation without being forced into the street with 4000 lb vehicles.

It's about time that the city recognize the dire need for updates to LCO relating to bicycle usage on sidewalks, roadways, and shared use paths. However, this ordinance falls short.

It lacks any update to the definition of ebikes as "Mobility devices" or clarification on the difference between an ebike and an assistive scooter that a person with a disability might use. It also lacks any differentiation between class I, II, and III ebikes.

This ordinance also limits the use of shared use paths to bicycles no wider than a typical 2-wheeled bicycle, leaving far too much to interpretation by our less than stellar police department. This appears to either leave it uncertain to allow subjective application of the ordinance or to intentionally limit the growing number of families with Cargo bikes from using shared use paths.

Next, there is specific language that requires riders on sidewalks and shared use paths to slow down if a vehicle is approaching the path/sidewalk. This is not only impractical because drivers often park in driveways such that its hard to tell whether a car is approaching or just parked, but it is also counter to the stated goals of the ATP, SS4A, and Complete streets ordinance by giving preferential treatment to drivers rather than people using alternative transportation.

If I'm reading the proposed ordinance correctly, the speed limit of 12 mph for electric scooters is completely removed. This is risky as scooters are smaller and can fit in smaller spaces where they're harder to see. I suggest a speed limit of 20 mph to match the assistive cutoff for most ebikes.

Last, this ordinance defines a bicycle as 2 wheels or one wheel in front and 2 in the rear. There are people in lakewood that have "bikes" with two wheels up front and one in the rear, which helps them to carry their family with more stability than a typical two-wheeled bicycle.

Please make substantial changes to this ordinance before passage.

As others have stated the language needs to be corrected to allow adults with class 1-3 ebikes to use multi-use path/shared use paths/bikeways/bike paths/bike lanes. Ebikes are super helpful to those recovering or have chronic condition that prevents them from riding a non electric bike; they're also a great alternative for adults who want to live a healthier greener life while also being able to move around at a quicker pace to fit their busy lifestyles.

I also agree that the language should accommodate cargo bikes as they are wider than more common bikes, I own one myself and feel a lot safer riding it on bike paths and multi use paths, I'd like to go further to adjust the language to allow for 3 wheeled cargo bikes to use the path since those also exist and seen a resident that uses one for their kids.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I’m concerned that the current language, particularly the prohibition on bicycles “wider than customary two-wheeled bicycles” and the restrictions on “mobility devices”. This vague language could unintentionally exclude safe, family-oriented options like e-cargo bikes or adaptive cycles that may be wider but still operate safely on shared-use paths. Rather than regulating based on bike size or whether a device is electric, I urge the city to adopt a behavior-based approach that emphasizes safe operation: yielding to pedestrians, slowing in constrained areas, signaling when passing, and ensuring others can reasonably pass on the left. These standards provide clarity, protect pedestrians, and allow families like mine to use the paths as intended while supporting Lakewood’s active transportation goals. Thank you for considering this update.

Neighborhood: Birdtown

I am excited about our ordinances being updated and about our new shared-use paths! Especially the one on Bunts - that path will be critical for us to access northern Lakewood consistently without expanding to a 2-car family.

I have two quick suggestions to update the ordinance to ensure my family can use the shared-use paths our city plans to develop in the future.

Section 373.10 prohibits bicycles “wider than customary two-wheeled bicycles.” Our family has an e-cargo bike with a bucket on the back that helps us ride our kids around. I am concerned because our cargo bike may be slightly wider than a "typical" two-wheeled bicycle, even though it is narrow enough to comfortably allow for traffic on a shared-use path to pass by on the left of our bike.

Additionally, Section 373.101(C) appears to prohibit adults from operating “mobility devices” on shared-use paths, which, if interpreted to include e-bikes or adaptive cycles, would exclude our family from using these paths. I would feel much more comfortable moving my children around Lakewood on the shared-use paths rather than being forced onto the street.

Rather than regulating by width or electrification, I would suggest a behavior-based approach focused on safe operation: yielding to pedestrians at all times, slowing in constrained areas, using audible signals when passing, and dismounting when crowded. Another option related to width is to regulate based on others' ability to reasonably pass on the left if the bike or mobility device is on the right side of the shared-use path.

Ensuring pedestrian safety and avoiding conflicts between pedestrians, mobility devices, and bikes on the new shared-use paths is critical; however, I hope our ordinances can be updated to include our family's mobility needs. Every day my family chooses to ride our bike(s) around Lakewood, we make it more affordable for us to live here, and we help our city meet its transportation and climate goals. Thanks!

I respectfully urge Council to recognize that the proposed bicycle-infrastructure amendments are incomplete and unsafe as written, especially for residents along Bunts Road who will be forced to absorb the consequences of a multi-modal pathway the City has not fully planned for, defined, or committed to maintaining.

While the amendments remove
homeowners’ responsibility for shared-use paths, they never state who will maintain them. This leaves a serious gap in accountability. If the City intends to build and promote these facilities, it must also assume full responsibility for inspections, repairs, snow and ice removal, hazard response, and long-term safety oversight. Without explicit assignment of these duties, residents and users face confusion, delayed repairs, and unclear liability when injuries occur.

Other critical elements are missing. There are no definitions of “shared-use path” or “bikeway,” no rules for how paths should operate where they intersect driveways and crosswalks. Bunts Road has dozens of driveways, yet the ordinance provides no yielding rules, slowing requirements, sight-distance expectations, or mandatory signage, major safety risks for families and drivers.

The proposal also lacks basic user-safety standards that many cities already include: reasonable speed rules, pedestrian-yielding requirements, lighting, and visibility expectations, passing etiquette, and guidance for e-bikes and scooters. The absence of these rules will create avoidable conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, felt most acutely by Bunts Road residents.

Finally, the amendments offer no enforcement structure, penalties, or safety-audit requirements, leaving high-risk corridors without operational oversight.

Lakewood -These amendments fall short. I respectfully ask Council to do its job: strengthen the ordinance before moving forward to ensure safety, accountability, and responsible long-term management of the infrastructure the City chooses to build.

I appreciate the effort to modernize our bicycle ordinance, but I’d like to raise concerns about Sections 301.04, 373.10, and 373.101(C). Section 301.04 does not clearly define how e-assist bikes should be classified. Defining e-bikes by the Ohio Class 1–3 system allows safety rules to be tailored to speed and operating behavior rather than assumptions based on appearance. Section 373.10 also lacks clarity regarding e-bikes and prohibits bicycles “wider than customary two-wheeled bicycles.” While the goal appears to be protecting pedestrian comfort, this wording unintentionally targets cargo bikes, box bikes, bicycles with trailers, and adaptive bikes — all legitimate and increasingly common mobility devices used by families transporting children, residents carrying goods without a car, and people with mobility or balance limitations who cannot ride a standard bicycle. Many of these individuals rely on electric assist, making clear definitions and permitted locations especially important. Additionally, Section 373.101(C) appears to prohibit adults from operating “mobility devices” on shared-use paths, which, if interpreted to include e-bikes or adaptive cycles, would exclude users who rely on the safest, lowest-stress facilities. This contradicts the purpose of shared-use paths: to provide safe, inclusive, low-stress travel for people of all ages and abilities. Rather than regulating by width or assist technology — both ambiguous and difficult to enforce — I respectfully suggest a behavior-based approach focused on safe operation: yielding to pedestrians at all times, slower speeds in constrained areas, audible signals when passing, and dismounting when crowded. This maintains pedestrian safety while supporting families, older adults, and disabled riders who depend on these devices for everyday, sustainable transportation. Thank you for considering refinements that keep the ordinance inclusive and aligned with best practices.