I bike this road now and the traffic is heavy enough to make it genuinely unpleasant. A separated path would turn a stressful ride into an easy one, and would get more people out of cars for short trips.
I support the proposed Shared Use Path amendments and strongly agree with drawing a clear distinction between e‑bikes and e‑motos. E‑bikes are an essential, safe mobility tool for families and everyday transportation I use one myself to move around Lakewood as well as commuting to work from Lakewood to Middleburg Heights. E-bikes shouldn’t have restriction imposed due of the behavior of high‑powered e‑motos. E‑motos are more akin to motorcycles and should be regulated accordingly. There seems to be a great deal of confusion amongst the public about the difference between e-bikes and e-motos.
I also believe the city should continue prioritizing physical traffic‑calming measures. Education and enforcement alone aren’t enough, and well‑designed streets are the most effective way to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike.
I support the efforts taking place to address the city ordinances and unique needs of our residents and visitors as more transportation options become available as technology changes. As many others have mentioned, e-bikes and e-motos are not the same and should not be lumped in one category together. I support class 1 and 2 e-bikes on the shared use path (like in the Metroparks), as they have speed limiting technology to not exceed assistance beyond 20 mph. E-motos on the other hand are essentially motorcycles that should be excluded from sidewalks and paths and, if allowed on roadways, should have the same requirements as traditional motorcycle operators (if insuring them is even an option). Considering typical use, liability, insurance availability, and quality of life improvements for those who may not be able to use traditional bicycles, e-bikes are essential tools for people to get around and should be welcomed on our bicycle infrastructure. I also support the continued work on traffic calming and look forward to seeing progress in this area with physical changes to our streets to make the safer and lessen the burden of enforcement on our police officers. Please continue prioritizing these efforts. Thank you!
I echo the support for the proposed Shared Use Path code amendments and strongly support the proposed regulatory framework for "E-Motos." E-bikes can bring many benefits to people and communities--our family uses an e-cargo bike for transportation, errands, and recreation around Lakewood. We love meeting other cyclists, e-powered and otherwise. I do agree that the dangerous operation of e-motos is a threat to community safety and should be addressed appropriately, especially as we all see more and more on the streets.
I support the proposed Shared Use Path code amendments, particularly the clear distinction drawn between electric bicycles "E-Bikes" and "E-Motos", and allowing adults to ride E-bikes on shared use paths.
I use an e-bike to get my three-year-old daughter around Lakewood, as do many parents I know. An e-bike is not the same as a high-powered-throttled-literal motorcycle, and the code shouldn't treat these devices the same. I agree that reckless operation by children or adults riding on sides walks and in in our parks is a huge safety concern that our community needs to address. That being said, regulate the dangerous behavior, don't push a responsible parents carrying small children back into traffic just because they are using an e-bike.
I support the CASE Board’s recommendations regarding the proposed code amendments, with one significant modification: I no longer support permitting e-motos on Lakewood streets.
I believe it is important to distinguish e-motos from legal electric bicycles (e-bikes) and low-speed micromobility devices, which is reflected in these code recommendations. Under Ohio law, legal electric bicycles are bicycles, and I believe they should be treated accordingly when it comes to operating on sidewalks and shared-use paths in Lakewood. Similarly, low-speed micromobility devices can provide an important transportation option for people who might not otherwise be able to travel independently without some assistance. Reckless or unsafe operation should be addressed regardless of whether someone is riding a conventional bicycle, an e-bike, or using a low-speed micromobility device. For this reason, I support addressing reckless operation on sidewalks and shared-use paths rather than imposing a specific numerical speed limit. A fixed speed limit would be difficult to enforce and would not account for the varying conditions and users on these facilities.
E-motos, however, are different and should remain a separate category. I support prohibiting their operation on Lakewood sidewalks, shared-use paths, bikeways, and also our streets.
I also want to emphasize how much careful consideration CASE put into these recommendations. We spent significant time discussing the distinctions between these devices, where they should be permitted to operate, and how they should be regulated. I believe that thoughtful deliberation is reflected in the recommendations before Council.
I support the use of electric bicycles on share use paths, the problem comes from e motos which are completely separate from ebikes. They do not follow the 3 class system in place making them completely illegal already.
I've seen kids under 16 riding monstrous e motos all around Lakewood completely ignoring the rules, they shouldn't be riding them at all.
There's a lot of electric cargo bikes including mine that are heavy and need the electric assistance to move cargo and kids around the city, they should be allowed on multi use paths so parents can bring their kids to school and commuters to get their groceries. I own one myself, they are low speed and since they're heavy they take time to pick up speed compared to their lighter ebike cousins.
I support this ordinance as it gives more people more safe options to move around their city for those who can't drive or choose not to drive as the people deserve freedom of movement instead of only 1 option.
I use an e-assist bike to transport my kids at low speeds around Lakewood, because they are heavy. Full restriction of ebikes from separated path facilities with a road-only requirement would put us in needless conflict with cars and cause confusion for drivers as to why we're not on a dedicated path. I support the guidance as written.
I support the proposed amendments to the shared use path code, particularly the clear distinction between traditional e-bikes and the newer, increasingly common e-motos. These are drastically different vehicles. A responsibly operated e-bike often moves slower than an experienced rider on a conventional bike, while an e-moto is closer to a motorcycle in power and speed. As micromobility devices grew in popularity, e-motos were lumped under the e-bike umbrella before our code could catch up. We shouldn't restrict the responsible use of e-bikes on shared use paths because of a growing number of irresponsible e-moto riders. The right approach is to regulate the vehicle actually causing the concern, and the users operating them, which is what this proposal does. I encourage Council to adopt the amendments as referred by the CASE Board.
Second, regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, I'd ask Council to take a hard look at the process itself, not just the data collection. The program has "emphasized education and enforcement before physical interventions." The reality is that education is largely ineffective in producing the desired change in driver behavior, and the City does not have the enforcement bandwidth to sustain it either. Physical interventions are, by far, the most effective tool in changing driver behavior, and they also work around the clock without staff. Lakewood promotes itself as a walkable, pedestrian-friendly city. Our streets should reflect that. Physical interventions belong at the front of the process, not at the end of it, behind two steps that rarely produce meaningful change.
I strongly oppose allowing e-bikes on shared-use paths throughout Lakewood. People are riding them at excessive speeds, with no regard for pedestrians of any age or ability. Within hours of the shared-use path being finished on Bunts by the high school, students were racing their electric bikes on the path, as reported to the city by theTerrace Construction team.
The city already seems to have noticed the potential danger, as noted on signs posted in Lakewood Park. "Electric bikes and electric scooters are not permitted to ride with the motor engaged anywhere within parks in the City of Lakewood," the sign reads.
Please do not enact yet another law that will create a liability and dangerous situations for pedestrians but will remain unenforced. Common sense must prevail. Thank you.
I appreciate the CASE Board’s mission to create a safer, more accessible transportation network for everyone, and I support many of its recommendations.
My concern is one specific issue: removing the speed restriction on shared-use paths. The current City ordinance limits certain mobility devices to 12 mph. As a frequent cyclist on multi-use paths, I believe this is reasonable and gives users time to recognize and react to pedestrians, cyclists, and other conflicts.
The proposed Bunts Road Shared Use Path is fundamentally different from existing paths in Lakewood and most facilities in neighboring communities. It will be a 10-foot-wide, bi-directional path immediately adjacent to a busy roadway, crossing numerous driveways, commercial entrances, and intersections.
Bunts Road has approximately 116 driveway, road, and business intersections within 1.25 miles—about one potential conflict point every 50 feet.
The path’s limited width also does not meet guidelines for a truly multimodal facility serving users traveling at significantly different speeds. Consideration must be given to pedestrians and lower-speed mobility-device users, not just faster cyclists.
E-bikes capable of up to 28 mph. At those speeds, a rider may need more than 130 feet to perceive a hazard, react, and stop. Even at 20 mph, stopping distances can exceed 80 feet.
There is also a basic safety issue: having an e-bike pass you at 20+ mph while walking just a foot or two away is neither comfortable nor safe. On a narrow shared path, high speeds increase risk for pedestrians, children, older users, and lower-speed mobility-device users.
Recent Lakewood crash reports involving bicycles, scooters, mobility devices, pedestrians, and vehicles frequently involve driveways and intersections These incidents demonstrate that crossing conflicts will continue.
Our goal should be infrastructure that is predictable, comfortable, and safe for every user. I urge the City to retain a reasonable speed limit.
I respectfully OPPOSE the requested proposed code amendments on 373 as written because it expands the use of powered e-bikes and low-speed devices on shared use paths without establishing adequate, enforceable safety protections for Lakewood residents.
My primary concern is the removal of the existing speed limit while relying instead on the vague standard of “reckless operation”. Shared use paths serve pedestrians, children, runners, traditional cyclists, and people with disabilities.
Many paths were not designed to safely accommodate faster heavier, or motorized devices. Clear and enforceable operating standards are therefore ESSENTIAL.
Bunts Road warrants particular scrutiny. Along approximately 1.5 miles there are more than 115 intersections and residential driveway crossings, creating a high density of potential conflict points among pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. Given the existing conditions and shared use, this presents a substantive multimodal safety concern.
Before adopting amendments 373, the City should conduct and document a safety review, including path width, sight distance, crossing design, user volumes, operating speeds, crash history and reported near misses.
This ordinance should establish; clear, enforceable speed limits and safety standards appropriate to the design and conditions of each shared use path before expanding these uses.
Public safety should come first. Meaningful, enforceable protections SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED, NOT removed.
I strongly support the shared use path.
I bike this road now and the traffic is heavy enough to make it genuinely unpleasant. A separated path would turn a stressful ride into an easy one, and would get more people out of cars for short trips.
I support the proposed Shared Use Path amendments and strongly agree with drawing a clear distinction between e‑bikes and e‑motos. E‑bikes are an essential, safe mobility tool for families and everyday transportation I use one myself to move around Lakewood as well as commuting to work from Lakewood to Middleburg Heights. E-bikes shouldn’t have restriction imposed due of the behavior of high‑powered e‑motos. E‑motos are more akin to motorcycles and should be regulated accordingly. There seems to be a great deal of confusion amongst the public about the difference between e-bikes and e-motos.
I also believe the city should continue prioritizing physical traffic‑calming measures. Education and enforcement alone aren’t enough, and well‑designed streets are the most effective way to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike.
I support the efforts taking place to address the city ordinances and unique needs of our residents and visitors as more transportation options become available as technology changes. As many others have mentioned, e-bikes and e-motos are not the same and should not be lumped in one category together. I support class 1 and 2 e-bikes on the shared use path (like in the Metroparks), as they have speed limiting technology to not exceed assistance beyond 20 mph. E-motos on the other hand are essentially motorcycles that should be excluded from sidewalks and paths and, if allowed on roadways, should have the same requirements as traditional motorcycle operators (if insuring them is even an option). Considering typical use, liability, insurance availability, and quality of life improvements for those who may not be able to use traditional bicycles, e-bikes are essential tools for people to get around and should be welcomed on our bicycle infrastructure. I also support the continued work on traffic calming and look forward to seeing progress in this area with physical changes to our streets to make the safer and lessen the burden of enforcement on our police officers. Please continue prioritizing these efforts. Thank you!
I echo the support for the proposed Shared Use Path code amendments and strongly support the proposed regulatory framework for "E-Motos." E-bikes can bring many benefits to people and communities--our family uses an e-cargo bike for transportation, errands, and recreation around Lakewood. We love meeting other cyclists, e-powered and otherwise. I do agree that the dangerous operation of e-motos is a threat to community safety and should be addressed appropriately, especially as we all see more and more on the streets.
I support the proposed Shared Use Path code amendments, particularly the clear distinction drawn between electric bicycles "E-Bikes" and "E-Motos", and allowing adults to ride E-bikes on shared use paths.
I use an e-bike to get my three-year-old daughter around Lakewood, as do many parents I know. An e-bike is not the same as a high-powered-throttled-literal motorcycle, and the code shouldn't treat these devices the same. I agree that reckless operation by children or adults riding on sides walks and in in our parks is a huge safety concern that our community needs to address. That being said, regulate the dangerous behavior, don't push a responsible parents carrying small children back into traffic just because they are using an e-bike.
Thank you for your consideration.
I support the CASE Board’s recommendations regarding the proposed code amendments, with one significant modification: I no longer support permitting e-motos on Lakewood streets.
I believe it is important to distinguish e-motos from legal electric bicycles (e-bikes) and low-speed micromobility devices, which is reflected in these code recommendations. Under Ohio law, legal electric bicycles are bicycles, and I believe they should be treated accordingly when it comes to operating on sidewalks and shared-use paths in Lakewood. Similarly, low-speed micromobility devices can provide an important transportation option for people who might not otherwise be able to travel independently without some assistance. Reckless or unsafe operation should be addressed regardless of whether someone is riding a conventional bicycle, an e-bike, or using a low-speed micromobility device. For this reason, I support addressing reckless operation on sidewalks and shared-use paths rather than imposing a specific numerical speed limit. A fixed speed limit would be difficult to enforce and would not account for the varying conditions and users on these facilities.
E-motos, however, are different and should remain a separate category. I support prohibiting their operation on Lakewood sidewalks, shared-use paths, bikeways, and also our streets.
I also want to emphasize how much careful consideration CASE put into these recommendations. We spent significant time discussing the distinctions between these devices, where they should be permitted to operate, and how they should be regulated. I believe that thoughtful deliberation is reflected in the recommendations before Council.
I support the use of electric bicycles on share use paths, the problem comes from e motos which are completely separate from ebikes. They do not follow the 3 class system in place making them completely illegal already.
I've seen kids under 16 riding monstrous e motos all around Lakewood completely ignoring the rules, they shouldn't be riding them at all.
There's a lot of electric cargo bikes including mine that are heavy and need the electric assistance to move cargo and kids around the city, they should be allowed on multi use paths so parents can bring their kids to school and commuters to get their groceries. I own one myself, they are low speed and since they're heavy they take time to pick up speed compared to their lighter ebike cousins.
I support this ordinance as it gives more people more safe options to move around their city for those who can't drive or choose not to drive as the people deserve freedom of movement instead of only 1 option.
I use an e-assist bike to transport my kids at low speeds around Lakewood, because they are heavy. Full restriction of ebikes from separated path facilities with a road-only requirement would put us in needless conflict with cars and cause confusion for drivers as to why we're not on a dedicated path. I support the guidance as written.
I support the proposed amendments to the shared use path code, particularly the clear distinction between traditional e-bikes and the newer, increasingly common e-motos. These are drastically different vehicles. A responsibly operated e-bike often moves slower than an experienced rider on a conventional bike, while an e-moto is closer to a motorcycle in power and speed. As micromobility devices grew in popularity, e-motos were lumped under the e-bike umbrella before our code could catch up. We shouldn't restrict the responsible use of e-bikes on shared use paths because of a growing number of irresponsible e-moto riders. The right approach is to regulate the vehicle actually causing the concern, and the users operating them, which is what this proposal does. I encourage Council to adopt the amendments as referred by the CASE Board.
Second, regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, I'd ask Council to take a hard look at the process itself, not just the data collection. The program has "emphasized education and enforcement before physical interventions." The reality is that education is largely ineffective in producing the desired change in driver behavior, and the City does not have the enforcement bandwidth to sustain it either. Physical interventions are, by far, the most effective tool in changing driver behavior, and they also work around the clock without staff. Lakewood promotes itself as a walkable, pedestrian-friendly city. Our streets should reflect that. Physical interventions belong at the front of the process, not at the end of it, behind two steps that rarely produce meaningful change.
Thank you.
I strongly oppose allowing e-bikes on shared-use paths throughout Lakewood. People are riding them at excessive speeds, with no regard for pedestrians of any age or ability. Within hours of the shared-use path being finished on Bunts by the high school, students were racing their electric bikes on the path, as reported to the city by theTerrace Construction team.
The city already seems to have noticed the potential danger, as noted on signs posted in Lakewood Park. "Electric bikes and electric scooters are not permitted to ride with the motor engaged anywhere within parks in the City of Lakewood," the sign reads.
Please do not enact yet another law that will create a liability and dangerous situations for pedestrians but will remain unenforced. Common sense must prevail. Thank you.
I appreciate the CASE Board’s mission to create a safer, more accessible transportation network for everyone, and I support many of its recommendations.
My concern is one specific issue: removing the speed restriction on shared-use paths. The current City ordinance limits certain mobility devices to 12 mph. As a frequent cyclist on multi-use paths, I believe this is reasonable and gives users time to recognize and react to pedestrians, cyclists, and other conflicts.
The proposed Bunts Road Shared Use Path is fundamentally different from existing paths in Lakewood and most facilities in neighboring communities. It will be a 10-foot-wide, bi-directional path immediately adjacent to a busy roadway, crossing numerous driveways, commercial entrances, and intersections.
Bunts Road has approximately 116 driveway, road, and business intersections within 1.25 miles—about one potential conflict point every 50 feet.
The path’s limited width also does not meet guidelines for a truly multimodal facility serving users traveling at significantly different speeds. Consideration must be given to pedestrians and lower-speed mobility-device users, not just faster cyclists.
E-bikes capable of up to 28 mph. At those speeds, a rider may need more than 130 feet to perceive a hazard, react, and stop. Even at 20 mph, stopping distances can exceed 80 feet.
There is also a basic safety issue: having an e-bike pass you at 20+ mph while walking just a foot or two away is neither comfortable nor safe. On a narrow shared path, high speeds increase risk for pedestrians, children, older users, and lower-speed mobility-device users.
Recent Lakewood crash reports involving bicycles, scooters, mobility devices, pedestrians, and vehicles frequently involve driveways and intersections These incidents demonstrate that crossing conflicts will continue.
Our goal should be infrastructure that is predictable, comfortable, and safe for every user. I urge the City to retain a reasonable speed limit.
I respectfully OPPOSE the requested proposed code amendments on 373 as written because it expands the use of powered e-bikes and low-speed devices on shared use paths without establishing adequate, enforceable safety protections for Lakewood residents.
My primary concern is the removal of the existing speed limit while relying instead on the vague standard of “reckless operation”. Shared use paths serve pedestrians, children, runners, traditional cyclists, and people with disabilities.
Many paths were not designed to safely accommodate faster heavier, or motorized devices. Clear and enforceable operating standards are therefore ESSENTIAL.
Bunts Road warrants particular scrutiny. Along approximately 1.5 miles there are more than 115 intersections and residential driveway crossings, creating a high density of potential conflict points among pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. Given the existing conditions and shared use, this presents a substantive multimodal safety concern.
Before adopting amendments 373, the City should conduct and document a safety review, including path width, sight distance, crossing design, user volumes, operating speeds, crash history and reported near misses.
This ordinance should establish; clear, enforceable speed limits and safety standards appropriate to the design and conditions of each shared use path before expanding these uses.
Public safety should come first. Meaningful, enforceable protections SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED, NOT removed.