3. ORDINANCE 40-2025 - AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, or otherwise to take effect at the earliest period allowed by law, amending or repealing various sections of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances to update definitions and regulations related to bicycle infrastructure within the City of Lakewood. (1st read & referred to HPD & CASE 11/17/25; 2nd reading 12/01/25)
I appreciate the City’s effort to establish clear rules for bicycles, e-bikes, pedestrians, and other users of shared-use paths. However, Ordinance 40-2025 does not fully address my primary safety concern regarding the proposed Bunts Road shared-use path: speed and meaningful enforcement.
The proposed ordinance removes the existing 12-mph limit for e-scooters in Section 373.08 and replaces that specific standard with only the requirement that users operate at a speed that is “reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.” While this is an appropriate general safety requirement, it provides no specific speed standard for bicycles or e-bikes on a shared-use path.
This is particularly important on Bunts because the proposed 10-foot path will be shared by pedestrians and cyclists traveling at potentially very different speeds. The ordinance does require cyclists to stay to the right, provide an audible warning before passing, and exercise due regard when approaching driveways and crosswalks. Those are useful requirements, but I remain concerned about how the City will proactively enforce a subjective “reasonable and prudent” speed standard.
At a minimum, I would like to see prominent signage identifying the applicable speed limit and expectations for safe use, similar to the signage the City recently installed at Lakewood Park. Clear signage would give pedestrians and cyclists a common understanding with an objective standard to enforce.
I therefore ask Council to establish a specific, enforceable speed standard for shared-use paths and ensure that the Bunts Road path is appropriately signed regarding safe use.
I support safe transportation options and recognize the value of walking and cycling infrastructure. My concern is specifically that the rules governing a shared path should protect slower and more vulnerable users while providing clear, enforceable expectations for everyone.
I am happy that the City is working on clear rules for e-bikes, scooters, and the Bunts Road shared-use path. I support reasonable, practical, and enforceable regulations that protect riders, pedestrians, residents, and private property.
Before the Bunts Road shared-use path is completed and expanded, I respectfully ask the Mayor and City Council to include the following safeguards:
•Reasonable speed (speed limit needed) and yielding requirements at driveways, crossings, and pedestrian areas.
• Clear rules for e-bike and scooter use on sidewalks and shared-use paths.
• Prohibitions against riding across private lawns or property.
• Identification or registration requirements for motorized devices, to the extent permitted by Ohio law, so violations can be investigated and operators held accountable.
• Clear rules regarding passengers and minors, consistent with state law.
• Meaningful enforcement of reckless operation, failure to yield, excessive speed, and trespassing- fines.
• Adequate signage and pavement markings so riders and residents understand the rules.
• Clear City responsibility for addressing safety concerns and hazards associated with the public path, rather than placing that burden on adjacent homeowners.
• Ongoing tracking of complaints, crashes, and near-miss incidents to determine whether additional safeguards are needed.
The goal is not to discourage responsible bicycling or alternative transportation. It is to ensure that increased use of e-bikes and scooters does not come at the expense of resident safety, pedestrian safety, or private property rights.
I appreciate the City’s efforts to address these issues and ask that these safeguards be established before the Bunts Road shared-use path is expanded, so that clear expectations and accountability are in place from the start.
Thank you for taking this important safety issue seriously.
Existing Section 301.182 defines "mobility device" as "small mobility devices, such as an e-scooter, e-bike, or other similar devices." New Section 373.101(c) says no adult (age 18 and over) shall operate a mobility device on a bikeway or shared use path.
Is the intent to ban adults on e-bikes from bikeways and shared use paths? If so, I am strongly opposed.
I use my e-bike to pull my kids in a trailer. The pedal assist lets us take trips that would not be practical pulling that weight on a conventional bike. Under this language, would someone in my situation have to leave the shared use path and ride in the street with two children behind me?
The problems people are reacting to are caused almost entirely by young, inexperienced riders operating e-motos recklessly. Yet this provision applies only to adults, so it restricts the riders who are not causing the problem and leaves the ones who are untouched.
A responsible adult on an e-bike is often slower than a rider on a conventional bike. My e-bike has assist levels calibrated to specific speeds. On level 1, which is what I use on shared use paths, I travel at 12 mph. E-bikes aren't gaining popularity because of top-end speed. They are popular because they let people carry cargo, including kids, and because they give an option to people who, for a variety of reasons, otherwise wouldn't ride at all. This should be encouraged, especially from a city like Lakewood.
If speed or reckless riding is the concern, please address that behavior directly, for example with a path speed limit that applies to everyone, and distinguish e-motos from pedal-assist e-bikes rather than banning a whole category of device. Please clarify the intent, and please do not ban e-bikes from bikeways and shared use paths.
I have several concerns about aspects of these proposed Code Amendments. Specifically, 373.101 Riding on Bikeways and Shared Use Paths section (C) which states "No adults (18 or older) shall operate a mobility device on a bikeway or shared use path..." This topic was discussed at length with CASE and, if I recall correctly, CASE recommended removing this provision. I'm also deeply concerned that I do not see an updated definition for "mobility device" nor any definition at all for devices that do not meet either the definition of a "mobility device" or a "motorized bicycle." In addition, 373.10 RIDING ON SIDEWALK (b) is problematic as well. If, under the ORC, class 1,2,&3 e-bikes are considered bicycles, then they should be permitted to operate wherever bicycles are permitted to operate provided that they follow the same guidelines that bicycles must follow, such as yielding to pedestrians, giving an audible signal when passing, and not operating "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing." E-bikes are an increasingly important piece of the all ages and abilities mobility puzzle because they make active transportation accessible to a broader audience. I get it, we don't want to see e-bikes going 20mph on our shared use paths and sidewalks. That is not what I'm advocating for. Think of it this way, just because your car is ABLE to reach 100+ mph doesn't mean you're banned from driving it on our city streets. Unfortunately, despite erecting 25mph speed limit signs everywhere we see over and over that drivers speed. Will we continue to see people using e-bikes recklessly on our shared use paths and sidewalks after these amendments pass? Probably. These ordinances aren't going to stop it from happening. Most likely, it will simply force a 65-year-old woman with arthritis into the street (with the speeding drivers) just so she isn't breaking the law. Please do not pass these codes as they are currently written.
I appreciate the City’s effort to establish clear rules for bicycles, e-bikes, pedestrians, and other users of shared-use paths. However, Ordinance 40-2025 does not fully address my primary safety concern regarding the proposed Bunts Road shared-use path: speed and meaningful enforcement.
The proposed ordinance removes the existing 12-mph limit for e-scooters in Section 373.08 and replaces that specific standard with only the requirement that users operate at a speed that is “reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.” While this is an appropriate general safety requirement, it provides no specific speed standard for bicycles or e-bikes on a shared-use path.
This is particularly important on Bunts because the proposed 10-foot path will be shared by pedestrians and cyclists traveling at potentially very different speeds. The ordinance does require cyclists to stay to the right, provide an audible warning before passing, and exercise due regard when approaching driveways and crosswalks. Those are useful requirements, but I remain concerned about how the City will proactively enforce a subjective “reasonable and prudent” speed standard.
At a minimum, I would like to see prominent signage identifying the applicable speed limit and expectations for safe use, similar to the signage the City recently installed at Lakewood Park. Clear signage would give pedestrians and cyclists a common understanding with an objective standard to enforce.
I therefore ask Council to establish a specific, enforceable speed standard for shared-use paths and ensure that the Bunts Road path is appropriately signed regarding safe use.
I support safe transportation options and recognize the value of walking and cycling infrastructure. My concern is specifically that the rules governing a shared path should protect slower and more vulnerable users while providing clear, enforceable expectations for everyone.
I am happy that the City is working on clear rules for e-bikes, scooters, and the Bunts Road shared-use path. I support reasonable, practical, and enforceable regulations that protect riders, pedestrians, residents, and private property.
Before the Bunts Road shared-use path is completed and expanded, I respectfully ask the Mayor and City Council to include the following safeguards:
•Reasonable speed (speed limit needed) and yielding requirements at driveways, crossings, and pedestrian areas.
• Clear rules for e-bike and scooter use on sidewalks and shared-use paths.
• Prohibitions against riding across private lawns or property.
• Identification or registration requirements for motorized devices, to the extent permitted by Ohio law, so violations can be investigated and operators held accountable.
• Clear rules regarding passengers and minors, consistent with state law.
• Meaningful enforcement of reckless operation, failure to yield, excessive speed, and trespassing- fines.
• Adequate signage and pavement markings so riders and residents understand the rules.
• Clear City responsibility for addressing safety concerns and hazards associated with the public path, rather than placing that burden on adjacent homeowners.
• Ongoing tracking of complaints, crashes, and near-miss incidents to determine whether additional safeguards are needed.
The goal is not to discourage responsible bicycling or alternative transportation. It is to ensure that increased use of e-bikes and scooters does not come at the expense of resident safety, pedestrian safety, or private property rights.
I appreciate the City’s efforts to address these issues and ask that these safeguards be established before the Bunts Road shared-use path is expanded, so that clear expectations and accountability are in place from the start.
Thank you for taking this important safety issue seriously.
Existing Section 301.182 defines "mobility device" as "small mobility devices, such as an e-scooter, e-bike, or other similar devices." New Section 373.101(c) says no adult (age 18 and over) shall operate a mobility device on a bikeway or shared use path.
Is the intent to ban adults on e-bikes from bikeways and shared use paths? If so, I am strongly opposed.
I use my e-bike to pull my kids in a trailer. The pedal assist lets us take trips that would not be practical pulling that weight on a conventional bike. Under this language, would someone in my situation have to leave the shared use path and ride in the street with two children behind me?
The problems people are reacting to are caused almost entirely by young, inexperienced riders operating e-motos recklessly. Yet this provision applies only to adults, so it restricts the riders who are not causing the problem and leaves the ones who are untouched.
A responsible adult on an e-bike is often slower than a rider on a conventional bike. My e-bike has assist levels calibrated to specific speeds. On level 1, which is what I use on shared use paths, I travel at 12 mph. E-bikes aren't gaining popularity because of top-end speed. They are popular because they let people carry cargo, including kids, and because they give an option to people who, for a variety of reasons, otherwise wouldn't ride at all. This should be encouraged, especially from a city like Lakewood.
If speed or reckless riding is the concern, please address that behavior directly, for example with a path speed limit that applies to everyone, and distinguish e-motos from pedal-assist e-bikes rather than banning a whole category of device. Please clarify the intent, and please do not ban e-bikes from bikeways and shared use paths.
I have several concerns about aspects of these proposed Code Amendments. Specifically, 373.101 Riding on Bikeways and Shared Use Paths section (C) which states "No adults (18 or older) shall operate a mobility device on a bikeway or shared use path..." This topic was discussed at length with CASE and, if I recall correctly, CASE recommended removing this provision. I'm also deeply concerned that I do not see an updated definition for "mobility device" nor any definition at all for devices that do not meet either the definition of a "mobility device" or a "motorized bicycle." In addition, 373.10 RIDING ON SIDEWALK (b) is problematic as well. If, under the ORC, class 1,2,&3 e-bikes are considered bicycles, then they should be permitted to operate wherever bicycles are permitted to operate provided that they follow the same guidelines that bicycles must follow, such as yielding to pedestrians, giving an audible signal when passing, and not operating "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing." E-bikes are an increasingly important piece of the all ages and abilities mobility puzzle because they make active transportation accessible to a broader audience. I get it, we don't want to see e-bikes going 20mph on our shared use paths and sidewalks. That is not what I'm advocating for. Think of it this way, just because your car is ABLE to reach 100+ mph doesn't mean you're banned from driving it on our city streets. Unfortunately, despite erecting 25mph speed limit signs everywhere we see over and over that drivers speed. Will we continue to see people using e-bikes recklessly on our shared use paths and sidewalks after these amendments pass? Probably. These ordinances aren't going to stop it from happening. Most likely, it will simply force a 65-year-old woman with arthritis into the street (with the speeding drivers) just so she isn't breaking the law. Please do not pass these codes as they are currently written.