The Van Buren Street bike lane is pictured in Herndon, Virginia. The bike lane provides greater connectivity to historic downtown Herndon and the Herndon Silver Line Metro station. (Jason A. Menjivar / Fourth Estate)
Despite government and community opposition, bike lanes have proven to reduce crashes and injuries
BY JASON A. MENJIVAR, CONTRIBUTOR
The Federal Highway Administration’s attempt to remove bike lanes in Washington, D.C., reflects a broader national response against bicycle infrastructure — one that disregards clear safety benefits.
Many communities around the country have organized opposition to bike lanes in favor of keeping roadways solely for cars. However, opponents of bike lanes overlook how they benefit all road users.
The Highway Administration says its goal is to return “common sense into city planning,” but by removing bike lanes, it is doing the opposite. If the Highway Administration cared about safety, it would encourage more construction of bike lanes and provide funds for communities to invest in them.
It is no surprise that the federal government has taken a combative approach toward bike lanes in Washington, D.C. Around the country, the Department of Transportation has canceled grants for bike lane infrastructure. They have claimed that bike lanes are “hostile” to cars and see it as a “priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles.”
The federal government is not the only one opposing bike lanes; state governments and residents have also voiced their displeasure with them.
Not far from George Mason, residents in Alexandria, Virginia are opposing converting street parking to bike lanes. 70% of respondents to a city survey agreed that “Braddock Road feels unsafe for families walking and biking, as well as for kids walking by themselves.”
In Salt Lake City, Utah, the state government is attempting to impose its will over the city by restricting when the city can use bike lanes to reduce lane width as a form of “traffic calming,” which uses physical additions to a roadway to reduce the speed of cars.
The opposition to bike lanes is a result of the car-centric culture in the U.S., where any inconvenience, reduction in lanes or shared road between drivers and bicyclists is seen as an “attack” on cars.
However, bike lanes are crucial to enhancing the safety of not only bicyclists but also the cars that wish to see them gone from the road. Critics argue bike lanes reduce space and speed for cars. Data from multiple cities shows they reduce crashes and create economic growth.
In 2013, Salt Lake City removed nine blocks of street parking and replaced it with bike lanes. Businesses adjacent to the bike lanes saw an 8.8% increase in sales compared to a 7% increase citywide, according to the Urban Institute.
Data collected by the District Department of Transportation between 2022 and 2025 shows that bike lanes along the 15th Street corridor in Washington, D.C., reduced road crashes by 46% and bicycle crashes by 91%.
Bike lane users are valuable members of the community that are treated as nuisances. Students and faculty rely on bike lanes to get to and from campus. Workers use them to commute to work. All users need them for safety.
If bike lanes continue to be met with opposition, roads will continue to be unsafe for everyone. Drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians will continue to be injured. Local businesses will not reach their full potential, and the car-centric culture will remain the same.
Opposing bike lanes does not benefit cars; it hurts drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. If governments want to protect citizens, then funding bike lane infrastructure is a solution. For communities who wish to make their neighborhoods safer to walk, bike and drive; they should support bike lanes and advocate for them.
If the goal is to make roads safer, reduce accidents, create economic growth and implement “common sense city planning,” then the data is clear: bike lanes are a benefit, not a burden. Anything less than that represents a failure of government and society.
