Progress—and Pushback
Thanks to the progress the City of Alameda has made in recent years, our bike network is growing well. With progress, though, has come some pushback—aka “bike lash”—and a familiar set of arguments against making our streets safer and more accessible for all users. “Not everyone can ride a bike.” “Our streets are too narrow.” “Bike riders constantly break the law.” “No one uses the bike lanes we already have.” You’ve probably heard some version of all of them.
These arguments aren’t new. They’ve been circulating for years, but they’re resurfacing just as Alameda is making real progress locally—and as bike infrastructure around the world becomes increasingly politicized. In the U.S., the Trump administration has labeled bike lanes “DEI” projects, turning a practical question of street safety and transportation choice into an ideological fight. And it’s not just happening here: in Canada, Premier Doug Ford has pushed to remove protected bike lanes from major Toronto streets. These debates show how easily transportation policy — even safety itself — can become a political battleground, making it all the more important to look critically at the arguments being made.
The website Cycling Fallacies catalogs many of the claims that surface in debates about biking. (Don’t miss their Bingo! card generator, available in 17 languages!) What makes these arguments so persistent is that many contain a kernel of truth. The problem is the flawed conclusion that often follows.
The Problem With “Not Everyone Can Ride a Bike”
Take one of the most common: “Not everyone can ride a bike.” Of course that’s true. Some people have disabilities or medical conditions that make cycling difficult or impossible. Some are too young, too old, or simply don’t want to ride. But there’s a nonsensical leap from that reality to the claim that we shouldn’t design streets for bikes.
Not everyone can drive, either. Children can’t legally drive, many older adults eventually stop, and some people cannot drive because of disability, health conditions, or cost. Yet we don’t use those realities to argue that cars and roads are unnecessary. We understand that different people have different transportation needs, and that’s precisely why we need choices.
Being Able to Ride Isn’t the Same as Being Able to Ride Safely
The goal of bike infrastructure isn’t to put everyone on a bicycle. It’s to make biking a safe, practical option for people who want or need to use one. And there’s an important distinction here: being physically capable of riding a bike is not the same as being able to use one safely for everyday transportation. Someone might be perfectly capable of riding a bike but reasonably decide against it because their route involves speeding traffic, dangerous intersections, or streets with nowhere safe to ride.
That’s not just hypothetical. A statistically significant survey referenced in Alameda’s Active Transportation Plan found that nearly half of Alamedans aged 16 and over fall into the “Interested but Concerned” category: people who are interested in biking, but are not comfortable riding in high stress environments. In other words, the conditions on our streets can determine whether biking feels like a realistic option in the first place.
Low stress infrastructure, like separated bike lanes and protected intersections can make biking feel possible for people who would never consider riding alongside fast-moving traffic. Traffic-calmed neighborhood streets can give children and older adults greater independence. The point is to close the gap between what people are capable of doing and what their streets actually allow them to do safely.
The Goal is More Choices, Not Bikes for Everyone
None of this means bicycles work for everyone. They don’t. People who need cars, accessible transit, paratransit, or other forms of transportation must have those needs met, too. But accommodating people who can’t bike doesn’t require denying that option to people who can. We can recognize real limitations without turning them into arguments against providing more choices.
The question isn’t whether biking works for everyone, everywhere, all the time. No mode of transportation does. The question is whether we should build a transportation system that gives people more than one way to get where they need to go. Some trips will be by car, some by bus, some on foot, some by bike or other form of micromobility device, and some by a combination of modes. For many people, the answer will change depending on the trip, the destination, their abilities, and their circumstances.
We don’t need everyone on bikes. We need streets that aren’t built on the assumption that everyone will be in a car—a model that has dominated American transportation for generations, to our detriment. Thankfully, cities are increasingly recognizing the benefits of streets that safely accommodate different ways of getting around and redesigning them accordingly.
Change is hard, but Alameda is on the right track. Let’s leave the fallacies behind and keep moving toward safer streets for everyone, however they travel.