Bakersfield’s Bike Lane Debate: Grand Jury Report Sparks Controversy and Why Safety Must Come First

As Bakersfield debates the future of its bike lanes, safety advocates and data agree: well-designed bike infrastructure saves lives — but only if we make it a priority.

Bakersfield and Kern County find themselves at the center of a heated debate over bike lanes, with a recent Kern County Grand Jury report sparking controversy and renewed calls for safer streets for cyclists. As local officials, advocates, and residents weigh the costs and benefits of new bike infrastructure, one thing is clear: bike safety is not just a matter of convenience, it’s a matter of life and limb.

On May 27, 2025, the Kern County Grand Jury released a report titled “The Proliferation of Bike Lanes: Whose Road Is It?” The report was commissioned to examine the impact of bike lanes in Bakersfield and raised several concerns, including questions about the value of new bike lanes, the motivations behind their installation, and the process for planning future projects.

Key findings from the report were as follows:

• Bike lanes reduce accidents: The report acknowledged that motor vehicle vs. bicycle incidents decrease by about 53%, and injuries drop by 40–50% when bike lanes are installed on major roads.
• Safety benefits outweigh some concerns: Despite questioning the benefits for pollution reduction and arguing that weather and air quality are not ideal for cyclists, the report admitted that narrowing vehicle lanes to accommodate bike lanes often leads to slower, safer driving.
• Planning process questioned: The grand jury recommended more thorough planning before installing new bike lanes, including pre-installation bicycle and vehicle counts and a more robust cost/benefit analysis.

However, the report’s conclusions drew sharp criticism from local and state bike advocates. Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition, called the findings “troubling” and lacking sufficient evidence.

“People need to be able to get somewhere, no matter how they get there,” she said during a Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting. “Our communities need to be planning our transportation infrastructure to make it so that folks can be safe when they’re doing this.”

Bike safety advocates in Bakersfield and Kern County argue that the grand jury report missed the bigger picture. Cindy Parra, a board member of Bike Bakersfield, emphasized the importance of biking as an affordable transportation option and stressed that “safety is monumental.” Advocates also point out the following:

• Not everyone can afford a car: Many residents rely on bicycles for daily transportation, and safer bike lanes are essential for their mobility and independence.
• Hot weather and air quality are not deal-breakers: While Bakersfield summers are hot and air quality can be a concern, these factors do not negate the need for safe infrastructure. E-bikes and other innovations make cycling more accessible year-round.
• Bike lanes encourage more cycling: When cities build safe, connected bike networks, more people choose to ride—reducing congestion, improving health, and lowering emissions over time.

Despite the controversy, data from the grand jury report itself confirms that bike lanes make streets safer for everyone. The reduction in accidents and injuries is significant, and the presence of bike lanes encourages drivers to slow down and be more aware of vulnerable road users.

However, the report’s recommendations for more planning and data collection before installing new bike lanes have sparked concerns among advocates, who worry that delays and bureaucratic hurdles could leave cyclists unprotected for years to come.

As the city and county consider the grand jury’s recommendations, the conversation must center on safety, equity, and the real-world needs of all road users. Ward 4 City Councilman Bob Smith, a cycling advocate, expressed surprise that the grand jury would acknowledge the safety benefits of bike lanes but still recommend against them.

“I was astonished that they would acknowledge bike lanes reduce accidents yet still recommend against them,” Smith told The Bakersfield Californian.

At Chain | Cohn | Clark, we have seen firsthand the devastating consequences when bike safety is neglected. Every year, cyclists in Kern County are injured or killed in preventable crashes, often because of inadequate infrastructure or reckless driving.

“As the debate over bike lanes continues, we urge local leaders to prioritize the safety and well-being of all residents, whether they walk, bike, or drive, said Matt Clark, managing partner and attorney at the Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark. “Safer streets benefit everyone, and there is no substitute for well-designed, well-maintained bike infrastructure.”

———

If you or someone you know is injured in an accident at the fault of someone else, or injured on the job no matter whose fault it is, contact the car accident attorneys at Chain | Cohn | Clark by calling (661) 323-4000, or fill out a free consultation form, text, or chat with us at chainlaw.com.