Jeremy Blakespear too soft for San Diego's Bicycle Coalition

Doesn't want bikes sharing road with motorists

Jeremy Blakespear: “Vehicular cycling is a failed philosophy.”
  • Jeremy Blakespear: “Vehicular cycling is a failed philosophy.”

Jeremy Blakespear who lives in Encinitas, says he'd like to see more people getting out of their cars and using bikes for recreation and better health in protected bike lanes. His advocacy has caused him to be maligned from San Diego’s largest bike lobby, the Bicycle Coalition.

“Its truly amazing to realize that one of the largest obstacles to better bicycling infrastructure is coming from organized cycling clubs,” Blakespear wrote in a published letter to the Encinitas Advocate.

Blakespear served on the organization’s advocacy committee, and was their representative to the San Dieguito River Park’s master planning. After being approached by a few Bicycle Coalition members, he threw his hat into the ring to serve on the organization’s board of directors, made up of cycling clubs around the county.

On October 23, of the six candidates up for appointment, only Blakespear was not approved for the board. “I felt attacked for advocating good protected bike lanes, said Blakespear.

“I immediately left the meeting and resigned the next day.”

Blakespear says the Bicycle Collation is made up of riders that are the “bold and fearless” type – vehicular cyclists (bikes sharing the road with motorists) that believe bikes have an equal right to share the roadway, and do not want to be restricted or slowed down by beach cruisers, kids, or pedestrians that may use protected bike lanes.

“Vehicular cycling is a failed philosophy,” Blakespear said, pointing to traffic engineering studies showing increased bike riding occurs when bikes are taken out of the roadway, and into a protected lane.

“Physically protected bike lanes are shown to both increase ridership and reduce serious injury, and helps cycling be available to a larger percentage of the population,” said Blakespear.

The Bicycle Coalition seems have become the most powerful lobbying group for vehicular cycling in San Diego, with politicians latching on the group’s big voice and presence.

Several cities have instituted painted green bike lanes, or use the sharrows symbol, which indicate the road’s lane must be shared with bicyclists. Blakespear believes other groups; Circulate San Diego and Climate Action Campaign will lead the charge for advocating for sensible bike lane infrastructure.

Blakespear now serves on the Mountain Bike Association, along with continuing to serve on the city of Encinitas’ Bike/Walk committee. His wife, Catherine Blakespear, is the mayor of Encinitas.

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader


As an avid biker I have to say bikes DONT belong on the road with autos. To pretend they are similar and deserving of equal considerations is incredibly naive. Anytime there is a bike vs auto accident the bike loses. Period. I support expanding the bike class 1 (?) bike paths that are completely separated from motor vehicle activity.

I've been using my bike on roads with autos for my entire life. If you don't want to ride on roads, fine. But many people do, and we love it. Thanks.

But I agree with creating more bike facilities, especially Class 1 paths.

There is no such as a "physically protected lane." SUCH Type Org only can use jargon the same STRENGTH as legal attorneys do; proven further when seeming to it be SAID to be "the most powerful lobbying group....." (Blakespear's)Current Serving of the Mountain Biking Commission is a different perspective than a Road Bike member who serves on the Coalition; 2 very different riding patterns, 2 very different riding ethics are possible.

"Physically Protected Lane" keeps sounding like a politico's gimmick to sell his/her candidacy; as if to intrigue cyclists that the white bike lane stripe is actually an invisible protection wall from motor vehicles.

There are dedicated bike paths which are physically separated.....the path along the Sprinter train rails is a good example.

A good similarity would make to the I-15, if there was no Lake Hodges; MTS would find the politicos to assist in getting funds so to build a bike path from San Diego to Escondido. Hence the parallel path as the future MTS commuter rail will go, to the I-15.

I finally got the chance to concentrate the riding, in the combination of the bus/bike lane: (logo to) Bicycle/Head Logo --- to interpret bicyclist's right-of-way, placed over Bus Logo: is seen from a DIFFERENTLY INTERPRETED PERSPECTIVE, When Anyone Looks Down From Such An Elevation. VS. Than The Lower Elevation That A Bicyclist Will See/Read The Same Logo From/At. THAT IS HEIGHT ALONE; ANGLE IS AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE/DEBATE. /why was the Bicycle Logo ONLY chosen to be placed above the bus logo? There are cyclists who come there for the 1st time, and once they not read Bicycle Logo first, it is immediately perceived that the City has neglected right-of-way to Cyclists. That is how I took it, the first time I drove through such, once I read the logo was there.

Correct; that be of the only such. Where such a 'separation' by needed hence safety; but will damage the scenery for driving tourists ---- is such a bike lane on the Coast Hwy. (where the least road-attention/concentrated mindsets are)

I will not ride my bike unless I am completely separated from traffic. "Sharing the road" will only result on you being hurt or killed. Bikes and vehicles do not mix well in spite of the BS the bike nuts think.

Class IV cycle tracks, or so-called "protected bike lanes", do not completely separate you from traffic. Worse, they partially separate you, between intersections and driveways, creating a false sense of security, and then suddenly through bicyclists and turning motorists are routed onto a collision course when they're oblivious of each other. What could possibly go wrong?

Here's a scooter rider on a "protected bike lane" the other day in LA demonstrating exactly what the problem is. How do you think they fared?


The clip looks like me laying down,filming. As I don't see the bike "protected bike lane." What be needed be a view from the small helicopter that strolls in the local 'sphere looking down.

You can see the "protected bike lane" in this Google street view:


See graphic for crashes. The pie chart on the left shows all crashes and the one on the right expands car-bike crashes only. It divides the car-bike crashes into who was at fault and what the crash was. Separated bikeways do not really reduce the risk of any of these crashes with the exception of the overtaking (from behind) crashes. Those crashes might seem common, given the number of them that occur between motorists but between bicyclist’s they’re incredibly rare.

You need to say way further (explanation) to YOUR WAY DETAILED ANALOGY. That's an over-fruitful pie; I never say a pie of that must taste. (no sic)

So to what you say, that is why Cars choose to retaliate with(in) the shelling of their cars, against the exposed/unprotected bikes. It is a pure sissy game from the side of the cars, contesting the bikes, in many cases --- as they do SEE of the bikes, in the bike's right-of-way. But the Big is afraid to sacrifice to the Small. Remember in school when only one of a smaller size got beaten on?

Bikes sharing the roads with cars can be just as safe as any other mode of transportation providing both cyclist and driver are traveling safely and sensibly. I've shared 28,000+ miles with drivers on San Diego roads and the worst thing that has happened is I get yelled at or honked at because the driver thinks I did something wrong or else they just want me to know they're there. Either way, I'm comfortable riding in traffic, as are many others. I also support separated bike paths and use them when they present themselves. Cyclists do belong on the roads. If you're not comfortable being there, ride wherever you are comfortable.

Lol no.....a car travels at a much faster speed and is heavy enough to kill you in an instant.,,.those roads are designed for autos....period.....bikes can’t maintain that speed nor survive an accident.....they have no business on the roads.

Cyclists have no need to go as fast as drivers. That's why the bike lanes are invariably off to the side of traffic. Whether the separation is physical or psychological is beside the point. Drivers kill other drivers too so will you advocate for less (or more) cars to help prevent this?

Think of it: the grand majority of cyclists are just a off-breed of car-drivers, temporarily choosing to not drive. (their normal mindset of driving won't change fully)

Roads are for people including those who use bicycles and other slower moving conveyances with the exception of limited access expressways where no other parallel route exists. Bicyclists have had the right to use the public road network since the late 1800’s- far before motor vehicles were popularized and made available for the masses. In fact the rules of the road were developed by a man who never drove a car. He created them to bring some civility to NYC’s streets after the number of conflicts between animal-driven vehicles and bicycles increased.

Roads aren’t designed for cars either. They’re actually designed for the largest vehicle allowed on them. This includes the horizontal and vertical design elements, pavement loads, and lane widths. On some roads that’s emergency vehicles (fire trucks) or utility trucks (garbage trucks) and on others it’s tractor-trailers.

And speaking of the large vehicles, they often cannot “keep up” with other motor traffic. That’s okay however because right of way on roads isn’t based on speed. Speed LIMITS aren’t mandatory goals. Drivers of vehicles operating at slower speeds than others traveling in the same direction are supposed to drive in the right-most lane that serves their destination unless they are preparing to turn left, passing, or avoiding something in front of them. These principles also apply to bicycle drivers. Bicycle lanes however often encourages users - both cyclists and motorists to not obey the law. Many bicyclists remain in bike lanes near places where driveways and right turns are permitted and pass turning traffic on the right. Motorists are supposed to actually move into bike lane (after yielding of course to those already in that lane) and perform their right turn from there, unless their operating a vehicle -such as a large truck- that’s not physically capable pf making that turn.

Lastly on the topic of large vehicles, collisions between cars and these large vehicles occur on a regular basis. And who wins those?

The roads were actually created for automobiles for the expressed purpose of transporting military assets across the country. Google the “freeway act”.

To the 3 below above comment --- as it begins with CyclingNut: speaking a context about )car( Driver being wrong, and the next 2 follow.
That context of a Car Driver is parallel to a child (the smaller one, hence a bicycle), contesting an adult (car.) Adults never accept children to contest them. Especially those who have kids/family.

Class IV (Class 4) only works if a) there are no parked cars to the left. and b) there is a pedestrian walkway to the right of the bike lane. An example of this the EXISTING Hwy 101 south bound between Encinitas and Solana Beach. Otherwise Class IV is dangerous: cars loading and unloading in the bike lane, as well as shared bike lane with walkers, runners, dog walkers, etc.

Class IIb (2b): safest cycling route. We cyclists are LEGAL vehicles on the road - my 5 decades of cycling ALL over this country, and overseas, has taught me that a good stripe, with space to the right side, is the best cycling ever.

The other classes, especially sharrows and routes that "share" with cars DO NOT WORK. There is no sharing with motor vehicles... They will not share, and specifically, it forces cyclists to trust in the knowledge, abilities, and personalities of motorists: terrible.

Now I know some of you are scared to ride parallel to cars, with just a white stripe or stripe and separator stripes... that's OK. You should have your multi-use separated, cement barrier lanes. But do not force the thousands of us that uses 101 daily to move OFF the road and into these death traps. You need to learn some safety skills, just as much as drivers need to learn, and be tested, to have driving skills.

Can you be more specific as to why you believe sharrows and routes where motorists and bicyclists share the road (which is the vast majority of roads, BTW) don’t work?

Class II Bikeways can be useful and safe but they can also be the sheer opposite. Bicyclists get in crashes from motorists turning across bike lanes while making left or right turns or pulling into the roadway for example. Many bike lanes are installed in the “door zone” which is a hazard for bicyclists riding in the door’s strike zone but also at the edge. Bicycle lanes also subject cyclists to close passes and often contain debris or nasty gutter lips.

The old scheme of motorists, epecially car drivers ---- is "to drive" bicyclists into located potholes/cracks, etc., at the perfect timing. Bicyclist typically chose by body profile in some way, and/or profile of bicycle.

Bike riders are their own worst enemy.

Especially of those who are that I classify as "OFF-DUTY CAR DRIVERS." (sharing their attitude in the bike lane AGAINST other cyclists -- equal as a car would do. As just one of their such problems)

I think we should all fly. Like the Flying Nun.

That’s coming soon. I believe Airbus is one company that is in the final stages of the drone taxi.

I ride 6000 miles +/- a year in SD. Primarily for recreation. Do a couple of centuries each year. Train for them the rest of the year. My brother in law is a world renowned surgeon. My age- 67. He and my sister moved to Florida 3 months ago and got bikes. Upright beach cruisers with baskets Im sure. I dont think of him him as someone who exercises regularly, but he was so proud that he could ride the 5 miles to work and back the last time we talked.

He was riding in a bike lane and some kid, in the back seat of a car parked along the way, opened the car door right as he was going by.

Crash, he fell hard. Two broken wrists, face lacerations and road rash. Broken teeth ETC. Cant operate for 2+ months.

Its just a roll of the dice folks.

Doorings are horrible crashes but fortunately for cyclists, they are 100 percent preventable. There’s no need to roll any dice. The best course for a person bicycling is to ride well out of the door zone. Unfortunately many bike lanes exist that are painted in this area essentially instructing cyclists to ride in this hazardous area.

Assignment for Jeremy: El Cajon Blvd -- begin at Park Bl; eastbound into University Heights. MTS has NOW DOMINATES the Excessive Right Hand Side of El Cajon Blvd. 2 Car driving Lanes on the left; the MTS BUS LANE on the right-hand side. 3 Total Lanes.

As there be no designated bike lane. there be no designated bike logo on the road -- so to indicate right-of-way allowance to bikes.< POOR MTS planning. Never any self-serve notices were displayed for offer to the riding public passengers -- of the effective routes.
I have heard this bus lane is so new, this road-design is only 1 week old.

Give time, various ways of road trouble via vehicle will come.

That right lane is for bikes as well as buses.

I know that; but to anyone very familiar with the society of San Diego County --- the environment here has its attitude problems based on (lack of) respect. The smaller-sized is the loser. Like the pussy-game in school, the same to vehicles on the road --- unless being an attractive female.

Why does a population of around 1% get to wag the dog and demand they have the right to eliminate hundreds (thousands, the hundreds are just North Park) of parking spaces, convert two-lane roadways to one-lane, demand barriers and painted features and everything else necessary for their biking? They don't pay fuel taxes, or vehicle registration (yet they too drive vehicles... a bike), on a dedicated segment of roadway. They are like economic refugees... they want to use, enjoy and customize the existing infrastructure to their demands while they contributed little to build it.

Ponzi, please note that not every person who rides a bicycle supports separated bikeway projects especially ones like the proposed one on 30th street in North Park. Part of the controversy Mr. Blakespear mentioned was about so-called “vehicular cyclists” who generally ride their bicycles as drivers of vehicles which was the default mode of operation since the late 1800s. Later bike lanes and bike paths were introduced mostly to shove bicyclists off the roads and nowdays many bicycle advocates support building them in hopes that they’ll encourage more people to ride. It’s a new group of people who want these facilities, in part because bicycling education (hot to follow the rules and stay safe) is seen as inferior to reworking the transportation network (aka making it a pain in the rear for most people to do their everyday driving trips)

As for your statements about fuel taxes and registration. Neither of those monies grant someone the right to use the public roads. Nor do those taxes and fees remotely pay for the roads. Many, if not most bicyclists own cars too and they purchase goods and services brought by motor vehicles whose operators also paid such fees. Most local roads where bicycle travel is permitted is funded by property taxes, sales taxes, other special use taxes, and bonds. Bicyclists are far from “economic refugees.” In fact continuing to promote unsustainable motor vehicle use places further strain on the transportation system both at a traffic level and fiscally for the governments who own them. Multiple studies have confirmed that our roadway infrastructure is vastly underfunded. The American Society of Civil Engineers constantly studies this as well however efforts to properly fund the roadway system as extremely unpopular as is the removal of the parking spots in North Park.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Log in to comment

Skip Ad