Node locations

Report road hazards in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties using Bike East Bay's Online Hazard Reporting System. Bike East Bay will forward your report the proper authorities. With this effective system, we empower YOU to make grassroots contributions that benefit everyone. See what the East Bay Express has to say about our crusade to fill potholes.

Note: Goecoding will show cluster of hazards as single node on the map. Zoom in to see the individual hazards at that location.

About Reporting Hazards

Bike East Bay wants to improve cycling conditions by eliminating hazards for bicyclists. You can help by reporting any hazards you experience in your bicycle travels. Examples of hazards include:

  • ruts or potholes in pavement
  • dangerous drop-offs at the edge of pavement
  • unswept road portions covered with debris
  • signals not responsive to bicycles
  • hazardous railroad crossings
  • dangerous parallel drain gates and signs that force bicyclists to use sidewalks, narrow paths, etc.
Bike East Bay initiated faxable hazard reporting in 1994. Our latest Online Hazard Reporting System features a full-blown database backend with automated email, plus dedicated follow-up from Bike East Bay volunteers. Features include:
  • Automatic email notification about any progress on fixing a reported problem
  • Search hazards reported in your neighborhood or in other areas of interest
  • Attach digital photos of the scene to your report
  • Unique web address assigned to each hazard report, very handy to include in your letters to public works.
Authorities/agencies that receive notification from users of the Bike East Bay Hazard Reporting Form are given notice pursuant to the California Government Code Section 835.2:

Under California Government Code Section 835.2, you are hereby placed on actual notice of two dangerous conditions of public property. The following conditions on your property create a substantial risk of injury when your property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used:


§835. Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably forseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:

(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or

(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.

§835.2 (a). A public entity had actual notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 if it had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character.

(b) A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character. On the issue of due care, admissible evidence includes but is not limited to evidence as to:

    (1) Whether the existence of the condition and its dangerous character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was reasonably adequate (considering the practicability and cost of inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise) to inform the public entity whether the property was safe for the use or uses for which the public entity used or intended others to use the public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew others were making of the public property or adjacent property.

    (2) Whether the public entity maintained and operated such an inspection system with due care and did not discover the condition.