Frances Bula header image 2

Burrard Bridge traffic stats posted

July 31st, 2009 · 91 Comments

Let the deconstructionist analysis begin. The city has posted the first round of stats on car, bike and pedestrian traffic on the bridge, noting that bike traffic is up 30 per cent, pedestrian is steady and car flows are fluctuating after a 10 per cent drop in the first days.

And, so as not to miss out on any of those precious cycling/driving debates that are so beloved of page-view sluts, I must note that the Critical Mass ride (you know, random bicycle ride through downtown Vancouver to promote cycling that started off as a Public Dreams-style festival on wheels and has turned into an Independence Day-style battle between the two- and four-wheeled) has generated yet another media heyday.

The Province captured the angry zeitgeist with its “Critical Mess” headline and now every media outlet/random commentator is opining away. A couple of posts from the blogosphere — citycaucus and Councillor Geoff Meggs — give you a sense of the range (i.e. “it’s all Vision’s fault somehow” to “what an interesting piece of anthropology”)

Categories: Uncategorized

  • I’m not sure how providing people with safe-convenient health transportation choses is “trying to change other people”. People have been forced too long to drive whether they want to or not by the auto industry, the oil industry and old school traffic engineers.

    In one day, the number of people cycling over Burrard Bridge increased by around 30%. People are out enjoying cycling over the Bridge with their children. These people are hardly forced. They have been given the freedom to cycle that has been long denied in this city and many others around the world.

    Drivers may not even be a majority anymore. According to the 2006 Census, only 45% of Vancouver residents drive to work by themselves while another 12% carpool. By now, thanks to high gas prices, the recession, improved bicycle routes and soon the Canada Line, it is possible that less than 50% are getting to work by car.

    Change is happening. It always happens. Get used to it.

  • Not running for mayor

    If by providing “people with safe-convenient health transportation choice” you are taking away a lane from the drivers then you are attmepting to change people.
    Again there would be no arguement from myself and probably a good chunk of those complaining if the dedicated bike lane was a new lane as opposed to a removal of a driving lane.

    Also to counter the point about most people not driving to work, even if those numbers do swing to less then 50% remember they are taken for the city proper only and not for the metro. Remember that a large chunk of people that don’t drive to work still have cars for their other trips, I fall into that category.
    I would love to see more bike lanes, and rapid transit lanes as well, but we do not need to give up our car lanes to do so. The city is being proactive enough just by not building any new roads for cars even though our population has continued growing.

  • gmgw

    Richard said:
    “People have been forced too long to drive whether they want to or not by the auto industry, the oil industry and old school traffic engineers.”

    What a strange notion. Were I not married to someone who owns a car, the only way someone could force me to drive on a regular basis would be to force me to get a job that paid enough that I could not only afford to buy a car but also maintain, insure, and fuel it. Oh, and force me to pay off my other debts first, and also force me to incur no new ones. And, of course, force the loans officer at the bank to force a loan on me so that I could buy the car that I was being forced to buy, because I was being forced to drive.

    That’s an awful lot of forcing. Who’s enforcing all this, anyway? Do we no longer have freedom of choice in these matters? How have the considerable number of people who somehow live their lives without driving (often because they can’t afford a car) managed to escape the notice of the assorted enforcers?
    Just curious.

  • Not Running for Mayor


    I figured it out now after reading your post, we are being freed now from the car enforcers by a new super breed of bike enforcers. Personally I patiently await for the pedestrian enforcers to arrive so I can bow down to the superior overlords.

    PS I have been drinking tonight but not as much as Urbanismo usally does. 🙂

  • Len B

    I’m wondering if Richard would be willing to post the data collected by the UBC group on collisions and injury of cyclists and/or pedestrians that he and the mayor like to quote.

    I believe it would be interesting to read the circumstances surrounding the approx. 20 people that are injured each year on the bridge, including the police reports filed with respect to cause and blame as well as the types of injuries that occur.

    If this is about safety as he claims at times, I think we should all get to review the data.

    Are you willing to post the data Richard? Or would some brave sould from the mayor’s office who frequents this blog be prepared to post the data so we all can have a look at it ourselves?

    There’s nothing to hide right?

  • “Cyclists need to start paying their way and that means insurance, registration and licensing.”

    Why? To account for the tiny number of times a cyclist is both at fault and caused injury or damage to someone else? Simply running the system would probably cost more than it could recoup. Next come the pedestrian licences, the skateboard licences, the mobility scooter licences. Bike education makes sense. Licences and registration don’t.

    “Back to the topic of corporate direction, your example of shimano and supposition as to why they proceeded in the direction they have shows clearly that you should stick to your creative skills where you seem to excel.”

    I never suggested they were headed in any direction, simply recounted what happened in the market. Fishing gear sales dropped big time, cycling parts sales didn’t. You want to beat that dead horse go for it, but it would be nice if you actually proved your own knowledge by providing some insight into the situation, rather than simply questioning my knowledge on a topic to which I’ve not professed to have any expertise.

    “Leave the management and corporate direction topics to those that have more experience.”

    Fair enough. Why don’t you leave the reading comprehension to someone who can figure out a simple sentence such as:

    “Shimano’s position during the past market dive was helped by its dominant position in the bike industry, while its sales of fishing equipment and similar plummeted.”

    contains no reference to management decisions or direction.

    and finally, your comment:

    “Oh, and the group of cyclists that you speak for in this city is an overwhelming minority just in case you’ve forgotten.”

    tells me your sarcasm detector needs recalibration.

  • Len:

    My understanding is that the study is incomplete. It’s not up to City Hall or anyone else to release the information, especially before it’s finished… and I doubt they have the right to do so without permission. That decision would rest with the researchers and the university as far as I know.

  • ““People have been forced too long to drive whether they want to or not by the auto industry, the oil industry and old school traffic engineers.”

    What a strange notion.”

    Lots of people are forced to drive by circumstances beyond their control. In fact, in most debates over bikes and cars, it’s probably one of the number one reasons people give for not switching away from a personal automobile.

  • “Not sure what money “cyclists” are paying for the roads, as you might not know in Canada we have gas taxes that are high enough to pay for all roads (unlike the US) so that roads don’t need to be susbidized by general revenues.”

    There are costs far beyond that of just roads that must be included in any cost-assessment of driving. You can find up-to-date information here that describes how car users are subsidized by the entire population.

  • “This group is very much trying to force their will and lifestyle on people.”

    What a load of bollocks. Get over yourself. Nobody gives a crap about your lifestyle. All the cycling groups are asking for is a little common sense and foresight when it comes to allocating road resources.

  • gmgw

    Chris Keam said:
    “Lots of people are forced to drive by circumstances beyond their control. In fact, in most debates over bikes and cars, it’s probably one of the number one reasons people give for not switching away from a personal automobile.”

    Well, of course I agree, Chris, even though it feels oddly like you and I have switched our usual sides of the fence, if only temporarily. I’ve made the same argument myself and been shot full of holes for it by Darcy more than once. But just as there are folks out there who would love to get around by bike but are unable because of physical or geographical challenge, or because of pure fear, so there are lots of people who would love to be able to afford the luxury of a car but can’t. And they structure their lives accordingly. I guess if I have a point it’s that no matter how much circumstances may push one in a given direction in life, in matters large or small, some people just can’t rise to the challenge– often for perfectly legitimate reasons. And I didn’t think Richard’s comment acknowledged that.

    Hell, I’d love to go back to the days of thirty years ago, when I would spend lots of my weekends tooling all over the backroads and logging roads of Southwestern BC and Washington in my little Toyota pickup. I miss it more than I can say. But times change, and I doubt I will ever be able to afford another car of my own (I sure couldn’t take my wife’s car over the Hurley River road– and she’d justifiably murder me if I tried). So I’m going to have to plan whatever’s left of my life around that fact. Just like a lot of other people are being “forced” to do. C’est la vie, as they say.

  • Len B


    If you’re going to quote from a study, incomplete or not, then it should be shared – period.

    The mayor used the study to talk about safety in a news piece, and Richard and yourself talk about this often.

    If you want to talk about people being hurt on the bridge, lets get the facts in the open for debate to see if it really is a problem so the hyperbole can end.

  • Len:

    This took about 10 seconds to Google:

    If you want the data explicitly for the Burrard Bridge there are these are the people to talk to.

  • Len B

    Yes Chris it’s there I found it already and read all the supporting information. Thanks but I need more meat.

    I’m talking about more revealing information with respect to the causes of said collisions from the police reports to determine what the REAL issues are.

    Your group and the mayor love to talk about safety with respect to this trial, yet the CAUSES of these accidents are not being revealed.

    Could it be that when cause is established in each case that other solutions than lane-relocation would suffice?

    Let’s not forget the people conducting the study aren’t exactly in a neutral camp either Chris.

  • I guess those points are yours to prove Len, rather than for Richard or I to disprove.

    I’m confident the reasons behind the lane reallocation make sense and will reduce injuries and liability issues.

  • A. G. Tsakumis

    Chris Keam, you are a liar.

    I just played back the tape of our conversation when you stated “it took me some time to find your number, but find it I did…I think I’ll keep it, so I can call you in the future as well.”

    Queue the weirdo music…

    As for your answer to Len B…you are comical.

    An incomplete study is quotable? In fact you and the rest of the cycling fascists make it a point to refer to it as crazed, redneck Southern Baptist does from his pulpit.

    Give it rest. All your bullshit doesn’t amt to anything. You’re just a sad little fellow who wants people who don’t think like you to suffer.

    Pay for your privilege. You use the roads, hold up traffic, which increases pollution….get licenced to pay for the additional infrastructure that should not come from the rets of us.

    Cyclists, I admire, eco-freaks and zealots I do not.

  • Oh Alex. you’re a puffed-up lump of hyperbole and bullshit successfully masquerading as a member of the press. You’re an embarrassment to the profession. You should transcribe our phone conversations and post them, so everyone can see how my attempt to engage you in a respectful dialogue was met with the same bluster and stupidity you display in print. You can’t even try to set the record straight without injecting untruths into your little screed. Every personal attack you offer up as some kind of rationale for your hate-speech just points out the lack of reasonable arguments or salient points you might bring to the debate.

    If you didn’t hate me I’d be wondering what I was doing wrong. Since you do, it’s obvious how much you fear the changes going on all around you. Grow up, learn some manners, and maybe one day you too can eat at the big table where big ideas get discussed. Until then keep scribbling your little rants. They reveal you to be little more than just another bully, deserving of nothing but contempt.

  • gmgw, people are always saying they would like to drive less but there are no safe bike routes, the transit is not good enough or the distances are too far. This was caused by decades of building communities around the automobile and the investing of trillions of dollars in roads while investing little in public transit or cycling.

  • Len B

    Actually Chris, if the mayor is going to use an incomplete study on safety as an excuse to spend $1.5M on lane re-allocation, and hide behind it’s privacy all the while his minions flood the blogosphere (see Richard) to tout the same rhetoric, he’ll have to prove it’s worth himself to voters. I don’t have to prove anything at all.

    All that’s required is to ask enough good well placed questions to make him justify spending $1.5Million to stop 20 accidents a year that may have been created by the very cyclists involved. So 20 people who may have not even been wearing helmets get head injuries while bike to fast for road conditions, and all of a sudden it’s a car driver and pedestrians fault, please.

  • Len B

    As for your dialogue with Alex, I suggest if you believe yourself to be one of those sitting at the “big table”, where “big ideas” get discussed, that you offer up some credentials that indicate you are. Commenting on blogs within Vancouver and contract-editing a cycling magazine in Europe along with your involvement in a Vancouver cycling lobby that, in the whole scheme of things really doesn’t matter, doesn’t mean you sit at the big table and discuss big ideas.

    If you want to get down to the brass tacs, the cycling lobby in this town didn’t get gregor elected so get over yourselves.

    Who did get gregor elected were the federal liberals of this city who in their lust for power and their failure to win an election over Stephan Harper, showed everyone the whores they truly are and joined forces with the fringe groups like yourselves to create Vision.

    As soon as they get a sniff of winning at the Federal level, Vision will be an after thought and all of you will be left to run back to COPE where you belong.

    To suggest you and your cohorts have a clue of what goes on in the backrooms is laughable and shows just how little you truly know. Keep it up though, it’s entertainment for the people who really are at the big table discussing big ideas.

  • I have no illusions about being a part of the power elite Len, or any desire to join the gang. You’ve missed my point regarding the big table. Frankly, the people I work with in the cycling lobby ARE talking about the big ideas, with respect and tolerance for all views. I haven’t seen that in AGT’s posts. It’s all bluster and hate. Childish stuff. Hence, the big/little table analogy.

    Also, there’s ICBC stats on accidents on the bridge as well as the UBC study. Perhaps you will find the answers as to who is at fault there.

    To answer your other point about spending money to protect people from events that may come about through their own poor decisions, we do it all the time, esp. with automobiles. How is this different?

  • Mark A

    Wow, what a thread.

    Len: good luck looking for that smoking gun, mate. It’ll be like Watergate all over again, I tell you.

    Chris: after reading AGT’s comments here, what on earth possessed you to make you want to *talk* to the guy? To quote Sigourney Weaver: “Nuke the site from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.”

  • Len, Bicycles are banned from most sidewalks for good reason. It is dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians. The bridge is working great now. Lots of parents with children are cycling over the bridge now.

    The provincial government just spent $800 million on the Sea to Sky Highway because drivers because the very drivers that use the highway could not obey the law and drive safely.

    The double standards that people have are ridiculous. Billions of dollars have been spent to make roads safer because drivers insist on not driving safely yet you expect that cyclists and pedestrians somehow be much better at avoiding collisions while sharing a very substandard sidewalk. Your prejudice towards people who cycle is just not acceptable in this day and age.

    Anyway, many of the collision on the sidewalk were caused by pedestrians not looking and accidentally knocking cyclists off the sidewalk. I know that in the serious one back in 1998, this was the cause.

    Your statement about helmets is absurd.Helmets don’t prevent collisions, they only make collisions a bit safer. They don’t make any difference in high-speed collisions so if a cyclist was knocked into the high speed traffic on the bridge and hit by a car travelling almost double the speed limit (as they usually are), a helmet makes no difference.

    Anyway, most civilized countries don’t force cyclists to wear helmets. In Denmark and the Netherlands, pretty much no one wears helmets and cycling fatality rates are much lower than here.

  • gmgw

    Richard said:
    “Helmets don’t prevent collisions, they only make collisions a bit safer. They don’t make any difference in high-speed collisions so if a cyclist was knocked into the high speed traffic on the bridge and hit by a car travelling almost double the speed limit (as they usually are), a helmet makes no difference.”

    Obviously a helmet (especially the flimsy pieces of plastic-and-styrofoam junk that far too many riders wear) won’t do much to save a life in a serious accident. But they can save lives. Quite a few years ago a casual friend of mine was riding, helmetless, around Stanley Park, on the roadway near Brockton Point. He apparently got distracted somehow, overbalanced and crashed. He hit the curb with the base of his skull and died (he wasn’t riding very fast, and the impact was not severe– but think of Natasha Richardson). The medical examiner concluded that if he’d been wearing a helmet he very well might have lived. He left behind a young family and a promising law career.

    Since that time, whenever I see a helmetless bike rider, I make the same assumption that I do when I encounter a smoker: This person is either suicidal, or suicidally stupid. Despite all the snarky things I’ve said about cyclists in here, I fully recognize cycling’s dangers (which is one reason I’ve never been a rider). Wearing a helmet is no guarantee of survival, but it does increase your chances. Why gamble?

  • Why do people have unprotected sex with strangers?

    Drink and drive?

    Go boating without a life-jacket?

    I’ve yet to see the law that could improve one’s ability to assess risk and reward.

  • A. G. Tsakumis

    Len B:

    Stop worrying about these eco-midgets. They spend all day long trolling for normal folks to attack. When they eat it by the heapful, they can’t take it so they trot out the sticks and stones argument.

    Keam and his ilk are a total joke, who have neither the intelligence or integrity to stand down. It’s their 15 mins of fame that will never come again.

    Unless we all start reading some European cycling rag.

    Editor, writer, my foot…




  • gwgw

    I wear a helmet and encourage other people to do so. However, like smoking, unprotected sex, skydiving and eating French fries, it should be a matter of personal choice.

    The law is proving counterproductive by decreasing the enforcement of infractions like riding sidewalks which is a danger to both cyclists and pedestrians.

    The really is that we have to make choices. Which would you rather have, cyclists riding with no helmets or cyclists riding on sidewalks.

    Alex, personal attacks and name call are a sure sign you don’t have any valid arguments for your positions. It might sell free papers, but it does nothing to foster further understanding of issues.

  • I should throw driving into that list of dangerous activities above. banning Over 400 are killed and 28,000 are injured on the roads of BC each and every year. I’m sure you will agree that driving should be a matter of personal choice and not be banned.

  • gmgw

    I fail to see any connection between helmetless cyclists and cyclists who ride on sidewalks. What point are you trying to make?

    Moreover, the primary reason most of the reckless activities you cite are forbidden by law is the protection of others; be it against drunk drivers, unprotected sex, sidestream smoke, the discharge of firearms in a public place, or (in the case of children and non-swimmers riding in boats, for example) the wearing of lifejackets– the list goes on.

    If someone is hellbent on destroying themselves alone through reckless endangerment, far be it from me to stand in their way; the gene pool can always use a bit of cleaning and the world will be better off without them. Unfortunately and as you well know, it hardly ever works that way, and there are almost always innocents that are placed in danger by the selfish actions of a reckless fool. As I see it, a responsible society has no choice but to enact legislation that protects not only the innocent, but also the terminally stupid– from themselves, if needs be.

  • gwgw. The point is there is a limited amount of enforcement resources. If the police chose to enforce a particular regulation, the helmet law, it means they are not enforcing another regulation, the ban on cycling on sidewalks for example.

    As I said, this is the case in Vancouver, with over 2,100 helmet tickets as opposed to a very small number for riding on the sidewalk (somewhere between 10 and 20 I think).

    If the chose to allocate enough resources to do both, it would mean that some other traffic law would go unforced, likely a regulation affecting motor vehicles. This would have the unfortunate effect of endangering everyone including motorists.

    I suspect there is not a good public safety argument for even the current level of enforcement against cyclists. Any increase in enforcement would not be an effective use of police resources.

    The distinction that you are missing is that it is not the laws that protect society from the reckless, it is the enforcement of the laws that protect people. Without enforcement, there is little point in having the law.

    Regarding children. In most places in the world, helmet laws are only for those 16 and under. For older people, they assume people can make decisions for themselves and as well, children are more likely to suffer head injuries from bicycle accidents.

    If you calling people that don’t wear helmets stupid, you are insulting a good portion of the world. There are much lower cycling fatality rates in Denmark and the Netherlands where pretty much no one wears helmets.

  • gmgw

    For the purposes of my argument, I had kind of assumed it was a given that existence and enforcement of a bylaw are two halves of the same equation. Anyway, if we follow your logic, I guess we must assume that every time a cop pulls over a drunk driver, that’s taking away police resources that might help to prevent assaults. I frankly have little hope that the police will ever step up enforcement of the bylaws that allegedly forbid the riding of bicycles on sidewalks. I use the word “allegedly”, as it seems to be almost a universal practice, something I see literally dozens of times a day (I nearly got taken out by sidewalk-riders, coming silently from behind me, twice in less than five minutes on the southern downslope of the Granville Bridge the other day). I suppose the police, who have quite enough on their plate as it is, would really rather not have to bother with it; and there’s always the chance that ticketed cyclists could choose to make it a soapbox issue, loudly proclaiming that they ride on sidewalks only because the police don’t do enough to make the streets safe for cyclists. And suddenly a whole new debate could emerge.

    As for helmets, well, hell; apart from the people I care about, I don’t much care if cyclists wear helmets or not (see my comment about the gene pool); especially if, as you argue, it should be a matter of personal choice. We went through the same debate with motorcyclists many years ago, a debate that ended when the wearing of helmets became mandatory. As I recall, one of the most outspoken opponents of motorcycle helmet laws has been the actor Gary Busey, and I’ve lost count of the number of steel plates he’s had to have put in his head after near-fatal crashes. If someone’s crazy enough to think that their skull is impervious to injury– and I was hardly speaking exclusively of fatal injuries; we can talk about mere skull fractures if you like– then go for it, I say. But if I’m walking across a bridge having a conversation with a friend, and make an expansive gesture just as a helmetless cyclist comes along and I knock him/her off his/her bike and he/she lands on his/her head, I’d very much prefer that that cyclist doesn’t sue me for damages caused to their thick skull because they weren’t wearing a helmet.

    And by the way, I suppose those suffering head injuries because they refused to wear a helmet, in defiance of common sense and/or the law, are still going to demand the same level of short- or long-term medical care that’s given to the helmeted ? This is veering close to the ongoing debate over what to do about snowboarders who intentionally go out of bounds and then expect to be rescued. Personally, I think that anyone who intends to ‘board out of bounds should be required to sign a waiver absolving the authorities of any responsibility for their rescue and/or medical treatment– but then, I tend to be kind of a hardnose about this sort of thing.

    As for your ostensibly invulnerable Europeans, while I’ve never been to Denmark, I’ve spent enough time walking around central Amsterdam to know that the two biggest hazards to pedestrians in that lovely city are the crazy cyclists and the ubiquitous heaps of dogshit. Invariably a sudden move to avoid one runs the risk of a close encounter with the other. Along many of the canals the sidewalks are so narrow that parked cars render them all but impassable, so that one is forced to walk on the cobblestones, exposing one constantly to said twin hazards. And we’re not talking fancy multispeed bikes here; as often as not it’s one of those big white clunky one-speed machines that will suddenly come barreling around a corner toward you, being ridden by a young Dutch person of either gender who all too obviously believes in slowing down only in extreme emergencies and stopping for absolutely nothing. The safest course for pedestrians in such a situation might be to simply jump into the canal.

    Given this, while I don’t dispute your figures, I think they must have been compiled in the Dutch countryside, where some of the pleasantest, most laid-back cycling in Europe is to be found, in the polders and along the dikes. By contrast, I don’t know how those Amsterdam cyclists stay alive, given the way they ride. Frankly, “stupid” seems an inadequate word for their behaviour.

  • FBT

    As someone who deals on a daily basis with all forms of injury, I find comments by Richard, to be completely asinine.

    Helmets should be as important to a cyclist as a seatbelt is to an occupant of a car.

    Anyone who suggests this should be a matter of personal preference rather than a respected law, should be quite ashamed of themselves.

    In the 70’s and 80’s when seatbelts were becoming mandatory in most places, it was law-enforcement and ticketing that garnered the most success. Now all but the completely moronic wear their belts even if just to drive a few blocks.

    The same will work with cycling and helmets. The more ticketing and enforcement, the more people will come to accept the necessity of wearing one for their own safety, especially children.

    Inevitably someone like me, has to clean up a mess by left by someone Richard knows, because they weren’t following laws created for their own safety, all the while blaming it on everyone but themselves.

    In the meantime, the lobbyists are busy spreading their nonsense to every blog and news site throughout the city, instead of actually doing something productive.

  • It’s hard to fall off your bike. I have to chuck myself down mountains to make it happen. Cycling is inherently a pretty safe way to get around.

  • gmgw

    While it may be hard to fall off your bike, Chris (and I guess that puts me in an exalted minority, since I’ve done it more than once, though admittedly my spills were on gravel roads), you must concede that it’s not altogether beyond the realm of possibility, especially when encountering unanticipated external physical phenomena.
    Hence, helmets.

  • Not running for mayor

    It’s pratically impossible to crash your car too, I driven for almost 20yrs and have never crashed my car. I still wear my seatbelt because I know a crash is a very real possiblity.
    On my bike I haven’t been as lucky and have numerous scars including my ear being ripped right off. The helmet didn’t save that from happening but it did probably save my life.

  • Len B

    Although I realize Alex is onto something when he tells me not to bother, after reading what appears to be a comment from an ambulance or firefighter, back to my query:

    How many people injured on the Burrard Bridge, in the study the mayor and these cycling advocates flaunt, were wearing helmets, how many were travelling too fast or over the 15km/hour posted speed limit on the bridge for bikes, etc…etc…?

    I’m tired of the hyperbole that it’s always a car drivers fault, and the wonderfully dramatic “being thrown from the bridge into an oncoming car”.

    If the mayor is going to spend $1.5million to protect 20 people a year who may or may not get into accidents based on their own actions, I think the public should get to know this.

    Let’s not only release the study but also the police reports so we can see where the accidents occurred, and what the circumstances were around them.

    Perhaps there are other solutions to solve these problems that do not include the path the city seems intent on following.

    What are you all hiding?

  • SV

    Alright- let’s get into some hypothetical circumstances and solutions!

  • Bill Lee

    The data added a few days after Miss Bula’s initial posting, and thanks for the personn who put it in CSV style, not everyone has Excel.

    With the limited data in gross there are not many patterns yet. One has to add day of the week to see if there is a work/weekend difference. And the weather has been universally horrible and sunny throughout the trial. It would be useful when the monsoons return, to see how a 6-9 rain affects ridership. Do they start out in any weather or are fair weather cyclists?

    Why can’t we have the actual hourly data? I know that the simple Clr. Reimer promoted open data but that turned out to be yet another copycat movement, from the UK, on mapping GIS based piffles.

    The City has better previous surveys, though like cars who leave Vancouver, bikes are in a City data void when they cross a bridge or Boundary Road. Get with it people, and ask Burnaby, the North Shores, Richmond, to continue the surveys for some kilometers beyond the boundaries. This a job for MetroMan!!

    City cyclists go only short distances. Half only cycle less than 5 km, or less than 15- 20 minutes, 80 percent pedal less than 10 km.

    The February 2009 report showed

    “The 2006 Census provides statistics for Mode of Transportation to Work. The City as a whole reports 3.7% of all trips to work as having been made by bicycle; this is a 12% increase over that reported in the 1996 Census. The data has been further broken down, by census tract (sub-neighbourhood), and is shown in Figure 1. This map shows that percentage of cycling mode share varies across the City from 11.9% to 0.2%. Cycling mode share is highest south of downtown, with census tracts in West Point Grey, Kitsilano and South Cambie neighbourhoods having the highest percentage cycling mode share at 11.9% and 11.8% respectively; Grandview-Woodlands also shows cycling mode share exceeding 11%.”

    The page three census tract map corresponds with the poverty regions of the
    city. The study ignores cyclicts coming from the North Shore, Burnaby and beyond or Richmond

    Figure 3 on page 6 showing the summer afternoon peak does not count bridges at all, and shows that few climb the south slope hills, but it is east and west along Adanac or 7th and 10th to the apartment areas, fitting in with the 5 km cycle routes. Again no data is shown for those leaving the city boundaries.

    Hourly rates peak at a few hundred an hour. Burrard bridge lead routes show

    A automated study from a every 15 minute counter on the abysmal 11th and Ontario routes also made note of rainy days, but not whether it was raining in the morning or afternoon commute. I have found that people overestimate how much rain there is in the Vancouver commute compared to middday or evening when city heat or cooldown promotes rainfall.

    City cyclist only short distances. Half only cycle less than 5 km, or less than 20 minutes, 80 percent pedal less than 10 km.

    City cycling factsheet

  • Darcy McGee

    In Toronto, motor vehicles are responsible for 90% of all car/bike collisions.

    The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

    The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling.

    So now who needs their own space to be safe?

  • Bill Lee

    Data posted up to 23 August 2009 now.
    Still no hourly stats.

    And we did have an unusually dry summer, skewing the ‘good days’ oppportunity.

    But who knew that the markets were so bad that fewer people in Point Grey had to drive downtown or had been put on “Gardening Leave”?

    No anecdotes of pedestrian flouting the ‘rules’ and walking (happily) on the south (city) side of the Burrard Bridge sidewalks.