Paper: Cycling Trends and Policies in Canadian Cities

[patc]

I though some people might be intersted in this:

Site one - PDF (http://policy.rutgers.edu/papers/25.pdf)
Site 2 PDF (http://www.vtpi.org/pucher_canbike.pdf)

A comparison of cycling rates and policies in the six largest Canadian cities.

"All six of the Canadian case study cities examined in this article
have made impressive efforts to encourage more and safer
cycling. The result is bicycling shares of urban travel roughly
three times as high as in American cities of comparable size. For
all metropolitan areas in aggregate, the bike share of work trips
in Canada was 1.2% in 2001, compared to only 0.4% in the
United States (Statistics Canada, 2003; Pucher and Renne,
2003). That is particularly impressive given the long, harsh
winters in most Canadian cities."

[Brad M]

Hooray for us.

[xostnot]

Someone recently sent me this study, even though it's from last year.
http://www.vtpi.org/pucher_canbike.pdf

I believe there are three major factors affecting the acceptance of
cycling in Canadian cities, that were not addressed by the study. The
study looks at various factors such as funding, bike routes, climate,
education etc. I wish to add to that list: policing motorists, the
role of the bicycle couriers, and the failure to promote utilty cycling.

To discuss the couriers first, I strongly believe that a more detailed
study would show that relative to the density and complexity of
traffic in the downtown cores of our largest cities, bicycle accidents
are rare. I futher believe that this is largely because of the advent
of bicycle couriers. Part of their "culture" is that they do not
tolerate abuse from motorists. While I don't begin to condone their
disregard for others, they have a zero tolerance for motorists who
endanger or bully them.

They don't bother to take license numbers and pursue charges, they
take immediate and unambiguous action. As a result, it is my opinion
and impression that motorists in downtown cores respect the presence
of cyclists, thus minimizing conflicts and accidents. In a clear
sense, the bicycle couriers have assumed the role one would expect to
be fulfilled by the police, but, as I will discuss now, is not
performed by the police.

Like most discussions of bicycle safety, the study frequently mentions
and describes "bicycle safety" programs by the police comprising
measures to regulate, educate and punish cyclists. Although I did not
read the paper in full detail, I noticed only two mentions of the
concept of enforcement and education of motorists with respect to
cyclists. Indeed, when the police in our various cities trot out
their annual "bicycle safety" programs, there is never a mention of
cracking down on motorists who endanger and bully cyclists. Safety
rodeos for children have no impression on the motorists who endanger
cyclists.

The paper mentions that the growing numbers of police patrolling on
bicycles must mean a more hospitable environment for cyclists. Well,
I never see bicycle-riding police during my commutes. I have seen no
reduction in the frequency of incidents where I am endangered or
bullied by motorists since police started using bicycles. I have
heard of no instances where the bicycle-riding officers have ticketed
motorists for endangering or bullying them. I have heard of only the
most rare instances of any police ticketing motorists for endangering
or bullying cyclists when there has been no contact - whether or not
those officers were using bicycles.

This is an important point. A "near miss" with a bicycle or
pedestrian is perhaps even more serious than a "fender bender"
involving two cars. My experience is that near-misses are almost a
daily occurrence. Yet, I know of absolutely no formal police
"crackdown" on near-miss circumstances, and virtually no informal
action on these incidents. Even when the incidents are reported to
them, with license numbers.

Now, the study makes a couple of important things clear. One is that
accidents involving cyclists are on a downward trend. The other is
that growth of urban cycling is basically stagnant.

"Utility" and recreational cycling have a strong role to play in
countering climate change. Our society MUST embrace cycling as a
legitimate and desirable activity. I believe other studies have shown
that one of the strongest deterrents to more people cycling in urban
settings is fear of being struck by motor vehicles. Any cyclist who
commutes in urban areas will verify that instances of being
endangered or bullied by motorists are common, if not typical.
Whether or not those near misses are reflected in the accident
statistics, it is clear cycling is greatly limited by the fear of
being struck by motorists.

The study mentions the much higher instance of cycling in Europe. I
have lived and cycled in Europe, and the concept of motorists bullying
cyclists is utterly unimaginable there. That the police would fail to
look for, or follow up on complaints of such harrassment, would seem
preposterous. Everyone regards cyclists as fully legitimate and even
desirable road users. People are not afraid to cycle because of a
real or imagined expectation of extraordinary likelyhood of getting
hurt, as is the case here. I believe the much higher use of the
bicycle in Europe is greatly attributable to this difference in
behaviour and perception. Only the police forces have the power to
change this circumstance and perception in Canada.

In this sense, well-publicized, earnest "crackdowns" on motorists who
endanger and bully cyclists must be adopted as standard operating
practice by police forces. This means the police have an
incidental role in the changes needed to curb the growth of greenhouse
gas emissions. I happen to believe the police culture will be
resistant to this change in priorities. But their ongoing failure to
protect the rights and safety of cyclists, and thus the needs of
society, is unacceptable and has gone on far too long.

It seems an unfortunate reality that our society does not embrace good
ideas unless they are marketed. No commerical entity, not the bicycle
stores, distributors or manufacturers, promote utility cycling.
Indeed, they seem locked into marketing special-purpose bicycles that
are poorly suited to commuting and moving around urban areas, and seem
to do so because the inevitable changes in bicycle fashion regularly
render obsolete these specialized bikes. I've met a few distributors
representatives over the years, and they clearly regarded bicycles as
toys, and were not cyclists themselves. An essential ingredient of
making cycling more accepted by society is for the commercial
interests to promote utility cycling. There is no shortage of
compelling themes.

Lastly, I feel no such study is complete without mentioning the
"Critical Mass" rides. Whether they encourage cycling would be
difficult to quantify, but they are an aspect of cycling culture in
cities that deserves recognition.

[atbman]

No-one on this forum seems to be aware of the little-known amendment to your constitution that says "... that all men are created equal, except for those on pedal cycles", whereas nearly all your drivers are aware of it.

Perhaps it's taught in Driver Ed, but not in EC. Or, perhaps, Big Brother knows which learner drivers are, or will become, cyclists and makes sure that they remain in blissful constitutional ignorance of their inferior position.

[Bekologist]

Any cyclist who commutes in urban areas will verify that instances of being
endangered or bullied by motorists are common, if not typical......



It's not just me? - I don't have a "i'm a loser- hit me" scribed on my cycling attire? like one of the A&S high priestesses of ersatz cycling recently suggested to me as to the reason behind all the malevolent drivers i encounter?

[Roody]

I though some people might be intersted in this:

Site one - PDF (http://policy.rutgers.edu/papers/25.pdf)
Site 2 PDF (http://www.vtpi.org/pucher_canbike.pdf)

A comparison of cycling rates and policies in the six largest Canadian cities.

"All six of the Canadian case study cities examined in this article
have made impressive efforts to encourage more and safer
cycling. The result is bicycling shares of urban travel roughly
three times as high as in American cities of comparable size. For
all metropolitan areas in aggregate, the bike share of work trips
in Canada was 1.2% in 2001, compared to only 0.4% in the
United States (Statistics Canada, 2003; Pucher and Renne,
2003). That is particularly impressive given the long, harsh
winters in most Canadian cities."

I thought the decline in accidents and fatalities was very impressive. Canadian cagers and cyclists should be proud. Increases in bike usage were less impressive, since there is so much variablilty across cities.

Just wondering. How are they able to attribute causation in these studies? There might be many factors that contribute to more bicycle use and safer cycling in Canada, other than the policies and programs described here. For example, one possibility is that higher usage causes friendly policies, rather than the other way around (as the reports conclude). As for safety, another possible conclusion is that the mere presence of more bikes leads to lower accident rates. I believe that you, patc, have argued this in previous posts.

(I was too lazy to read the studies thoroughly, so forgive me if this question was answered there.)

Thanks for posting this pat. There's a lot to think about here.

[patc]

Just wondering. How are they able to attribute causation in these studies? There might be many factors that contribute to more bicycle use and safer cycling in Canada, other than the policies and programs described here. For example, one possibility is that higher usage causes friendly policies, rather than the other way around (as the reports conclude). As for safety, another possible conclusion is that the mere presence of more bikes leads to lower accident rates. I believe that you, patc, have argued this in previous posts.

I haven't read the report in some time (probably not since I first posted it), but two comments come to mind.

First is the question you raise - how is causation attributed? There is a tendency - particularly in the media - to claim studies "prove" things, or at least "show" things. In fact, most studies just "suggest" relationships, and are limited to the data available and how that data is tabulated. This study in particular raised a lot of good points, but as is usually the case poses more questions than answers.

Skipping the chicken-egg debate, I can make on comment about Ottawa that certainly contributes to cycling: the openness and friendliness of city staff toward cyclists and the public in general. I have chatted with the mayor, city councillors, the deputy chief of police. I have called city hall many times to complain about pot holes, traffic loops that did not respond to bikes, or to make a suggestion. A suggestion about street lighting and bike parking was well received, and the rep from the transport department wrote it down. We have a "Roads and cycling advisory committee". I have always felt that my ideas were welcomes and listened to, and I have never been made to feel dismissed because I was a cyclist. While it would be difficult to pinpoint the exact effect this has on cycling in Ottawa, I have no doubt it is a benefit. It's no accident that a large number of transit users and cyclists attend public consultation meetings - we do so because we are listened to.

[sbhikes]

According to a recent local study, when asked "How do you usually commute to work?" 3% of adults in Santa Barbara county said they commute by bike. They did not attribute the number to anything, nor did they list whether that number has changed over time. The survey was not about cycling. It was just a general quality of life survey.

http://www.survey.ucsb.edu/ccs/CCSReport5FINAL.pdf (page 14)

I guess 3% isn't bad.

I'm not sure I agree that street justice by bicycle messengers has a positive effect. At least not here. I don't know if I've ever seen a bicycle messenger.

We do have bicycle cops. I had one pull me over once. I was on my bike, too. But I deserved it. As far as I can tell, bicycle cops have very little to do with bicycling enforcement. It's all about being better able to catch the bad guys. More ability to sneak up on them and to chase them.

Anyway, Canada is a whole lot more forward-thinking than the US, so I'm sure that has something to do with your success. Also, you guys are probably noticing and becoming more worried about global climate change a lot more than we are down here.

[patc]

Anyway, Canada is a whole lot more forward-thinking than the US, so I'm sure that has something to do with your success. Also, you guys are probably noticing and becoming more worried about global climate change a lot more than we are down here.

Well, I can tell you there is a great deal of concern right now that not only we will not meet our Kyoto commitments, but the current government wants to scrap the accord entirely. Like many Canadians I don't feel the current Conservative minority government represents Canadian ideals... there is just a lack of viable alternative parties right now.

[genec]

According to a recent local study, when asked "How do you usually commute to work?" 3% of adults in Santa Barbara county said they commute by bike. They did not attribute the number to anything, nor did they list whether that number has changed over time. The survey was not about cycling. It was just a general quality of life survey.

http://www.survey.ucsb.edu/ccs/CCSReport5FINAL.pdf (page 14)

I guess 3% isn't bad.

I'm not sure I agree that street justice by bicycle messengers has a positive effect. At least not here. I don't know if I've ever seen a bicycle messenger.

We do have bicycle cops. I had one pull me over once. I was on my bike, too. But I deserved it. As far as I can tell, bicycle cops have very little to do with bicycling enforcement. It's all about being better able to catch the bad guys. More ability to sneak up on them and to chase them.

Anyway, Canada is a whole lot more forward-thinking than the US, so I'm sure that has something to do with your success. Also, you guys are probably noticing and becoming more worried about global climate change a lot more than we are down here.

Yeah but isn't it a shame that in the warmer southern climates of places like San Diego, more focus isn't put on cycling as transportation.

I know distances and hills can make it difficult for some, but southern California sure could use quite a few less cars on the road.

I did a brief informal survey at work and found at least 6 people that lived within a couple miles of the office... not a one of them did bike to work day. Two ladies that lived miles and miles away did take up the challange though... We more than doubled our work day ridership. (it's usually only me, so one more rider was enough for a 100% improvement... :D )

[GGDub]

Anyway, Canada is a whole lot more forward-thinking than the US, so I'm sure that has something to do with your success. Also, you guys are probably noticing and becoming more worried about global climate change a lot more than we are down here.

Bah, forward thinking has nothing to do with it. 1.15/litre gas has a lot more to do with it. That, and we're also heating our homes 7-8 months of the year. Just think of all the fun stuff your government could waste money on if you just increased the gas tax, like ceremonial heads of state or a gazillion government-subsized tv shows about hockey.

[closetbiker]

Anyway, Canada is a whole lot more forward-thinking than the US, so I'm sure that has something to do with your success. Also, you guys are probably noticing and becoming more worried about global climate change a lot more than we are down here.

There was post about a Miami Herald article where they mention my home as being the biking capital of the Americas. They show us as having 4.4% cycle commuters but Victoria, BC has 6.2% of commuters on bikes.

Nice to see recognition on the farthest point from us.

[xostnot]

It's not just me? - I don't have a "i'm a loser- hit me" scribed on my cycling attire? like one of the A&S high priestesses of ersatz cycling recently suggested to me as to the reason behind all the malevolent drivers i encounter?

I have this theory that it goes to the core of how we think. To the reptilian brain stem part of the mind. Animals, and people are animals, have a visceral survival reaction to individuals in an inferior power position. They can be tolerated, or attacked, depending on the circumstances. You can see where I'm going. That cyclists obviously represent an expression of less noise and power than someone in a motor vehicle.

But I think it goes beyond that. An individual who VOLUNTARILY assumes a role of less power, in the mind of others, is just ASKING to be attacked. Motorists correctly believe that cycists have chosen to ride bicycles, and unwittingly assume that we're asking and deserve to be bullied. That they can improve their chances of survival by taking advantage of us.

This is exactly why motorists so frequently refer to cyclists as losers. Sheesh, I'm willing to bet the average urban cyclist has a higher net worth and a higher intelligence than the average motorist.

So in a very real sense, you indeed do have a "i'm a loser- hit me" scribed on my cycling attire". I'd like to see a comparison of net worth and intelligence between commuter cycilsts and motorists. It's long overdue that the a**hole drivers be revealed for who they really are.

[Roody]

B.S. except for the last sentence. :)

[xostnot]

B.S. except for the last sentence. :)

Your use of a happy face could be taken to mean you spoke with irony and actually agree with me. Could you clarify? Thanks

[cooker]

there is just a lack of viable alternative parties right now.
4.5% and rising...we could certainly use your vote.

[Roody]

Your use of a happy face could be taken to mean you spoke with irony and actually agree with me. Could you clarify? Thanks
I guess I agree somewnat with your conclusion but disagree totally with your premises. The concept of bikes being inferior to cars is totally alien to me. It really makes my flesh crawl. I know you're imagining how you think a cager might think but still....

This whole idea that bikes are inferior to cars is just wrong. Thinking that cyclists are less powerful is BS.

[xostnot]

Ok, I see what you meant, and we're in complete agreement at that level. It seems utterly bizarre to me when I hear Bush talking about using more technology for us to get ourselves out of the fossil fuel/global warming mess we've gotten ourselves into, and things like the hydrogen highway, when, for one thing, very simple, cheap solutions like just riding bicycles a lot more are so easily available, (for chrissake). In that sense, bicycles ARE the more powerful.

I spoke from the mindset of unthinking or militant motorists. I was talking in the sense of how, say, bull mammals size each other up before a fight, or what would happen if a lone wolf trotted into a pack and lay down on its back exposing its stomach. Pecking order and all that. These dynamics also can be seen in Internet forums.

[Roody]

I'm not sure about all that but I know I feel more powerful when I ride a bike than when I drive a car.

[donnamb]

It's not just me? - I don't have a "i'm a loser- hit me" scribed on my cycling attire? like one of the A&S high priestesses of ersatz cycling recently suggested to me as to the reason behind all the malevolent drivers i encounter?

Nah, it's not just you. You are a great storyteller, though, and I think some of your more hair-raising recounts stick in my mind better than my own. Some people, myself included, tend to block really bad experiences from our heads, so yours seem really extreme when you write about them, seem being the operative word here.

[closetbiker]

I have this theory that it goes to the core of how we think... Animals, and people are animals, have a visceral survival reaction to individuals in an inferior power position...
But I think it goes beyond that. An individual who VOLUNTARILY assumes a role of less power, in the mind of others, is just ASKING to be attacked...

Depends on your point of view I guess.

It seems to me a bicycle is a far better vehicle in lots of traffic situations. A car gets stuck in traffic and its use is detrimental to the health of it's operator (and others).

The leading cause of death under 45 is traffic collisions, the leading cause over 45 is heart disease. Who is going to survive?

[closetbiker]

I think a big thing that promotes cycling is proximity, traffic and attitudes.

If you can ride where you need to go and traffic and parking is bad, why wouldn't you cycle?

I think the bike facilities are a recognition of cyclings place in transportation being recognized and supported as is the BC use of "sharing the road section" in driver training and those things help attitudes towards cycling.

[patc]

4.5% and rising...we could certainly use your vote.

Voted Green last time!

[cooker]

Voted Green last time!
So we are viable!

[FastFreddy]

I agree that the fear of being hit by a car is by far the most important deterrent to transportation cycling in the U.S. – and probably Canada as well. I just don’t see much bullying of cyclists by motorists – by “bullying” I mean intentional behavior. In my experience, distracted drivers outnumber the deliberately mean ones by at least 100 to one.

[patc]

So we are viable!

No, not really. Sorry to say it, but neither the NDP nor the Greens are likely to form a government any time soon, and not even likely to form the opposition. Unless one or both sees a huge upsurge of public support, we have no possible alternative to the Conservatives and Liberals... and the Libs are pretty much out of the picture until after their leadership conferences (and maybe much longer than that).

Harper is establishing a pattern of setting up a proposal, having it derailed by the other parties, then abandoning the whole thing with cries of, "It's not by fault" and "We'll need a majority government to do this." Meanwhile he is buying votes with GST cuts and paying people to have kids. I expect him to call an election in early 2007 (or force a non-confidence vote to avoid blame) and seek a majority at that time. That's what Mike Duffy says too, and Duff's a god when it comes to Canadian politics :D

[closetbiker]

...and that fear is unfounded. Look closely at injuries and collisions and one will find cyclists not any more prone to collisions or injuries than motorists or pedestrians.

Why someone would want to buy in the suburbs to save money when they'll have to pay more in commuting costs mystifies me.

[xostnot]

Depends on your point of view I guess.

It seems to me a bicycle is a far better vehicle in lots of traffic situations. A car gets stuck in traffic and its use is detrimental to the health of it's operator (and others).

The leading cause of death under 45 is traffic collisions, the leading cause over 45 is heart disease. Who is going to survive?

It's apparent I should have been more clear about this. I am anything but a car booster, having spent many years in pro-bicycle activist organizations. In most respects and situations, bicycles are superior transportation systems to cars. Period. But in terms of raw physical power, as measured by force, inertia, noise, space occupied etc. the car is "more powerful". Which non-coincidentally translates into the greater damage they do. This doesn't mean cars are "better" than bicycles, or even "more powerful" in a philosophical sense. Just as in the sense of raw power, a semi trailer truck is more powerful than a car. But that doesn't mean the same as saying a semi is better than a car.

And I'm talking about the impression that greater raw physical power has on less-developed brains, and how that shows up in conflicts between cyclists and motorists. It's the mentality behind bullying. The thing that the car bullies don't have a hope of getting, is that the seemingly inferior cyclists, are actually doing something vastly superior. Cycling is now superior because it throws less motorized weight around. This reversal of the power game is something the bully motorists don't have a hope of figuring out, and in fact leaves most cyclists wondering why motorists are so nasty to them.

If anyone has a better explanation, I'd be happy to read it.

[closetbiker]

Well, you could look to the animal world and see that for every large species, there are many more smaller ones.

There are advantages to both, and there are always many more smaller, smarter, more agile species than bigger, more powerful, less maneuverable (and perhaps a little dumber) species.