Study shows separated lanes a lower risk

"Dunsmuir Separated Bike Lanes 208" by Paul Krueger

A new study out of Montreal shows that cyclists on separated bike paths are at a lower risk than those riding on Montreal streets unprotected from traffic. The risk of injury is approximately 28% lower for the cyclists on separated infrastructure.

Montreal has several “cycle tracks” which are paths that are exclusively for cyclists, but are separated from traffic by a physical barrier. Toronto will soon have a network of separated bike lanes, but Windsor currently does not have any plans to implement the idea.

The montreal-based study was published earlier this month in the Injury Prevention Journal, and concludes that cycle tracks increase cycling activity, and do not increase injury rates. In addition to determining the decreased injury rate, the study found that streets with cycle tracks were used my more than twice as many cyclists as streets without cycle tracks.

Source: Montreal Gazette

4 thoughts on “Study shows separated lanes a lower risk”

  1. I’m pretty certain there would be an exponential increase in the number of cyclists on Windsor roads if we had separated bike lanes, since perceived (un)safety is probably the biggest factor that puts people off.

    In particular, the number of women would rise, since they tend to be more cautious than men.

    I may be dreaming, but it would be wonderful if the city could be persuaded to use separators on the RDVIP, when it eventually gets off the ground.

    1. It is interesting that you think this would be wonderful on Riverside Drive – In spite of what you have been led to believe, this is what the Riverside neighbourhood asked for instead of the crude road extensions that cater to a narrow, male dominated demographic.

      For those who claim to know and care about cycling issues in Windsor, including those on Riverside Drive, you have remarkably little insight into why this group continues to oppose the Vista Plan.

      1. I have talked to a Riverside resident who claimed to be involved with Riverside Neighbourhood Inc. and what he stated they were asking for was a multi-use path on the south side of Riverside Drive.

        Then, looking at, and it seems apparent that Riverside Neighbourhood was asking for a Bicycle Boulevard, which is very different from segregated bike lanes.

        Unfortunately, coming to the discussion of the RDVIP late, I have never met the main members of Riverside Neighbourhood Inc. However, from my point of view, they oppose the Vista Plan which *would* be an improvement to Riverside Drive, as it would introduce bike lanes, which *do* increase cyclist safety and perceived safety.

        Would segregated bike lanes be better? Yes – but they aren’t ruled out. The RDVIP calls for exclusive bike lanes. Would a shared-use path on the *North* side of the street be an improvement over bike lanes? I’m not sure that is clear.

      2. @Rusalka: who were you referring to when you wrote “Riverside neighbourhood”? I am aware of the Eastons, but are there any other residents?

        I don’t understand why this group and its view on possible solutions to the situation on Riverside Drive are so shadowy.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top