I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VANCOUVER COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE PLAN
Eng1neer1ng Department
July 1988
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Vancouver
I\1P /DHR: mm
File No. 4271-5
Inter-Office Correspondence
VANCOUVER COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE PLAN
City Engineer
Assistant City Engineer - Transportation
M. P. Brown, P.Eng.r
Assistant City Engineer,
Transportation.
CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
July 29, 1988
Attachment
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
As directed by Council on July 30, 1985, the Transportation Division, in
cooperation with the Bicycle Advisory Committee, has prepared the attached
Vancouver Comprehensive Bicycle Plan.
The Vancouver Comprehensive Bicycle Plan analyses local cycling statistics
and needs, and explores the four fundamental areas of cycling (Engineering,
Education, Enforcement and Encouragement) in order to effectively reach cost-
effective recommendations to integrate the cyclist into the existing trans-
portation network and to promote and encourage the responsible use of the
bicycle as a safe and convenient mode of transportation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION •.••••••••.•••.••.•••••..•.•••..•..••.•.•.••.•.••••.•....•
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE PLAN •.....•••••.•.••..••
CYCLING AND CYCLISTS IN VANCOUVER .•••....•••..••••••...•.•.•.••.•••...
Origin Destination Survey •...•..•••.••.••••....•...••.••.•....•.
Vancouver Bi cyc 1e Survey •..••••.•.••.••...•••••.•..•......••.•.•
BICYCLE ACCIDENTS ...•...•••••••.••••••.••••••••...•.••.••..........•••.
Ag e ••....•.•.•.•••..•••.•..•••..•••••..•...•••••.••.•......••••.
Weather ••.••...•••.••••••.•••••••...••••.•.•.•••••••••.•.•.•••••
Night Riding ••••••••••..••••••.••••••••.••••..•.•..•••••••.•.•..
Injuries ••.•.••.••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••.••••.....•
ENGINEERING ••..••••••••••••.••••.•••.••••••••••.••••••.•••.••••••••...
Cyclist Integration Vs. Segregation ••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•
Commuter Routes •••••.••••••••••.•.•••.•••••••••.•••.••••••.•••••
Existing Usage Levels ••••••••••••.••••••••••••.••••••••.•.•
Tri p Generators •••••.•••••••.•••••••••••••••••••.•••••..••.
Accident Location .•••••.•••••••••••.••••..••.•••••••••••.•••••••
Street Priority System ••••.•••.•••••.••••.••••.••••••••••••..•.•
Review of Design/Construction Standards ••••••••••••••••••.••••••
Lane Widths •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••..
Intersection Design •••.••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••..•••
Tr af f i c Si gna 1s •••.••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••
Detector Loops •••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
0392e/254E/06/88
1
13
15
17
17
20
25
27
28
30
30
32
32
33
34
38
40
40
42
42
44
48
50
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd.
Miscellaneous Roadside Hazards ..•.•....•.••.....................
Railway Crossings ...••.•..•.••..•.•••.......•••.••.••......
Drainage Grates •••••••.••....•.•.••.•...••••.••.•••••.•.•.•
Asphalt Drainage Diverters •••••••••••••.••...••••.••.••••.•
Tr af f i c Ba r r i er s ••.•.••••..•.•.•••••••.•.•••.•.••....•-...•.
Controlled Access Highways and Streets ..•.••...••.•.•.•••..•...•
Bicycle Parking .••..•.•..•.••.•..••••••••.••••.•......••••••.•.•
Spot Improvement Program •.••..••.•.•...•.•••.••.•...•••.••••..••
Recreational Routes •.•...•••••••.....•.•.•..•.••.•.•.•....••••••
Existing Recreational Routes .••••••••.•..•••.••••....••..•.
Stanley Park Seawall •.•.•••.•••••...•.•...••.•.••.....
B.C. Parkway •.•.•...•••...•...••••...•.•..•.•.•.••••..
The Habitat Bicycle Route ••••..•••..••••••••••••••.•••
Potential Recreational Routes ..•.••.••••..•..••..•.•.•..•.•
Rai lway Reserves •••••••••••.••••....••.•••......•.....
Ocean &River Foreshores .••••..•..•.••.•......•••...•.
Hi ghway Ri ghts-of-Way •..••••......••••••......•••••...
EDUCATION .••••.•..•..•.••...•••••.••.••.•.•.•...•.•..••••.•.••..••••••
Summary of Existing Programs
Vancouver Educati on Program ..•••.••••••.•••.••..••....•..••....•
Young Chi ldren ••.••••.••..•••••••••••••.••..•••.•••..•.••••
Schoo 1 Age Chi 1dren .••••.•..•.•.•..••..•.••.•••.•.....•••..
Ad u1t CYc 1i st s .••......•.••....•.••••..•...•.•...••..•...•.
Motori sts ••.••.•••...•.•.•.....•.......•.•••.....••.•......
Others .•..•..•...•........•..•••..••••..•.•••.•.••.••.•..••
Helmet Campaign ..•.•...••••••.••.•.•••••.•.•.••••••••••...•..••.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
PAGE I
53 I
53
55 I56
56 I
60
60 I
67
69 I
70 I70
71 I72
73 I73
74 I74
76 I
78
I
90
90 I91
93 I94
95
I
96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd.
ENFORCEMENT 98
Existing Traffic Laws and Regulations 99
Bicycle Couriers 103
One Week Bicycle Enforcement Campaign 105
Bicycle Registration 106
Bicycle Theft Prevention 107
Bicycle Identification Program 109
B1 cyc 1e Insurance 110
Enforcement on Recreational Routes 111
ENCOURAGEMENT 113
End-of-Tr1p Facl1ities 113
Promotional and Informational Programs 115
In t ermod a1 Trans 1t 11 7
Car, Park and Ride 118
Bike, Park and Ride 118
Bike, Carry and Bike 120
BIBLIOGRAPHY 124
APPENDICES
A - City of Vancouver Local Areas
B Bicycle Accidents Warranting Hospital Admission
C Bicycle Deceleration Data
D Calculated Intersection Clearance Times
E Recreational Trail Safety Code
F Stanley Park Map
G British Columbia Parkway Map and Features Guide
H British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act
I - San Diego Transit Bus Bicycle Racks
J - Recommended Bicycle Parking Requirements
K Recommended Lane Painting Procedures
0392e/254E/06/88
0392e/254E/06/88
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13 -
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18 -
Figure 19A -
Figure 19B -
Figure 19C -
Figure 20A -
Figure 20B -
Figure 20C -
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24 -
LIST OF FIGURES
Bicycle Trips by Trip Purpose, Vancouver 1985 .
Age Structure of Cycling Population, Vancouver 1985 .
Vancouver Bicycle Survey Results, 1987 .
Annual Reported on Bicycle Accidents, Vancouver 1982-86.
Bicycle Accidents by Street Location, Vancouver .
Bicycle Accidents by Accident Type, Vancouver .
Bicycle Accidents Requiring Hospital Admission by
Age Group, Vancouver 1985-86 .
Reported Bicycle Accidents by Weather Condition,
Vancouver, 1982-86 .
Cyclist Injuries by Injury Type, Vancouver 1985-86 .
Vancouver Bicycle Trips, GVRD OlD Survey 1985 .
Accident Locations, Vancouver 1987 .
Vancouver Street Priority System .
Cycling Lane Positioning for Various Turning Movements.
Left Turn Cyclist Movements .
Intersection Clearance Times .
Undetected Bicycle Positioning .
Typical Loop Marking ..
Rai lway Crossing Signs .
One Way Closure Traffic Barrier .
Diagonal Traffic Barrier .
Total Closure Traffic Barrier .
Typical Class 1 Bicycle Parking Facility .
Typical Class 2 Bicycle Parking Facility .
Typical Class 3 Bicycle Parking Facility .
Proposed Vancouver Bicycle Education Program Structure .
Melbourne, Australia Helmet Campaign Impact .
Fine Collection Structure for MVA & By-Law Violations ..
Reported Bicycle Thefts, Vancouver 1975-86 .
I
I
PAGE I
18 I
19
21 I
25
26 I26
29 I
29 I
31
37 I39
41 I45
47
49 I
52
52 I54
58 I58
58 I63
63
64 I
77
97 I101
108 I
I
I
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
LIST Of TABLES
Cyclist Fatalities Involving Head Injuries,
British Columbia and Vancouver, 1982-86 .
Signal Controller-Type Decision Table .
Summary of Traffic Laws and Regulations Governing
Cyclists .
Trips To/From Vancouver from Surrounding
Municipalities in a 24 Hour Period, 1985 .
Annual Number of Cyclists Using B.C. Ferries .
28
50
100
117
123
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 1 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduct1on
In recent years, the bicycle has become recognized as an effic1ent and
convenient mode of transportation. No longer is its use confined to children
and those without a dr1vers license. The popularity of cycling in Vancouver
has increased to a point where over 47,000 bicycle trips are made on an
average weekday.
The four fundamental approaches in provid1ng a safe and convenient cycling
environment in Vancouver include Engineer1ng, Educat10n, Enforcement and
Encouragement. Otherw1se known as the 4 E's, these fundamental areas must
each be pursued 1n order to accommodate the present resurgence of cyc11ng in
our City.
Cyc11ng and Cyc11sts 1n Vancouver
From the GVRD origin/destinat10n survey and the Vancouver Bicycle Survey, we
note that:
Cyc11ng in Vancouver 1s no longer confined to children or those who do not
have a dr1vers 11cense, nor is cycling pr1marily a recreational activity.
Cyc11ng has become a w1dely used mode of transportation and plays an
increas1ngly important role in the urban transportat10n system.
Approx1mately 2.3% of all veh1cle tr1ps in the Vancouver Central
Metropo11tan Area (CMA) are made by bicycle. Commuter trips during rush
hours account for approx1mately 1.6% of all veh1cle trips 1n the Vancouver
CMA.
Approximately 85% of all cyc11ng tr1ps made on an average weekday are made
for non-recreat10nal purposes such as commut1ng to/from work and school
and shopping.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 2 -
Vancouver cyclists particularly dislike:
poor weather conditions
heavy motor vehicle traffic
poor road conditions
lack of end-of-trip facilities
Vancouver cyclists want:
bicycle lanes/paths
cyclist/motorist education
improved on street conditions
increased enforcement
end-of-trip facilities
intermodal transit links/facilities
Accidents
Each year in Vancouver, on average, there are:
500 reported bicycle/motor vehicle accidents
one to two cyclist fatalities
The number of reported bicycle/motor vehicle accidents has increased by
over 200% since 1982.
The majority of reported bicycle/motor vehicle accidents occur at
intersections and at midblock driveways.
Over 65% of all bicycle accidents, including falls, bike/bike and bike/dog
accidents, go unreported.
The 10-14 year age group has the highest number of bicycle accidents
requiring hospital admission.
The most common cyclist injury is the head injury.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1) D1rect, convenient and safe access to destinat10n.
2) End-of-tr1p fac111t1es.
2) That the C1ty of Vancouver Engineering Department road design standards
incorporate recommended lane widths, where pract1cal, as outlined in this
report.
Existing developments should be permitted to place bicycle parking facilities
on City property if off street space is unavailable and if the proposed
on-street location does not pose a hazard to pedestrians~ or parked cars, as
determined by the City Engineer.
RECOMMENPATIONS:
1) That the street priority system, detailed in this report, be recognized as
a system to determine where bicycle requirements should be considered in
road design and future improvement projects.
the foundat10n on wh1ch a successful
In summary, the cyc11st requ1res two
- 3 -
Eng1neer1ng
Cycling Transportat10n Eng1neer1ng 1s
comprehens1ve b1cycle plan 1s based.
basic fac111t1es. These are:
The safest and most cost effect1ve method of prov1d1ng the cyclist w1th d1rect
and convenient access to the1r dest1nat10n 1s through shared usage of our
exist1ng transportat10n network. The Eng1neer ensures proper 1ntegration of
the cyc11st onto the roadway by plann1ng for all road users including cyclist
in the initial design of the roadway. Recommended provisions for bicycle
traffic include sufficient lane w1dth, cyclist conscious intersection design,
improved signage, hazard 10cat10n/elimination and proper
location/configuration of on-street utilities, barriers, etc.
The provision of bicycle parking facilities plays an integral role in the
promotion of bicycle use. Bicycle parking is relatively inexpensive, yet the
benefits to the cycling public are substantial. Bicycle parking facilities
must be designed for in the development permit stage in order to ensure new
developments can meet the increased demand for bicycle parking. Design
guidelines incorporated into the Parking By-Law would ensure minimum design
specifications for various uses.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 4 -
3) That intersection design continue to assume cyclists perform safe standard
vehicular left turns. as outlined in this report.
4) That all future interval clearance time calculations for signal
installation utilize calculated bicycle clearance intervals in cases where
they exceed that of a motor vehicle. where practical.
5) That special attention continue to be paid to vehicle-actuated signals on
priority I and II streets (see street Priority System) to ensure that
bicycles are being detected.
6) That symbolic railway crossing signs (showing angle of tracks) and cyclist
cautionary signs be placed before all shallow angle railway crossings.
7) That the City continue to negotiate with railway authorities to install
rubber flange fillers at shallow angle railway crossings.
8) That roadside asphalt drainage diverters be marked. where practical. to
improve detection under poor visibility circumstances.
9) That bicycle access through traffic barriers be considered on a site
specific basis.
10) That all future roadway projects be designed to include cyclists on the
road. In situations where such on-road access is unsafe that an
alternative safe, direct. and convenient bicycle facility be provided. if
practical.
11) That the City of Vancouver incorporate minimum bicycle parking
requirements into the Vancouver Parking By-Law for all new developments.
12) That the Engineering and Planning Departments continue to pursue minimum
recommended bicycle parking in all new developments at the development
permit stage. using the existing floor space ratio exemption as an
incentive.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 5 -
13) That the eXisting street and Lanes Maintenance Program continue to
identify and repair bicycle hazards.
14) That the Park Board consider the following recommendations in order to
alleviate present cyclist/pedestrian conflicts on the Stanley Park Seawall:
A) In order to alleviate cyclist/pedestrian conflicts at Second Beach,
Third Beach and Lumberman's Arch, designated pedestrian crossings
should be established. Pedestrian crosswalks should be painted on the
cycle path with offset warning lines and traffic control signs
requiring the cyclist to "stop". "Cyclist Dismount" signs should be
removed.
B) On route conflicts can be minimized through the use of "cyclists use
bell or voice when passing" signs, placed periodically along the route.
C) A printed, up-to-date safety code should be distributed along the route
during peak use periods and posted at key locations. Such a safety
code should be recommended reading for all bicycle renters.
D) A suggested speed limit for cyclists.
15) That B.C. Parkway consider the following recommendations for the 7-Eleven
Bicycle trail:
A) stop and Yield traffic control signs should be placed before all major
intersections on the trail.
B) "Use bell or voice when passing" signs should be placed periodically on
the trail.
C) Some on-street sections of the trail should be analysed for areas to
reduce potential conflict and improve signage. In particular, the
Grandview Highway to Clark Drive section should be reviewed.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 6 -
D) Bicycle access in the False Creek to Clark Drive section should be
considered during land development in this area.
16) That the Engineering Department and the Park Board consider the following
recommendations for the Habitat Bicycle Route:
A) As on the Stanley Park Seawall, "cyclist use bell or voice when
passing~ signs should be placed periodically along the route in high
pedestrian 'use areas. These areas include: Sunset Beach (and Burrard
Street Bridge - COMPLETED).
B) That the Burrard Street Bridge signage and access ramps be improved as
outlined in the Burrard Street Bridge Bikeway Report (COMPLETED).
C) Surface conditions, signage and conflicts should be reviewed in the
Kitsilano area.
17) That facilities for recreational cyclists be progressively prOVided,
wherever practicable, along railway reserves, ocean and river foreshores,
and highway rights-of-way.
Education
Education plays an integral role in the success of a Comprehensive Bicycle
Plan. Only through education of both the cyclist and the motorist can safe
road sharing be achieved. Parents, teachers, police officers, engineers,
planners, community leaders, bicycle retailers/renters, and the media all play
an important role in education and must all have an appreciation of the rights
and responsibilities of cyclists if they are to assist in the goal of safe and
responsible cycling.
Prime target groups for education include young children, school age children,
adult cyclists, and motorists. In order to ensure that each target group is
receiving sufficient applicable education, a sound education network governed
by a central education committee is recommended. Mandatory instructor
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 7 -
certification for on-road instruction, and the monitoring of in-class
instruction being taught through Vancouver schools and community centres would
achieve quality control and ensure a minimum level of competence.
Children below the age of nine account for approximately 17% of all
bicycle/motor vehicle accident injuries. Parents have the most important role
in the initial development of cycling skills for these children but,
unfortunately, the majority of them lack the necessary information.
School age children between the ages of 9 and 18 account for over 35% of all
bicycle accidents/injuries. Education of this target group should focus on
traffic skills. In order to ensure that students are receiving structured,
consistent information, education of this age group should be incorporated
into the school curriculum.
Adult cyclists account for over 47% of all serious cyclist injuries. Adult
cyclists must be made aware of the availability of bicycle courses and the
need for special skill development required for cycling in traffic. Many
motorists are unaware of proper bicycle lane positioning and passing
procedures. Potential and existing motorists must be educated on the rights
and responsibilities of cyclists as well as on road sharing techniques if safe
road sharing is to take place.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
18) That the terms of reference of the Vancouver Bicycle Advisory Committee be
expanded to include the role of a bicycle education adVisory board for all
bicycle education courses held by the Parks Board, the School Board and
the Police Department.
AND
That the representation on the committee be expanded to include
representatives from the School Board, the Park Board, and cycling
associations knowledgeable in the area of bicycle education (COMPLETED).
19) That all bicycle education courses offered through the Vancouver School
Board or Park Board, which include an on-road riding component, require
that instructors of such courses be certified by the Canadian Cycling
Association as qualified bicycle instructors.
- 8 -
20) That an 1nformat10nal brochure be made available for parents of ch11dren
under the age of nine. This brochure can be d1stributed through schools,
community centres, po11ce and reta11ers.
21) That the Vancouver School Board work with the Bicycle Adv1sory Committee
and involved agenc1es to introduce a bas1c bicycle safety course for
children under nine years of age using 'Effective Cycling ' techniques and
CCA certified instructors.
22) That the Vancouver School Board work with the B1cycle Advisory Committee
and involved agencies to introduce bicycle education as a compulsory part
of the elementary school curriculum for grades 4 to 7.
23) That the Vancouver School Board work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee
and involved agencies to introduce in-class bicycle education into
existing high school courses.
24) That an adult cyclist brochure be made available for distribution through
automobile associations, community centres and retailers.
25) That the Vancouver Park Board and community colleges and universities be
encouraged to expand their present bicycle education program to include
adult CCA Can-Bike courses at local commun1ty centres, campuses, etc.
26) That a 'road sharing ' brochure geared towards motorists be made available
outlining the rights and responsibilities of the cyclist and motorist on
the roadway. And that this brochure be made available through ICBC, BCAA,
B.C. Tel and bicycle organizations.
27) That driver training booklets and courses be revised to present cyclists
as an integral part of the road user environment, out11ning the rights and
responsiblit1es of cyclists. And that the driving test itself be revised
to test for such knowledge.
28) That a city-wide 'Share the Road! media campaign be introduced. And that
promotional material in this campaign include posters, bumper stickers,
T.V. and radio advertising.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 9 -
29) That a city-wide helmet campaign be implemented to reduce present cyclist
injuries.
30) That future mandatory helmet use be considered when the majority of
cyclists are voluntarily wearing helmets.
Enforcement
The third component of a successful bicycle plan is enforcement. Cyclist
behaviour is unlikely to improve unless the information reaching the cyclist
is reinforced through the enforcement of existing traffic laws and regulations
governing cyclists.
Existing laws and regulations are difficult to enforce due to staff
constraints, the dilemma of minimum age of legal responsibility, and cyclist
identification. For these reasons, a periodic short-term enforcement campaign
coupled with high media coverage has proven most effective. Enforcement
should be selective and continually re-evaluated to track conformance.
The licensing of cyclists/bicycles would be most effective province-wide.
/
Locally, administration costs required to run such a program would be passed
onto the cyclists as high licensing fees discouraging cycling. Licensing
would, however, be feasible for commercial cyclists (bicycle couriers) as a
means of identification and control. Such a licensing program for bicycle
couriers has subsequently been approved by Council.
Bicycle thefts in Vancouver can be controlled most effectively through the
RCMP Bicycle Identification Program, in which bicycles (including components)
are marked with the owners/parents drivers license to ensure quick owner
identification.
Enforcement on recreational facilities and in high volume traffic areas has
proven effective through the use of police officers on bicycles. Versatility
and manouverability in traffic account for the success of such "Bike Cop"
programs in other cities.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 10 -
0392e/254E/06/88
34) That the Vancouver Po11ce Department prepare an informational memo to all
on-street officers, outlining methods of identifying a stolen b1cycle.
35) That an informational pamphlet, out11ning cycling traffic laws and
regulat10ns, be supplied to all bicycle rental outlets for d1stribution to
rental customers.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vancouver Police Department 1n cooperation with the Bicycle
Comm1ttee run a One Week Bicycle Enforcement Campaign, as
in th1s report.
Vancouver Police Department cons1der working with local RCMP to
a Vancouver B1cycle Ident1f1cation Program to reduce bicycle
32) That the
Advisory
out11ned
33) That the
1nitiate
theft.
- by improved end-of-trip facilities
- by promotional/informational programs
- by intermodal trans1t links/facilities
RECOMMENDATIONS:
31) That a Commerc1al Bicycle Operator Licensing Program, as outlined in this
report, be 1mplemented in order to control the present downtown b1cycle
cour1er problem (COMPLETED).
36) That the Vancouver Po11ce Department cons1der the use of trained police
officers on b1cycles to enforce traff1c laws and regulations governing
cyclists on the Stanley Park Seawall and the Eng11sh Bay area.
Encouragement
Just as the proper use of improved engineering facilities is dependent on
cyclist educat10n and education is dependent on enforcement, so is the success
of all the proposed faci11ties and programs dependent on increased usage.
Cycling can be encouraged in three ways:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 11 -
The provision of end-of-trip facilities, such as parking, lockers and showers
at employment centres, can encourage an additional 2-4% of the workforce to
commute to work by bicycle. Unlike motor vehicles, the bicycle has little
protection against theft of it's components and no protection against
weather. For this reason, proper bicycle parking facilities in new
developments (as recommended earlier), and at public service outlets, play an
important role in encouraging city-wide cycling.
Promotional media campaigns outline the substantial benefits cycling has for
the individual and society and, at the same time, encourages the responsible
use of the bicycle, both as a transport and recreational vehicle.
Opening transit links to cyclists overcomes the distance barrier and opens up
the entire region to bicycle commuting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
37) That the City of Vancouver provide secure bicycle parking facilities at
Vancouver schools, libraries, community centres, parks, museums and other
public bUildings.
38) That private developers be encouraged to provide shower and locker
facilities in the development permit application stage.
39) That the Park Board continue to hold Bicycle Sundays with the objective of
encouraging safe cycling in Vancouver.
40) That fund raising cycling events be encouraged and supported by the City
of Vancouver whenever possible.
41) That B.C. Transit be requested to upgrade bicycle parking facilities at
all SkyTrain and Seabus stations as outlined in this report.
42) That B.C. Transit consider providing bicycle parking facilities at all
Park and Ride locations and off-street transit exchanges.
0392e/254E/0&/88
- 12 -
43) That individual municipalities be asked to consider providing bicycle
parking facilities at transit exchanges where off-street space ;s not
available.
44) That B.C. Transit consider:
i) allowing cyclists to use the SkyTrain system during non-peak
periods (similar to Montreal and San Francisco).
ii) permitting bicycles on the Seabus at all times to facilitate
North Shore commuting.
iii) equipping express buses from Surrey and Delta with external
bicycle racks to transport cyclists from major transit exchanges
to designated unloading points in downtown Vancouver (similar to
San Diego).
45) That B.C. Ferries Corporation consider providing improved bicycle parking
facilities on ferry car decks in order to safely encourage the present
increased trend towards recreational bicycle touring.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 13 -
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the popular1ty of cyc11ng in Vancouver has increased. No
longer 1s cycling an act1v1ty confined to children or those who cannot drive.
Its popularity has now spread to adults as a conven1ent mode of transportat10n
and recreational activ1ty. On an average weekday, over 47,000 b1cycle trips
are made in the Vancouver Central Metropolitan Area (ref. 19). This
resurgence of cycling accounts for over 2.3% of all vehicle trips.
The problems faced by Vancouver cyc11sts are unlike those faced by motorists
due to the design of the b1cycle, the vulnerabi11ty of the cyclist, and the
diversif1ed range of users 1n the cycling populat10n. In order to safely
integrate cyclists onto the roadway, four fundamental approaches must be
addressed, these are:
1) Engineering
2) Educat10n
3) Enforcement
4) Encouragement
The four Els of cyc11ng are 1nterdependent. The importance of each
fundamental area can be compared to the weakest link analogy in that the
success of a comprehens1ve b1cycle plan 1s only as great as the weakest
fundamental area. Education of the cyc11st 1s aided by the provision of
properly eng1neered fac111t1es, enforcement is only effective 1n the long term
through s1multaneous educat10n, and encouragement increases the cyc11ng base
to make use of the new and exist1ng fac11ities and programs.
The diff1culty encountered when des1gning b1cycle faci11t1es is the evident
wide range of users. The fast commuter cyclist who may blend in nicely with
traff1c on our roadway system can cause havoc on a recreational route. And in
turn the slow le1sure/recreat10nal cyc11st who f1ts ideally on designated
recreational routes can cause conflicts and congestion on the roadway system.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 14 -
Since this mixing of these two types of cyclists is inevitable we must do our
very best to design accordingly. No matter how ingenious the design, however,
it can never fully accommodate both types of cyclists and problems can be
expected. For this reason, a successful bicycle plan must not stop at good
engineering, it must also follow up with strict enforcement and proper
education. Disregard for traffic regulations must be dealt with by heavy
fines in order to ensure compliance. The public must be aware of what they
can and cannot do as cyclists. This is achieved through enforcement programs
and bicycle education programs encompassing the full spectrum of cyclists from
pre-schoolers to adults and motorists.
The final component of a successful bicycle plan is encouragement. New
facilities and programs are needed to encourage cycling. Once this final step
is achieved the full benefits of a bicycle conscious City are realized.
Decreased traffic congestion, less pollution, and a City-wide increase in
physical fitness are only a few of the many benefits.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 15 -
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE PLAN
The City of Vancouver wishes to encourage and promote the safe use of bicycles
for utilitarian and recreational purposes. Integration of the bicycle into
the existing transportation network and acceptance of the bicycle as a safe
and convenient mode of transportation is a primary goal and is achieved
through Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement goals.
ENGINEERING GOALS:
- To provide a safe and convenient cycling environment for the commuter,
recreational and commercial cyclist.
Improve the existing road network to better meet the needs of cyclists.
Objectives to achieve goals
1) Identify high volume cyclist commuter routes.
2) Ensure that all future planning and design for road construction include
provisions for cyclists with priority given to high cyclist volume routes.
3) Integrate the cyclist into the existing transportation network.
4) Improve existing facilities and propose future facilities (including
off-road bicycle paths) to accommodate the recreational cyclist.
EDUCATIONAL GOALS;
Promote the safe and responsible use of bicycles for transportation and
recreation
Achieve widespread acceptance of the bicycle as a legitimate vehicle whose
operator shares the same rights and responsibilities as that of a motor
vehicle operator in the "transportation network.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 16 -
Object1ves to achieve goals:
1) Define and encourage existing bicycle education programs.
2) Educate cyclists of all ages and all road users through exist1ng
commun1cat1on networks to improve road sharing sk1lls and attitudes.
ENFORCEMENT GOALS:
Improve cyclist and motorist compliance with eXisting municipal and
provincial laws.
Object1ves to ach1eve goals:
1) Inform the cyc11ng pub11c of ex1st1ng by-laws and regulations concerning
the use of b1cycles.
2) Expand exist1ng bicycle enforcement to include a selective bicycle
enforcement program.
ENCQURAGEMENT GQALS:
Encourage the use of bicycles for commut1ng and recreat10nal purposes.
Object1ves to ach1eve goals:
1) Improve end of tr1p facilities.
2) Improve intermodal trans1t l1nks/facilities for cyclists.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 17 -
CYCLING AND CYCLISTS IN VANCOUVER
In order to best improve the cycling environment for Vancouver cyclists, it is
important to first define who our target group is, what volumes we are dealing
with, and the unique requirements Vancouver cyclists may have. Statistical
information on Vancouver cyclists was gathered from two surveys: The 1985
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Origin/Destination Survey (ref.
19), and the 1987 Vancouver Bicycle Survey (see IVancouver Bicycle Surveyl).
The GVRD Survey consisted of a 5% telephone sampling of households in the
Vancouver Central Metropolitan Area (CMA). The survey ran from September 9 to
December 2, 1985 and was performed on weekdays (from Monday to Friday).
One in every three Canadians rides a bicycle (Fitness Canada survey). The
number of adult cyclists across North America is increasing, while the number
of child cyclists remains stable (ref. 20). This increase in adult cycling is
generally due to the public's increasing awareness of cycling as an effective,
enjoyable, inexpensive means of transportation. In Vancouver (CMA), over
47,000 bicycle trips are made on the average weekday (ref. 19). If we include
all modes of transportation, we note that 1.4% of all trips are made by
bicycle. If we convert this to vehicle trips including automobiles and buses*
we note that approximately 2.3% of all vehicle trips in Vancouver (CMA) are
made by bicycle**. This means that on an average weekday, 2.3% of all the
vehicles on the road are bicycles. Since approximately 70% of these trips are
made during the morning and afternoon rush-hours, we can conclude that the
majority of the bicycle trips made in Vancouver are for commuting purposes
(whether education or work) on an average weekday.
* Assuming 60 passengers per bus (ref. 21)
** It should be noted that these figures may be under-representative of the
true values due to the fact that of the 60 day GVRD survey period 30 days
had rain and/or very cold temperatures.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 18 -
Shopplnv (S.B") P.-.onal (4.4")
~-...,..---
Wortc (UUS")
FIGURE 1 - BICYCLE TRIPS BY TRIP PURPOSE
VANCOUVER 1985 (ref. 19)
This fact is clearly reflected in Figure 1, where employment and education
trips account for over 14% of all bicycle trips. Leisure or family cyclists
make up a strong 15% during an average weekday, and shopping trips, personal
trips and commercial cyclists make up the remaining 11% of all bicycle trips.
The current local statistics further enforce the national trend towards
commuting cycling .. Contrary to popular belief, cycling is no longer an
activity confined to children or those who do not have a drivers license.
Figure 2 illustrates the fact that over 36% of Vancouver cyclists are aged 20
and over and an additional 16% are age 15 to 19 years.
0392e/201E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSION:
1) Cycl1ng 1n Vancouver 1s no longer conf1ned to ch11dren or those who do not
have a dr1vers l1cense. nor 1s cycl1ng pr1mar11y a recreat10nal act1v1ty.
Cycl1ng has become a w1dely used mode of transportat10n and plays an
1ncreas1ngly 1mportant role 1n the urban transportat10n system.
- 19 -
0392e/213E/02/88
80+10-14 15-11 20-25 21-30 J1-JI 40-51
Ave Croup
5-1
FIGURE 2 AGE STRUCTURE OF CYCLING POPULATION
VANCOUVER 1985 (ref. 19)
0-4
oJzz~-
15
14
1J
12
11
•
10
11
=,... I~1 I
'01
::I 7~ 0It. I
::I
Z 5
4
J
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 20 -
VANCOUVER BICYCLE SURVEY
The 1987 Vancouver Bicycle Survey was prepared and distributed specifically to
provide input for the Vancouver Bicycle Plan. The survey was designed to find
out how Vancouver cyclists perceive the present cycling environment, and
specific ways of improving it. The survey also deals with safety issues and
illegal practices in order to better tailor proposed Vancouver Education and
Enforcement programs to Vancouver cyclists. The survey consisted of 11
questions (2 pages + map) and was distributed to all members of the Bicycling
Association of B.C. (BABC), the Vancouver Bike Club (VBC), community centres,
and bicycle shops. In order to help identify bicycle commuter routes, the
survey also included a map on which respondents were to show their regular
commuting route to and from work or school. The majority of survey
respondents were adults and were bicycle association and/or club members.
Nearly 600 survey forms were completed and returned, the results of which are
summarized in Figure 3. The average age of respondent was 32.7 years, with a
gender breakdown of 70% male and 30% female cyclists. The majority of
cyclists (83%) own multi-speed bicycles with a significant number (31%) of
mountain bike owners. We can expect a further increase in mountain bike
owners due to their present increase in popularity. A surprisingly high
number of respondents have and use safety items such as helmets (60%), lights
(65%), red rear reflectors (67%), and reflective vests (35%). This is partly
due to the survey population which consisted of mainly cycling advocates who
are aware of the benefits of safety equipment. In general, helmet use in most
cities is below 10%. Helmet use in Vancouver is more realistically at 10%.
The majority of Vancouver cyclists surveyed stated they ride for fitness (85%)
and enjoyment (83%). This response would hold for both commuter and
recreational cyclists. Over half (54%) of the respondents ride their bicycle
as an inexpensive means of transportation even though they may own a motor
vehicle. This further enforces the earlier discussion that adult cyclists are
choosing to ride their bicycle by choice and not because they have no other
means of transportation.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l'l.u••tt.cJiPl.. If ..re sp.ce "r.... lred)
(SEE COf1M£RTS1
""'
9%
21%
44%
19%
17%
33%
10 53%
'" 47%
,. lIll.t Is ,our: M 70%
•• At. 32.7 Ave bl Stx F 30%
.unn'n, ••• I'ghts
.unn'nt Stop S'.ns
.1.ln. throU9~ Crossw.lts In Us.
.1.lng on Sldew.lk Cor crossw.lts.
C,cllnt .t light V.th 10 L••hts
.'.'nt ••••nst th. 'low 0' tr."'c
•• H.w. }OU .wer hid • blcrel. stol.n'
cl 'ost.1 c.... Tlfr.or::-:s:':o=r(l'1tr:...::-:::on::T.Ir:1'j
10. I' rou e~t. by blcxcle, show on tho .tt.ched -ap lQUr rtlUlar royt••
IIt How could w. l!pro.. our Ctty for ereltsts? (speclf, probl...... on _, btlowl
II H... J!!!! hid .ny b'crel. ICc'.ents? If so. "".t tm'
f.1I 42% C.rll.t. 35% ,llt.lI.h 12% IIh/•••tstr'u 5% IIh!Dot 7% Other
71 Do rou en,.,. 'n .ny 0' the 'ollow'ns .11.,.1 pr.ct'c's'
For 'urth.r h,'or81tlon. 'I.... cont.ct th. '.lICow.r IIc,cl........ Coor.'n.tor. ttlrt,
'osplseh'l••t 113-1'11.
CIl1 01 Yancoww
'AII:OU¥D IIC'Q.£ s..,n 1111
'1111., I. t~l.....tl....lr. ee. "I, Y. cre.t•• bettor c,cll., Iftwlron.ent 'or .11 In
, ••COtI..r.
111. IIc,cl. 'I'OIr. Coor.....tor 0' UII Cit, byl..orln, lIep.rt_t .. COIIJYlICtion "ltIt the
' ••CIOy..r IIc,cl. Adwllor, C_ltt. Is prep.r n, • Co..rth.ltwe Itc,cl••I.n 'or
. '.lICoyw.r. To.o t~11 WI req.'r. JOur 'np.t 'n t~11 .ser surwe,. 'I••s. "11 owt the
qu.ltlonAl're .nd r.tyra 't to the Cit, (n"ne.r'ng Dep.rt..nt, Cit, H.II. 453 Welt 12th
Aw•••• '.lICoyw.r. I.C•• '5' 'Z' b, Octob.r I'. 1'.1 'n the .tt.chld .nw.lap. Cno POlt...
Mc r,••
It t te of b'crd. do J!! hne?
10 Cor ......pHlI 83 % I" 2% Mollllt••• lit. 31 % st",I. Cor 31 Spe.. 5%
II IIhlch 0' the 'ollow'n, ..,.tr It....0 J!!! ~'WI .nd Yle:
IIII..l 66% U,ht. lid Rear ••fI.elor 65% ••flectl.. , ..tl 35%
Jt IIIIr do I!!!I r ••• l!Il!' b'excle?
fit.... 85% 1...,.••1.. Tr.nsport.tlon 54% £nJo,...t 83%
10 other •••• of t,.nlport.t Ion 10% Ot~or _
41 lIII.t .'SCO"',.I rou 'r.. r'.'" JOur bl'"
....t~.r51% .....r. C.r 'or'" 11% Iolnd 0' Tr" facllltill C••rt ..... ShOWlrl123
' ••r 0' Tr.fflc 35% Poor loa. Condit 'onl 24 % D'IIIt. Hili. 3 % D'IIIt. 'r'.g.d 0
Oth.r -----
II !:!,!u_~~11!!oth.r lIOCIel 0' tr.nsportatlon wlth,b'cld'n, on nvr tr'p to ",rt, If '0'1
Ius 6% AlIT 2% St.. 1S c... 14% Ferr, 2% Oth.r
.1.... tYrn ower •••••••
Fi9ur~~ ..:. Y~~couver Bicycle Survey Results, 1987
- 22 -
Just over half of cyc11sts surveyed (51%) are d1scouraged from r1ding their
bicycle 1n adverse weather conditions. A significant number (35%) have a fear
of traffic. These facts express the need for adult educational programs which
deal w1th heavy traffic sk111s and r1d1ng in adverse weather conditions. The
need for improved road ma1ntenance/design in some areas was perce1ved by a
quarter of those surveyed s1nce they are d1scouraged from rid1ng due to poor
road cond1tions (24%) and lack of end of tr1p fac11ities (23%).
The fact that intermodal transit use with cyc11ng is so low is most likely due
to the lack of cyc11ng facilities at major trans1t nodes. The demand for such
fac11it1es increases w1th the availab111ty of cyc11ng fac111ty.
Bicycle acc1dent results were as expected w1th the two most prominent accident
types falls (42%) and car/bike (35%). It was also observed that the majority
of those respondents who had been 1nvolved in one or more types of accidents
also noted that they frequently partake in one or more 111egal practices.
Riding on the sidewalk (44%) was the most common 111egal practice with running
stop signs (33%) close behind. One 1n every five cyclists runs red lights
(21%), r1des through crosswalks 1n use (19%) and cycles at n1ght without
lights (17%). Also, a significant number of cyclists are st111 rid1ng against
the flow of traff1c (9%). These supr1singly h1gh proport10ns of intentional
violations just1fy the need for 1ncreased enforcement.
Almost half (47%) of those surveyed had had the1r bicycle stolen at one time.
Theft prevent10n programs should be provided if Vancouver's h1gh theft rate 1s
to be reduced.
Additional written comments from the survey showed an overall concern with the
provis10n and ma1ntenance of cycling fac11ities.
* 37 percent of the respondents wanted more b1cycle lanes/paths (th1s
1ncludes both on and off road segregated facilities), (see 'Cyclist
Integrat10n vs. Segregation l for a complete discussion of bicycle lanes).
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0392e/254E/06/88
* 33 percent wanted improved on-street road cond1tions through wider lanes,
improved road maintenance and removal of debris and glass. Areas of major
concern were:
The high demand for bicycle lanes/paths is based on cyclists ' experience with
segregated bicycle paths kept in good condition and the fear of traff1c
experienced by novice cyclists who have not yet learned how to ride safely on
busy streets. On-street b1cycle lanes, wh1ch we presently do not have in
Vancouver, are not recommended due to the cyclist/motorist conflicts they
create and the increase in bicycle acc1dents which result from such lanes (see
'Cyclist Integrat10n Vs. ~egregat,onl).
SW/NW Marine Drive (6%)
Cornwall Avenue/Point Grey Road (2%)
Most
motorist
- 23 -
35 percent wanted 1mproved cyclist/motorist educat10n programs.
recommended public awareness programs, 1n-school education, and
pre-licens1ng education.
19 percent wanted increased enforcement of cyclists who violate existing
traffic laws and regulations. Many cited downtown cour1ers as being the
major offenders.
7 percent wanted improved bicycle parking facilities at major transit
centres, commun1ty centres, libraries, schools, parks and other public
service outlets.
19 percent wanted improved br1dge access and more frequent cleaning of
debris and glass.
4 percent wanted improved b1cycle access to the Seabus, ALRT and express
buses.
*
*
*
*
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
- 24 -
CONCLUSION:
1) Analysis of the survey route maps shows that all streets are being used as
commuter routes, with bicycle traffic volumes greatest on major
arterials. Major trip generators are UBC and the Downtown Core.
Recreational routes show high usage of street to/from the UBC area (NW/SW
Marine Drive, Cornwall Avenue, etc.) and to/from Stanley Park (Burrard
Bridge, Beach Avenue, etc.). Vancouver cyclists express the need for
improvement to the present cycling environment, improved on-street
commuter facilities and off-street recreational facilities being of major
importance. Vancouver cyclists strongly support the need for education
and enforcement programs for cyclists and motorists in order to control
the evident high disregard for traffic laws and regulations. A smaller,
but still significant, number of Vancouver cyclists seek improved end of
trip facilities and intermodal transit links.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Year
- 25 -
0392e/207E/02/88
188818~11841883
200 4--------r------....... ,....-------~-------t
1982
800
•..
c
•'0
Ii
~
'0
..
•.a 400E
~
z
300
BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
700 ......------------------------------jp
FIGURE 4 - ANNUAL REPORTED BICYCLE ACCIDENTS. VANCOUVER 1982-86 (ref. 28)
Reported acc1dents represent only a small proport1on of serious 1njury
acc1dents 1nvolv1ng cyc11sts. One Austra11an survey has shown that for every
reported accident 1nvolv1ng a cyc11st, there are apprOXimately 30 wh1ch are
not reported (ref. 1). In Vancouver the number of reported bicycle/motor
vehicle accidents has 1ncreased by over 200% s1nce 1982* (see Fig. 4). Even
tak1ng 1nto account better report1ng, 1ncreased b1cycle use and insurance
cla1ms, th1s marked 1ncrease in the number of bicycle acc1dents prov1des cause
for concern.
*The present VPD computer acc1dent database f1elds are being expanded to
1nclude all b1cyc1e acc1dents, not only those 1nvolv1ng motor veh1cles.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0392e/201E/02/88
FIGURE 6 - BICYCLE ACCIDENTS BY ACCIDENT TYPE, VANCOUVER
(Vancouver B1cycle Survey. 1981)
Int.-..ctn Mldblock Driwway Lane Partcad. BrIdge
FIGURE 5 - BICYCLE ACCIDENTS BY STREET LOCATION, VANCOUVER (ref. 28)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rail (41.0lIl)
- 26 -
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
,
0.1c
•" ,..,
-. 0.11u"~c
... 11 0.7o ::J
~ 0It- 0.8
e o.~::J
Z
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 27 -
In order to analyse acc1dent cause, Figure 5 shows the street location of all
bicycle accidents from 1982-86. From this f1gure we observe that the acc1dent
10cat10n distr1but10n for bicycles parallels that of motor veh1cles. 54% of
all reported acc1dents occurred at intersect10ns. 35% of all bicycle
acc1dents occurred m1d-block and 8% at driveways. The majority of bicycle
acc1dents occurred at intersections and driveways due to the directional
conflicts that occur at these 10cat10ns. From the Vancouver Bicycle Survey,
we note that the most common type of b1cycle accident is the fall (42%)
closely followed by the car/bike (35%) col11s10n (see F1g. 6). S1nce car/b1ke
acc1dent types are the only form that are presently being reported on, we can
conclude that approx1mately 65% of all other Vancouver b1cycle accidents
presently go unreported. Accord1ngly, the Vancouver Police Department
acc1dent database is be1ng expanded to 1nclude all b1cycle accidents, not only
those involv1ng motor veh1cles. This will allow for future analys1s of falls,
bike/bike, bike/pedestr1an and bike/dog acc1dents.
Age
The number of accidents varies cons1derably w1th the age and experience of the
cyc11st (see F1gure 7). It 1s observed that the 10-14 year age group has the
highest number of b1cycle accidents requir1ng hospital admission. In addition
to the fact that the 10-14 year age group has the highest bike use (32%), the
increasing rate of accidents up to th1s age group can also be attr1buted to an
increase 1n tr1p lengths and exposure to more severe traffic condit10ns. (see
Fig. 2). Increased on-road experience and the development of per1pheral
vision, physical cond1t10ning and reflexes account for the gradual decrease in
the acc1dent rate following the 10-14 year peak. The obtainment of a drivers
license and a general 1ncrease in traffic awareness further account for the
drop 1n acc1dents for the 15-19 year age group. Accidents in the 50+ age
group may be mainly attr1buted to deteriorating physical cond1t10n and
reflexes. It has been found in an Austra11an survey that accidents involv1ng
child cyc11sts were usually (70%) 1n1t1ated by the cyclist, whereas adult
cyc11st accidents were usually (60%) in1t1ated by the motor1st (ref. 2).
0392e/254E/06/88
- 28 -
0392e/254E/06/88
Weather
If we look at weather as a contributing factor (see Figure 8) we observe that
73% of all reported accidents occurred in ideal, dry weather conditions and
only 26% occurred in wet or muddy conditions. Winter conditions resulted in
only 0.6% of all accidents. This is most likely due to the fact that the
majority of cyclists are fair-weather cyclists who do not ride in wet or
winter weather conditions. It is therefore impossible to draw conclusions
from the above data without the percentage of cyclists who are
fair-weather-only cyclists.
TABLE 1
CYCLIST FATALITIES INVOLVING HEAD INJURIES - B.C. &VANCOUVER (ref.3)
(YEAR: 1982 - 1986)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(8) 0
(5) 1
( 11 ) 1
(3) 0
(11 ) 0
(4) 0
(13) 2
( 5) 2
(14) 0
(4) 0
(57) 5
(23) 3
TOTAL
( BC) VANC
40 +
VANC
( 1)
(1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
(1)
(7)
(6 )
(1) 1 (3)
(1) (3)
( 1)
( 1)
(3) 1
( 1) 0
30 - 39
( BC) VANC ( BC)
(2 )
(2) 1
( 1) 1
(2 )
(4)
( 1 )
(13) 3
( 4) 1
( 3)
(2 )
20 - 29
(BC) VANC
(6 )
( 1)
(4)
( 6)
( 2)
( 7)
( 1)
( 4)
(1)
10 - 19
(BC) VANC
( 1)
(3 )
( 1)
( 1)
( 2)
( 1 )
( 3)
(10) 0 (24) 0
(2) 0 (8) 1
- 10
(BC) VANC
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
HEAD
INJURY
YEAR OF
DEATH
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
TOTAL
0392e/207E/02/88
Dry Wet Muddy Snow/Ice
FIGURE 8 - REPORTED BICYCLE ACCIDENTS BY WEATHER CONDITION (ref. 28)
Vancouver 1982-86
• Group
FIGURE 7 - BICYCLE ACCIDENTS REQUIRING HOSPITAL ADMISSION
BY AGE GROUP ref. 27 Vancouver 1985-861.8 ..,....---"===::O:::::::::==:::::::::;:===-.=:======~================'=!~.:.=.;:....::.:.... ---,
1.1
1.7
1.8
1.15
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.8
0.1
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 ~IIII
O~~~~;{L.d_---li{LL;i{LL;~~~_----J(LL.~~~~ :Il::Il:f=_1I:IIZl
!
i
v .....
u·~]
a
....
o ;,
.. 0JE.
E;,
z
- 29 -20
18
11
17
18
15
14
13
12
.. 11c
• 10e
• 8Cl.
I
7
8
5
4
3
2
1
0
0-4 5-8 10-14 15-18 20-24 25-28 30-38 40-58 80+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 30 -
N1ght R1d1ng
Only 8% of all the bicycle trips 1n Vancouver are made at n1ght between the
hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. (ref. 19). For the purpose of our analys1s
we have assumed that on average the hours of darkness fall between 7:00 P.M.
and 7:00 A.M. In actual fact the true hours of darkness vary throughout the
year. Desp1te th1s fact, over 19% of all reported accidents in Vancouver in
1986 occurred at night between the hours of 7 P.M. and 7 A.M. Accidents which
occur dur1ng the hours of darkness are significantly more 11kely to be fatal
(Ref. 1). Desp1te these facts only 65% of the cyclists surveyed 1n Vancouver
have both an operational front 11ght and rear reflector, and only 35% own a
reflective vest. The cycling public must be encouraged to own and use the
appropr1ate safety equ1pment for n1ght r1d1ng 1n order to decrease these
accident statist1cs.
Injuries
Over 36% of all bicycle accidents in Vancouver requlrlng hospital admission
resulted in some type of head injury whether it be a fractured skull,
intracranial or an open head wound (see F1g. 9, Appendix B). From 1982-86,
60% of all cyc11st fata11ties in Vancouver involved head injur1es (see Table
1). This value drops to 40% province wide.
It is very fortunate that the most common cyclist injury, the head injury, is
also one that can be most easily prevented through the use of an approved
hard-shell helmet. The two approving author1t1es of b1cycle helmets in North
America are the Snell Memor1al Foundation and the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). The Canad1an Standards Associat10n (CSA) are in the process
of preparing a Canadian standard for b1cycle helmets. The CSA helmet standard
is due to be completed 1n 1988. Various safety conscious c1ties across North
America have 1ntroduced helmet or bicycle safety campaigns 1n order to
encourage the use of helmets (see 'Helmet Campa1gn l ).
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 31 -
Fractured limbs result from 46% of all cyclist accidents and fractured spine,
dislocations, internal chest, open wound and superficial injuries account for
the remaining 18% of all bicycle accident injuries. These injuries are
generally unpreventable by means of protective safety equipment, except when
visibility is considered. Proper education of the cyclist and the motorist
are essential elements in the prevention of all accidents.
40...,...-----------------------------,
..
i
e
•Il.
>, "'C.o ~~ c .... >, ~~ ~~ QJ E 0 Itl~ QJ
~ ~ ..... ~ ..... ..... C::~ ~ ..... .r=
.f""') ~-J ~-J +oJ ~ .f""') ~c. +oJ
C +oJ +.J to QJC:: +.JV') 0
-
u ~ U~ U +oJ_ U
to QJ tOQJ 0 C to
"'C ~ c. ~3 ....
_ +oJ
~
to u.,; C. u..O
'" '"
u..
QJ ~ -J ..... QJ
::r: c .r=u
FIGURE 9 - CYCLIST INJURIES BY INJURY TYPE, VANCOUVER 1985-86 (ref. 27)
0392e/207E/02/88
- 32 -
ENGINEERING
The engineering component of a successful comprehensive bicycle plan is the
foundation on which the entire plan is supported. The essential facilities
which the cyclist requires can be provided through proper cycling
transportation engineering. Only when a strong engineering foundation has
been established, can proper education, enforcement and encouragement take
place. In summary, the cyclist requires two basic facilities, these are:
1) Direct, convenient, and safe access to destination.
2) End of trip facilities.
CYCLIST INTEGRATION VS. SEGREGATION
As noted earlier, a major objective of the plan is to integrate the cyclist
into the transportation network by having cyclists share the road safely with
motor vehicles. Integration (onto the roadway) or segregation (through
separate pathways) has, in the past, divided cycling advocates in their
beliefs of the route to proper cycling transportation engineering. Only
today, through years of trial and error in a number of North American cities,
has integration of the cyclist onto the roadway proven to be the most
successful. This is the case for many reasons. For example, separated bike
lanes (pathways) have proven to present the following disadvantages:
o Give the cyclist a false sense of security (over-confidence)
resulting in less cautious traffic behaviour and a lower awareness of
the traffic situation.
o Place the cyclist in unexpected positions, especially at
intersections and mid-block driveways.
o Encourage wrong way riding, placing cyclists in more unexpected
locations for motorists and other cyclists.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 33 -
o Increase difficulty for motorists in negotiating turns at
intersections by adding to the turning arc.
o Require excessive right-of-way (disproportionate share of street).
As a result, bicycle accidents have been shown to increase by 2 1/2 times
where separated bike lanes have been introduced (ref. 11).
Integration of the cyclist onto the roadway on the other hand promotes the
bicycle as a vehicle. Only through shared usage of existing roadways can the
cyclist obtain widespread acceptance by the motorist.
The Engineer ensures proper integration of cyclists onto the roadway by
planning for all road users, including cyclists, in the initial design of the
roadway. Recommended provisions for the cycling component of traffic include
sufficient lane width, improved signage, hazard location/elimination and
proper location/configuration of on-street utilities, barriers, etc.
A cost-effective integration program requires the identification of
Vancouver's major cycling commuter routes so that improvement decisions can be
based on a street priority system.
COMMUTER ROUTES
Since there are over 1,400 km (900 miles) of roads within Vancouver city
limits it would seem only practical to improve our existing network to provide
safe and convenient commuter routes for cyclists rather than to construct a
segregated bicycle path network. Since funding is not available to improve
every street in Vancouver for cyclists, we must prioritize our street
network. In order to prioritize high-use cyclist commuter routes in the City
of Vancouver, the following steps were taken:
1) Identification of existing usage levels on all streets.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 34 -
0392e/254E/06/88
3) Analysis of reported bicycle/motor vehicle accidents and locations.
2) Location of major trip generators.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
heavy east-west cyclist
In particular the
commuter routes:
Burrard Street Bridge, Granville street Bridge, and Cambie Street Bridge.
The Point Grey area and Kitsi1ano area support
commuter traffic and some north-south traffic.
following streets are considered major cyclist
2)
EXISTING USAGE LEVELS
Bicycle origin/destination trip data was plotted on a City map (see Figure
10). The data used in the bicycle trip survey plot is from the 1985
Metropolitan Vancouver Origin/Destination Survey carried out by the Greater
Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). As noted earlier, the survey includes an
approximate 5% sampling of the population. The survey gives a good indication
of commuter trips as it was performed on weekdays only. Each response is
multiplied by an expansion factor to represent the true population.
Accordingly, each trip segment shown in Figure 10 represents approximately
twenty trips. Trip purposes include to/from work, education, leisure and
shopping. The origins and destinations of each trip are designated by GVRD
traffic zones. Some origin traffic zones have been grouped together (as
shown) for clarity.
The trends shown in Figure 10 are supported by respondents of the Vancouver
Bicycle Survey in which commuter route maps were included. From Figure 10 and
the Vancouver Bicycle Survey responses, the following conclusions can be drawn.
PRIORITY I
1) All the downtown bridges serve as major cyclist commuter links to and from
the downtown area. In particular the following bridges are considered
major cyclist commuter links:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 35 -
Cornwall Avenue
Point Grey Road
4th Avenue
Broadway
10th Avenue
12th Avenue
16th·Avenue
Burrard street
Arbutus street.
3) University Endowment Lands Access roads support heavy east-west cyclist
commuter traffic. In particular the following streets are considered
major cyclist commuter route~:
4th Avenue
10th Avenue
16th Avenue
41st Avenue
S.W. Marine Drive
4) The Dunbar, Arbutus, Shaughnessy, South Cambie, Riley Park, and Kensington
areas in Central Vancouver support heavy cyclist commuter traffic in both
the north-south and east-west directions (see Appendix A for Local
Areas). These areas generate large volumes of commuters internally and
also support downtown through traffic from South Vancouver in addition to
east-west through traffic.
PRIORITY II
5) The Southlands, Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Marpole, Sunset,
Victoria-Fraserview, Killarney, and Renfrew-Collingwood areas support
moderate cyclist commuter traffic in all directions.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 36 -
PRIORITY III
6) The Hastings-Sunrise, Grandview-Woodlands areas support relatively low
volumes of cyclist commuter traffic. Very few trips originate or
terminate in these areas.
From the above observations we are able to prioritize all streets within the
City in terms of degree of usage. We must, however, question why some areas
have lower usage than others. The fact that cyclists are not using some areas
may be due to the fact that the existing facilities are inadequate. Should
this be the case, a priority system based on usage alone may further
discourage commuting along potential routes. For this reason, potential
upgrading in low priority areas should always be considered when the
opportunity presents itself. Nevertheless, as an encouragement objective,
street improvements will be pursued more rigorously on the high priority
commuter routes.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f 1
n.C"fll••arl
-.~
.-... ..
.~." f'
., /";'~.:+:.-
r-----".",..."", ,.
•
•I
_.,
I
•
•I
i
••
19)
•
•r·_-.-··~··-··--..",IY' ,.n
.. - ~
, .... , , ..
...._.." ...-
--T ',";;Z--"T'"
.... .. .. ...
.'---.-'.""
'IU'CIPAL 'IOIOUeIJAI.1
CITY 0' VANCOUVla
I""" COL'. III
Vancouver Bicycle Trips
GVRD OlD Surrey 1985 (Ref.
•
..e,e TA,PI ..
..... , ~aOtr••,
,;
:igure 10 -
Lla•• :
~~ ...ltl·
'-----.,
~ .
-_ .
..,,,.-
- 38 -
TRIP GENERATORS
The maior trip generators in Vancouver are:
1) The Central Business District
2) The University of British Columbia (UBC).
Accordingly, a high priority should be given to improving bicycle access to
and from these areas. As noted in the previous discussion, these above two
major trip generators create heavy east-west flow in the West Point Grey and
Kitsilano areas in addition to heavy east-west and north-south flow in the
central Vancouver areas.
The minor trip generators in Vancouver include:
1) Elementary schools.
2) High schools.
3) Community centres and recreation areas.
Due to their abundance in Vancouver, minor trip generators are generally
responsible for only short distance trips. Such trips usually fall within one
traffic zone utilizing local residential streets as opposed to arterial
commuter routes. As a result, minor trip generators do not have a direct
impact on the development of a street priority system. Local cycling access
concerns to/from minor trip generators should be included, however, when local
street improvements are considered.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"'-·-.N----.v=
..r" .....
AD."":
.......
....,
.._.. ...,
-_..-
\.....1 LGUI""'
•
IIi
--I r,. ",-.
....N.
.-.ILL
I
I'"''''::.--
4"" _.
II II I~ I \ !!
~- ...
"".... DI,
.- ••IIMT 'T. "10'1
I
:'i
--+--..,. i• •• •r~~~. II.
BURRARD IlLEr
•
•
LA.'''.
"L~
c......
..
I ;;"'DO~ -~;.
•
•
i
•
•
Figure 11 - Accident Locations (Ref. 28)
Vancouver, 1987
- 40 -
ACCIDENT LOCATION
In order to locate high accident areas, all reported bicycle/motor vehicle
accidents in Vancouver for 1987 were plotted on a City map (see Figure 11).
Following an analysis of Figure 11 we note that the majority of all reported
bicycle accidents take place on major arterials. The high accident rate areas
do not directly coincide with high volume bicycle use areas (see Figure 10)
but instead are found to be those areas supporting high motor vehicle traffic
flows and medium to high bicycle traffic flows. The high accident rate in the
Central Business District can be mainly attributed to the large number of
downtown bicycle couriers (see 'Bicycle Couriers'). The combination of heavy
motor vehicle traffic and moderate to high bicycle traffic results in a high
proportion of bicycle accidents. These areas include all major streets
located in the Central Business District, Broadway (East of Arbutus), Burrard
street (north of Broadway), Cambie street (north of King Edward), and Main
street. It can be concluded that moderate to high volume bicycle flow routes
located on high volume motor vehicle routes should be considered high priority
routes due to the evident increase in danger to the cyclist and motorist in
these areas.
STREET PRIORITY SYSTEM
Combining our observations of present priority 1, II and III usage levels,
major trip generators, and reported accident locations, the street priority
system map can be generated (see Figure 12). This mapping process allows for
more detailed decisions to be made as to the location and types of required
bicycle improvements. The street priority system can be used as a gUideline
for all future street design/construction and improvement projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That the street priority system, detailed in this report, be recognized as
a system to determine where bicycle requirements should be considered in
road design and future improvement projects.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - -------- - - -- -
.......'
,,,. _.
II....
~.a.L
.IT -.
ADAue
...,••__ llIIY
III"
I:
I
...1 ..f. A".
I
I
i
Illill.
l!§
J.--- I « ,at. .... M.
. ...............
.-....H' If.
:::1:::1,
I ~~.IDO~i
....
I
I
PRIORITY 1 STREETS
c
-.,10'.
---...-
~..-1...,~,r~~"-~....~--~.,~........;a;.;~;;;;~j:.,~,.lC" ill' ....
~ i ~ I ~
.... 1- ~ ~ __
~ ~ ~ --u. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1. II~IIII~III II -_ III
~ ~ ~ ~I~III.
~I i !~ ~i I I ~
~PI~...-d.--_.. .'If -- ~~...,..-,-...-I.I(III~ """"-'111(111
~111~--3';~1~111 II IIIII~'III
-_ ~ __ U.,AU ~
- -.-. ~;~~ -- C':::I ~~ I ni <
q.. ? - ~.. __ ~ I Ii
SEll ... "'III __ ~~ ~ s
~t, --~.,. :-..P~~~ I //
Figure 12 - Vancouver Street Priority ~(<< ~
System ~ ~~
1'11111 PRIORITY 2 STREETS
- 42 -
REVIEW OF DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
The design standards to which new roads in Vancouver are built are derived
from the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (RTAC) Manual of
Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads. RTAC does deal with separated
bicycle facilities in its pUblication "Guidelines for the Design of Bikeways",
1983. As noted earlier our main objective of this plan is to integrate the
cyclist into the existing transportation network without the means of
separated bike facilities. The RTAC design guidelines for streets are derived
to best meet the needs of motor vehicle traffic under various situations. The
RTAC design guidelines do not deal explicitly with the needs of the cyclist
when shared usage is concerned but recommended widths are adequate. RTAC
guidelines are desirable goals which are not always possible to meet in a
developed urban area like Vancouver. For this reason, Vancouver has developed
its own policy manual for street widths. However, to accommodate the shared
use of bicycle traffic, particularly high priority routes, revised design
standards for Vancouver should be implemented.
Lane Widths
Wider outside lanes are required to facilitate the safe integration of
cyclists onto the roadway. Wider outside lanes have the follOWing benefits:
1. motorists are able to overtake cyclists more safely.
2. eliminate motorist delay.
3. reduce tension between motorists and cyclists.
4. increase the attractiveness of cycling through increased safety.
5. increased maneuverability for trucks and buses.
Without sufficient lane width, motorist delay and unsafe passing conditions
are unavoidable. Motorist delay increases with increased combined motorist
and cyclist volume. Wider outside lanes reduce the tension between motorists
and cyclists since there is sufficient room for passing and the motorist is
not delayed. With wider outside lanes, the novice cyclist is not required to
sacrifice safety by riding as close to the curb as possible, and more
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 43 -
1mportantly, can ride at a safe d1stance from parked veh1cles av01d1ng parked
car door col11sions. Exper1enced cyc11sts will not sacr1fice safety and are
certa1nly not requ1red to do so. The w1dth at which a lane is considered safe
for motorists and cyclists 1s a function of two factors; these are:
1. whether we are considering a two lane or mult1lane roadway, and
2. the speed limit on the roadway.
In Vancouver, all roadways are des1gned to be 4 or 6 lane roadways. Speed
l1m1t is important since motor1sts tend to wander more at higher speeds and
more clearance 1s requ1red to alleviate dangerous a1r turbulence from pass1ng
cars/trucks. The lane w1dth must also account for such decreased dr1ving
accuracy control at h1gher speeds.
The recommended lane w1dths pub11shed in Cyc11ng Transportat10n Engineering,
and B1cycle Transportation (ref. 4, 5 respect1vely) range from 12 feet to 16
feet, depending on speed and the number of lanes. In Vancouver, since we are
dealing w1th a blanket 50 Km/hr. speed lim1t and mult1lane roadways, the
recommended 12 foot or 3.66m lane width applies (ref. 5). This 12 foot
min1mum 1s also recommended in AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilit1es (ref. 29).
From field observat10ns 1n Vancouver, we note that a 3.6m m1n1mum curb lane
w1dth should be adopted for all future road construct10n. This allows for a
m1nimum width in which safe road shar1ng can take place between motor veh1cles
and bicycles. In cases where the curb lane is used for parking only and no
stripping of this park1ng is ant1cipated, this m1nimum curb lane w1dth may be
reduced to 3.5m.
In add1tion, 1n order to ensure proper lane pa1nt1ng procedures to reflect our
f1nd1ngs, the Transportat10n D1v1s10n Policy Procedure Manual (Sect10n E.12
Traffic Lane W1dths) should be amended as shown 1n Append1x K.
In Vancouver 1t is standard pract1ce to measure the curb lane width to the
curb face. This pract1ce 1s acceptable 1n the design only if there is a
0392e/254E/06/88
- 44 -
smooth transition between the asphalt edge and the gutter. Even a small
elevation change is not desirable to the cyclist. For this reason it is
important to ensure a smooth transition from asphalt edge to gutter on streets
designated as priority 1 and 2 routes (see Fig. 2). If this is not attainable
the lane widths should be increased.
RECOMMENDATION:
2) That the City of Vancouver Engineering Department road design standards
incorporate recommended lane widths, where practical, as outlined in this
report.
INTERSECTION DESIGN
As discussed under 'Bicycle Accidents', we noted that over 54% of all reported
accidents in Vancouver occur at intersections. This is the case due to the
large number of turning and crossing movements that occur at intersections.
The solution to reduce this high accident rate is not simply to provide
separate cyclist light phases or bike lanes due to the many constraints
already on the designer. The intersection capacity is controlled by the green
time and the number of lanes in each direction, among other factors. The
designer must vary the green time and the number of lanes in each direction in
order to obtain the optimum design. The more exclusive turning lanes, the
less lanes available for through movements. The more separate green phases
allotted, the less time available per phase.
PRINCIPLE:
The designer must incorporate the cyclist into the design without disrupting
the delicate balance of green time and lane allocation and without violating
any of the accepted intersection design principles.
The cyclist should be integrated into the flow of traffic without the use of
designated bicycle traffic lights or bicycle lanes. Bicycle traffic lights
and lanes not only encroach on the already delicate balance in the design of
the intersection, resulting in further traffic jams and delay, but also put
the cyclist in unexpected and unsafe positions (see also 'Cyclist Integration
Vs. Segregation ' ). The cyclists must also conform to the first traffic
principle in that he/she should make as many directional movements as possible
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 45 -
0392e/207E/02/88
FIGURE 13 - CYCLIST LANE POSITIONING FOR VARIOUS TURNING MOVEMENTS
I I
I I t
I 1,/
I 1/
I I:
,
\
\
\
....
' ...... - - 't - - -~-"-"--... ------
....I .... ,
I ----~----
I '- :::=::.a. __
...... ,
....
....
,
,
\
\
t I I1\ I I
II 'k
1\ I ,,~
I I \
I : I I \
: I \
~~ I ~
"'--~::..:.-----~----"" I
____ -.:::........." __ I
------l.
I
I
I
I
I
I
before reach1ng the 1ntersect10n (see F1g. 13). Cyc11sts mak1ng a r1ght turn
should be 1n the r1ght s1de of the r1ght lane. Cyc11sts travel11ng stra1ght
through should be 1n the centre (or left s1de) of the r1ght lane, allow1ng
r1ght-turn1ng veh1cles to proceed w1thout delay. Th1s pract1ce depends on
r1ght turn1ng volume and lane des1gnat10n. Cyc11sts turn1ng left should be as
close to the centre-11ne as poss1ble to allow through traff1c to proceed,
unless th1s lane 1s a des1gnated left-turn lane, 1n wh1ch case the cyc11st
should be 1n the r1ght s1de of th1s lane when mak1ng a left-hand turn. Th1s
pract1ce makes the cyc11st v1s1b1e and alerts motor1sts of the cyc11sts'
1ntent10n.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 46 -
Curb Lane (through movements and right-turn movements)
The curb lane at an intersection accommodates through movements and right turn
movements for both the motorist and the cyclist. Ideally the motorist should
merge right well before the intersection to allow the cyclist sufficient space to
merge left. Heavy through cyclist movements should be a factor in the
determination of the warrant of a right turn only lane. As both the motorist and
cyclist are continuing to share the same lane, the lane width approaching the
intersection should be maintained throughout the intersection (see 'Lane
Widths'). Parking should also be prohibited well before the intersection to
allow for proper merging.
Centreline Lane (left-turn movements)
The left or centreline lane at an intersection accommodates left-turn and through
movements for both the motorist and the cyclist. This is assuming all cyclists
perform a standard vehicular left turn from the left lane as opposed to the
alternate left turn method where the cyclist crosses the intersection in the
right lane, stops at the far corner, repositions the bicycle, and proceeds in the
new direction when clear. The alternate wide left turn (or nperimeter left
turn n) is commonly used by children and less experienced cyclists at high volume
traffic periods since it requires multiple lane changes.
The vehicular left turn is preferred by experienced cyclists over the wide left
turn for several reasons, these are:
the wide left turn places the cyclist in very dangerous locations at
corners A and B (see Figure 14) as a result of right turning motorists.
This conflict is further aggravated if more than one cyclist is
attempting to complete the wide left turn at one time.
the wide left turn tends to take a longer amount of time to complete
than the vehicular left turn due to the fact that a second green phase
is required for the wide left-turning cyclist to proceed from corners B
to C.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 47 -
FIGURE 14 - LEFT TURN CYCLIST MOVEMENTS
0392e/207E/02/88
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I ~.
J I
I I
I I
--------- I \
, \
. "
--------- I .... + -_-_-_-_-----
I ...
I "
-- -- ----- , '0-- -I ,, ,
, --------~~~-r-r--+-I--r-11c
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
the veh1cular left turn places the cyc11st 1n a h1ghly v1s1ble expected
pos1t1on whereas the w1de left turn does not.
Veh1cular style left turns do not requ1re any spec1al des1gn cons1derat1ons.
except when s1de by s1de lane shar1ng 1s cons1dered (see 'Turn1ng Lanes').
Nevertheless. separate left turn s1gnal phases are a real benef1t to cyc11sts
where the cyc11st/motor1st volume just1f1es the1r use.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 48 -
Turning Lanes (mid-intersection)
Existing turning lane widths are generally acceptable. Narrow turning lanes (3m,
10 ft.) will require the cyclist to turn nose-to-tail with the motorist. Where
high cyclist volumes justify the need for side-by-side sharing, a turning lane
width of 3.6m (12 ft.) is recommended (ref. 4).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
3) That intersection design continue to assume cyclists perform safe standard
vehicular left turns, as outlined in this report.
Traffic Signals
Present traffic signal timing is generally sufficient for cyclists when green
time is considered. In Vancouver the minimum green time for through traffic is 8
seconds with some separate turning phases at 6 seconds. Both of these green
times are sufficient for a cyclist to cross an intersection from a stationary
position. Green times should be a minimum of 5 seconds for cyclists (ref. 4).
Clearance time is defined as the time period from which the amber light appears
to when the opposing green appears. rhis interval includes 'amber time l and
'all-red time l • In Vancouver, clearance times are calculated using the process
shown in Appendix o.
If we calculated the required clearance times for bicycles at various sized
intersections, we note that in some cases a bicycle requires more time to clear
an intersection than does a motor vehicle (see Appendix 0). This is due to the
shorter vehicle length and lower velocity of the bicycle.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 49 -
0392e/213E/02/88
From F1gure 15 we observe that requ1red clearance t1mes for a bicycle exceed that
of a motor veh1cle at an 1ntersect10n w1dth of 14m for a 20 km/h b1cycle approach
veloc1ty and 22m for a 30 km/h b1cycle approach veloc1ty. The 20 km/h b1cycle
approach veloc1ty would apply to cyc11sts on non-arter1al res1dent1al streets.
Cyc11sts are generally not able to obta1n a greater veloc1ty on res1dent1al
streets due to the many frequent stops requ1red at stop s1gns and equal
1ntersect10ns. The 30 km/h b1cycle approach veloc1ty would apply to cyc11sts on
major arter1al streets. The cyc11st 1s able to ma1nta1n a h1gher veloc1ty on
major arter1als due to the fewer 1nterrupt10ns and 1ncreased r1d1ng 1ntervals.
Accord1ngly, 1t 1s recommended that the requ1red b1cycle clearance t1mes be used
1n the amber/all red 1nterval sett1ngs 1n cases where these clearance t1mes
exceed that requ1red by a motor veh1cle. Due to the demand for s1gnal t1m1ng and
the cost of resett1ng s1gnal 1ntervals 1t 1s recommended that th1s procedure be
1mplemented on new s1gnals and where the opportun1ty presents 1tself on ex1st1ng
s1gnals w1th emphas1s g1ven to pr10r1ty I and II routes.
Bi ke 20 km/h
Bike 30 km/h
MV 50 km/h
Bi ke 40 km/h
Bike 50 km/h
28212411 11 20 22
IrMr8ection WIdth (rNWrw)
FIGURE 15 - INTERSECTION CLEARANCE TIMES
7.5
7
1.5
,...
•
" •i
I
..... 5.5
r
F:
•
5
0
IC
~
I 4.5
U
4
3.5
3
1 10 12 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 50 -
RECOMMENDATION:
4) That all future interval clearance time calculations for signal installation
utilize calculated bicycle clearance intervals in cases where they exceed that
of a motor vehicle, where practical.
Detector Loops
Traffic detector loops are buried indicator loops which generate an
oscillating magnetic field. Metallic vehicles obstructing the magnetic field
create a current which is used to actuate a traffic signal. Traffic detector
loops are generally installed at intersections of major and minor streets.
Semi-actuated signals always refer to the cross-street signal only utilizing a
vehicle actuated controller as opposed to the main street. Fully actuated
signals are where both the main street and cross street are utilizing vehicle
activated controllers. The decision to use fixed time, semi-actuated, or
fully actuated controllers is based on the vehicle flow variation on both the
main street and the cross street. If the traffic flow varies greatly (20%)
from average to peak then an actuated signal is considered for that leg. This
is outlined in Table 2.
TABLE 2
SIGNAL CONTROLLER-TYPE DECISION TABLE (ref. 6)
Factor Fixed Semi- Fully Volume
Time Actuated Actuated Density
a) Main street Any Less More More
average to peak value than 20% than 20% than 30%
b) Main street Less Less More More
average hour than than than than
variation 20% 20% 20% 30%
c) Cross street Less More More More
average hour than than than than
variation 20% 20% 20% 30%
d) Cross street More Any Any More
volume than 25% value value than 30%
0392e/254E/06/BB
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 51 -
In Vancouver, of a total 448 signalized intersections, 250 run on fixed time, 73
are semi-actuated, 10 are fully actuated, and 115 are pedestrian actuated signals.
Vancouver loop detectors are installed as a 6 1 x12 1 quadruple loop (or figure eight
loop) at approximately 3"-5" below the road surface. Figure eight pattern loops
are ideal as the magentic field from one loop is circled into the adjacent loop
eliminating stray fields. This double looping pattern is more receptive to objects
overtop and eliminates the detection of objects outside of the loop. This is
beneficial to cyclists since municipalities with single loop detectors have had to
turn the sensitivity down in order not to detect vehicles in adjacent lanes. This,
of course, makes it difficult to detect bicycles.
The ability of our detectors to detect bicycles is good. From past experience we
note that our detectors are activated by properly located bicycles.
Our loop detectors are tested annually and following each complaint. During
testing, the frequency response is measured and checked for accuracy.
One problem encountered with detector loops is that cyclists who are positioned
close to the curb, or the centreline, at intersections are usually outside the loop
(see Figure 16). This is due to the fact that the detectors are installed in the
centre of the lane. In a 12' lane this leaves three feet on either side where the
loop may not detect vehicles. In the few circumstances where this occurs, a
solution may be that a loop marking be painted on the roadway informing 2-wheeled
vehicles where to be located for detection. Such loop markings could be used by
cyclists when there is no motor vehicle to activate the loop. The loop marking
shown in Figure 17 is presently used in Santa Rosa, California and has proven
successful.
0392e/254E/06/88
0392e/201E/02/88
- 52 -
---
---
I
I
" II\ I\ I
':1
II
FIGURE 16 - UNDETECTED BICYCLE POSITIONING
FIGURE 11 - TYPICAL LOOP MARKING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 53 -
Loop markings may also aid in the non-locking detector problem. Some detectors are
set with a non-locking feature which prevents unnecessary green time for right
turning motorists who turn right on the red phase. A vehicle must remain on the
non-locking detector in order to activate the signal. If the vehicle arrives after
a new signal cycle has begun, he must wait the entire cycle before he will receive
a green phase. Since this can take up to 90 seconds, some motorists and cyclists
tend to creep forward onto the crosswa"lk deactivating the signal change. Loop
markings would eliminate this problem as motorists and cyclists would be informed:
1. That the signal is vehicle activated.
2. Where the detector loop is located.
RECOMMENDATION:
5) That special attention continue to be paid to vehicle-actuated signals on
priority I and II streets (see Street Priority System) to ensure that bicycles
are being detected.
MISCELlANEOUS ROADSIDE HAZARDS
The majority of the minor roadside hazards could be dealt with through the
Spot Improvement Program (see ISpot Improvement Program l ). Nevertheless, some
design/construction standards will have to be reviewed and updated to ensure
railway crossings, drainage grates, and drainage diverters, etc. are properly
installed initially in order to eliminate future spot improvement costs. In
addition, the impact of future surface traffic control devices, such as raised
reflective lane markers, should be analysed with respect to all road users,
including cyclists, before installation.
Railway Crossings
Railway crossings, particularly those intersecting the roadway at a shallow
angle, present a serious hazard to cyclists. Any ridge or slot diagonal or
parallel to the roadway has a tendency to steer the front wheel out from under
the cyclist, resulting in a fall in mid-stream traffic. The cyclist must ride
across the slot or ridge at right angles in order to avoid dropping into it.
This practice becomes even more difficult in poor lighting conditions and wet
weather. This is only achieved if the cyclist is visually forewarned of the
situation so he/she can prepare a proper approach. In order to achieve this,
the following ideas can be incorporated in the City of Vancouver
Transportation Division Policy/Procedure Manual.
0392e/254E/06/88
------- -_.._---~-----_ ..__.,._--
- 54 -
Symbolic signs showing approximate angle and direction of tracks are and
should continue to be placed before all railroad crossings. This is achieved
through existing standard warning signs showing a perpendicular crossing, and
a 450 crossing in each direction (see Figure 18). In cases where the
crossing angle is small, a cyclist cautionary sign should accompany the
crossing sign.
FIGURE 18 - RAILWAY CROSSING SIGNS
0392e/213E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 55 -
1n the shadow of neighbouring structures (underpasses, bridges, etc.).
at busy intersect10ns wh1ch demand the cyc11st ' s full attention.
on steep downgrades where speed reduces ava1lable reaction time.
on narrow roadways where the grate forces the cyclist further 1nto
the travel lane.
In add1tion, cyclist caut10nary s1gns can be placed directly below the
symbolic sign. The use of s1gns requir1ng the cyclist to d1smount are
generally ignored by the major1ty of cyc11sts and are also 1n contrad1ction
with one of the plan's goals, which 1s to promote the b1cycle as a safe and
convenient mode of transportation. However, unt1l such t1me that the
extremely hazardous crossings are improved, d1smount signs may be required for
l1abi11ty reasons.
Drainage Grates
Drainage grates or catch basins 1nstalled with vanes parallel to the flow of
traff1c present a ser10us hazard to cyclists. This 1s the case due to the
fact that many b1cycle r1ms are narrower than the grate openings allowing the
entire bicycle wheel to enter the grate. As w1th the ra1lway crossings, this
has a tendency to steer the front wheel out from under the cyc11st, resulting
in a fall 1n m1d-stream traffic. Parallel grates are found to be especially
dangerous in the following locations:
also be marked on the roadway where width permits safely
to a 900 cross1ng. Guiding the cyclist 1nto traffic
Such roadway stenc1ls have proven effective in Eugene,
A safe approach can
gu1ding the cyclist
should be avoided.
Oregon.
Proven rubber fillers should be used at locations where the tracks run at a
very shallow angle to the road. These systems work by filling the wheel
flange groove of both ra1ls w1th a rubber filler material allowing b1cycles to
pass over the ra1ls safely and eas1ly. The rubber material flexes downward
when the flange of the train's wheels pass over the rubber str1p. Toronto is
presently us1ng Goodyear's Super Cushion Crossing System. Costs of rubber
fillers are dependent on the material used and the method of installation.
The cost and maintenance factors will have to be analyzed along with other
pr10rit1es. The above recommended s1gnage may be sufficient at most locations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 56 -
where grates are set out from the curb.
situations where the grates are obscured by leaves or other debris.
In Vancouver, it is now standard to install all catch basins perpendicular to
the flow of traffic. With the exception of those on Granville Island, all
catch basins in Vancouver are properly aligned to accommodate cyclist
traffic. There may still exist some isolated circumstances, however, where a
catchbasin may constitute a minor hazard to a cyclist travelling in a
direction different from the normal flow of traffic.
Asphalt Drainage Diverters
During the construction of a new street or the reconstruction of an old one,
the final layer of asphalt is occasionally not placed until the surrounding
developments are completed. This is the case since some services may still
need to be installed and crossings may be added. Once the City is assured
that no further damage will occur to the roadway, the final layer of asphalt
is placed. In this intermediate, unfinished stage, small asphalt drainage
diverters are sometimes constructed in order to direct water into the catch
basin. The asphalt diverters, which are usually one to two feet long and may
be a half-inch high, are not a serious hazard to the cyclist if the cyclist is
aware of their existence. An unexpected collision with these diverters can
throw the cyclist off balance. In order to ensure visibility of the asphalt
drainage diverters in all weather and lighting conditions, it is recommended
that they be marked to improve detection. This procedure may not be possible,
however, where weather or time does not permit.
Traffic Barriers
Traffic barriers are placed at intersections at the community1s request if
approved by City Council. If at all possible, other alternatives are used.
Traffic barriers have been installed at various locations.
1. prevent commuter shortcutting
2. pedestrian safety
3. prevent motor vehicle accidents
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 57 -
The ~nstallat~on of traff~c barriers can have negative effects on cycling in
the area. These areas are usually res~dential streets paralleling major
arter~als. Unfortunately such streets are commonly used by commuting cyclists
and unexperienced cyclists as alternat~ve routes when traff~c on the arterial
street is heavy. Accordingly, many cycl~sts believe that traff~c barriers
should be designed to perm~t bicycle access. This, however, is
situation-dependent and may not always be in the best interest of the cyclist.
Disadvantages of B~cycle Access
1. As noted in the goals/objectives section, a major objective of the Bicycle
Program is to "ach~eve w~despread acceptance of the bicycle as a
legitimate vehicle whose operator shares the same rights and
respons~bil~t~es as the operator of a motor vehicle in the transportation
network". Allow~ng bicycle access where motor vehicles are not allowed
contradicts this objective and further w~dens the "mental" gap between
motor~sts and cycl~sts. If the bicycle is to be considered a vehicle in
street design and road sharing, the cyclist should obey the same rules and
regulations ~mposed on motorists, the exception being designated
off-street recreational facilities. It should be kept in mind, however,
that limited access is not a new concept. Resident access only, buses
only and height and weight restrict~ons are commonly used through the City
~n certain circumstances.
2. The safety factor must also be cons~dered. Allowing exclusive bicycle
access through traffic barr~ers ~n some cases places the cyclist in a
position where he ~s not expected by other motorists (one of the major
arguments against bike lanes). For example, a cyclist travelling through
a one-way closure places him in an unexpected position for opposing
motor~sts from two approaches (see Figure 19A). Travelling through a
diagonal barrier places the cycl~st in a dangerous position because
motor~sts are not expect~ng any through traffic (see Figure 19B). Total
closure access puts the cycl~st in an unexpected position when
left-turning into the barr~er (see Figure 19C).
0392e/254E/06/88
FIGURE 19C
TOTAL CLOSURE TRAFFIC BARRIER
- 58 -
~LJ
tl.....'..-_-
I
--- ~
co-<!}-~___ _ ":).':;~-EiiE-',,--
___ I
, ---
I
--- :
I
I ~I~
I RI
I ~I
FIGURE 19A
ONE WAY CLOSURE TRAFFIC BARRIER
==
t
I
I
---- ,
__.;;---fl/I'----~
-e:i..l- -"
0392e/207E/02/88
FIGURE 19B
DIAGONAL TRAFFIC BARRIER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 59 -
3. Pedestrian safety is the final consideration. If bicycle access is
permitted through barriers which are used as pedestrian walks then
cyclist/pedestrian conflicts may arise. Cyclist/pedestrian conflicts can
result in serious injuries to both the pedestrian and the cyclist and are
also bad for the public image of cyclists.
Advantages of Bicycle Access
1. Non-arterial roadways are often used by cyclists during heavy traffic
periods. Traffic barriers are often placed on such roadways which
parallel major arterials to eliminate shortcutting. As these are the same
alternative routes that cyclists use, access is justifiable.
2. In many circumstances where traffic barriers are in place, cyclists
continue to proceed through them on the sidewalk (jeopardizing pedestrian
safety) and in the opposing traffic lane (creating dangerous situations).
Access would relieve this dangerous activity.
For the above reasons, bicycle access through traffic barriers can only be
considered on an individual basis due to the unique factors in each location.
Fortunately, traffic circles are generally preferred to traffic barriers as
they solve the perceived problem of local neighbourhood access. The use of
such alternate traffic control devices should be further encouraged over
traffic barriers.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
6) That symbolic railway crossing signs (showing angle of tracks) and cyclist
cautionary signs be placed before all shallow angle railway crossings.
7) That the City continue to negotiate with railway authorities to install
rubber flange fillers at shallow angle railway crossings.
8) That roadside asphalt drainage diverters be marked, where practical, to
improve detection under poor visibility circumstances.
9) That bicycle access through traffic barriers be considered on a site
specific basis.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 60 -
CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAYS AND STREETS
It has been general practice in the past to prohibit cyclists from riding on
designated freeways. Unfortunately, when these prohibitions were made no
steps were taken to provide alternative facilities for cyclists. As noted in
the B.C. Highways Act (as amended May 15, 1986) cyclists are prohibited access
to the George Massey Tunnel, the Port Mann Bridge, Highway 99 (between
Richmond to the border), Highway 1 (Vancouver to Chilliwack) and Highway 91
(Queensborough Bridge to Highway 99).
It is noted that some U~S. jurisdictions allow cyclists on freeway shoulders.
For example, in California 1500 km of freeway are open to cyclists on the
shoulder; the State of New Jersey allows cyclists on all of its freeways with
the exception of 150 km of the interstate system; Maryland allows cyclists on
all of its controlled-access highways with the exception of 120 km of highway;
cyclists are also allowed on the majority of the IS shoulder in Washington
State. No safety problems have been reported with any of these uses (ref. 2).
It should be noted that such regional prohibitions against cycling discourages
the use of the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Before such
prohibitions are even considered, it must be proven conclusively that cyclist
access is unsafe and that there is no engineering solution that would make the
roadway safe for all users. In Vancouver all roadways are used by cyclists
and in cases where bicycle access is to be restricted, the design must provide
alternative on or off-road facilities for cyclist access. Alternative cyclist
access should be safe, direct and convenient to be effective.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
10) That all future roadway projects be designed to include cyclists on the
road. In situations where such on-road access is unsafe that an
alternative safe, direct and convenient bicycle facility be provided, if
practical.
BICYCLE PARKING
As discussed in the Encouragement Section of this report, bicycle parking
facilities play an integral role in the promotion of bicycle use (see lEnd of
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 61 -
iii) the required weather protection.
i) the time duration for which it is used;
ii) the need for anti-theft protection; and,
Provides total protection from weather, including wind
driven rain.
For long term parking (overnight parking).
Provides excellent protection from theft and damage to the
entire bicycle and its components and accessories.
Trip Facilities
'
). Furthermore, the availability of secure bicycle parking
facilities on pUblic and private developments discourages the use of City
parking meters, boulevard trees, etc. as places to secure bicycles. Bicycle
parking is relatively inexpensive, yet the benefits to the cycling public are
substantial. One bicycle parking facility costing a *few hundred dollars can
accommodate anywhere from 8-12 bicycles, whereas the cost of supplying parking
facilities for 8-12 motor vehicles can range from $80,000 to $120,000 in the
downtown core (assuming a cost of $lO,OOO/stall).
Bicycle parking is presently being included in various neighbourhood
beautification projects. In all cases, bicycle parking facilities should be
placed off-street on private property. Where such space is unavailable,
bicycle parking facilities can be placed on-street provided they do not pose a
hazard to pedestrians or parked cars, as determined by the City Engineer.
Unused racks can pose a hazard to some pedestrians if placed on the travelled
portion of the sidewalk. Racks placed too close to the curb in parking areas
may result in damage to car doors. In order to ensure sufficient bicycle
parking facilities, appropriate design guidelines must also be incorporated
into the Parking Bylaw. Incentives to encourage the provision of bicycle
parking facilities already include exemptions from new development's floor
space ratio calculations where bicycle parking areas are supplied. This FSR
exemption was decided through the Development Permit Board in 1981 and as a
result is now general policy. As paralleled in the RTAC standards (ref. 7),
there exist three types (or classes) of bicycle parking facilities. The
appropriateness of a particular type of facility is dependent upon:
We define the three classes of Bicycle Parking Facilities as follows (see also
Figure 20):
CLASS 1
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*The cost of bicycle parking facilities varies with design and capacity.
Cost can increase when property costs are included.
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0392e/254E/06/88
- 62 -
Lockers, check-in facilities, monitored parking and
controlled access parking areas are a few examples of this
class of facility.
For short term parking (not for overnight use).
Provides protection from theft of frame and wheels of the
bicycle but does not protect components or accessories
(such as the seat, air pump, water bottle, etc.).
Can provide protection from weather by a special structure,
existing building overhang, or roof.
The facility is a stationary bicycle rack capable of
securing the frame and wheels with a user-provided lock.
This facility should be designed so as not to promote wheel
damage.
For short term convenience parking only (less than 4 hours).
Provides little protection against theft.
No weather protection is offered.
The facility is a stationary object to which the bicycle
can be secured with a user provided (1.8m/6 ft.) cable (or
chain) and lock. The object can range from a lamp-post to
a simple bike rack. This facility should be
designed/located so as not to impede the flow of pedestrian
traffic.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fIGURE ~OA - TYPICAL CLASS 1
!?IC1CLE PARKING FACILITV
fIGURE 2GB - TYPICAL GlASS 2
13JCVCLE P~RKING FACIUTI
0392e/207E/021Ba
- 66 -
0392e/254E/06/88
(1) A h1gher class of facility may be substituted for a minimum required
class.
When des1gn1ng for the above min1mum bicycle park1ng requirements, the
following regulations should be observed:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minimum B1cyc1e Park1ng
25% of total # of units
5% of auto parking
15% of auto parking
Res1dent1a1
Commerc1a1
Recreational
General Bu11ding C1ass1fication
25% of the auto park1ng on-site. Recreational developments are conducive to
cycling and thus requ1re a higher b1cyc1e park1ng requ1rement. In the case of
such developments, a minimum recommended b1cyc1e park1ng requirement of 15% is
recommended. Vary1ng classes of fac111t1es are further def1ned by the
particular use of the s1te (see Append1x J). In general, 1t is recommended
that the following m1n1mum b1cyc1e parking requirement be encouraged in all
new developments at the Development Perm1t stage:
(2) Safe and convenient access shall be provided to all b1cyc1es using the
fac111ty.
(3) Park1ng faci1it1es shall secure bicycles in such a manner so as not to
damage the wheels, frame, or components.
(4) Class 2 and 3 fac111ties should be located 1n a high v1sibi1ity area so
as to discourage theft and vandalism.
(5) Park1ng fac111t1es should be located so as not to impede the flow of
pedestr1an traff1c.
(6) The D1rector of P1ann1ng and the C1ty Engineer shall have the author1ty
to review the design of all proposed b1cyc1e parking facilities.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 67 -
RECOMMENDATION:
11) That the City of Vancouver incorporate minimum bicycle parking
requirements into the Vancouver Parking By-law for all new developments.
12) That the Engineering and Planning Departments continue to pursue minimum
recommended bicycle parking in all new developments at the development
permit stage, using the existing floor space ratio exemption as an
incentive.
SPOT IMPROVEMENT pROGRAM
The design of bicycles is different from motor vehicles in that they have two
very narrow wheels, a light frame, and a chain transmitting power directly
from the pedals to the rear wheel. Accordingly, bicycles have no suspension
and do not have the same capacity as a motor vehicle to absorb shock caused by
irregularities on the road surface. As a result, cyclists try to avoid
potholes, uneven surfaces, cracks, railroad crossings, raised/depressed
drainage grates, utility caps, gravel, etc. A skilled cyclist will shoulder
check and move safely around such obstacles unl~ss they are difficult to see
or obscured by debris. Emergency avoidance of such roadside hazards can cause
the cyclist to manoeuvre the bicycle into the path of another vehicle. Such
manoeuvres are generally unexpected and erratic and can result in accidents.
For these reasons, the maintenance of our roadways and the removal or repair
of roadside hazards is essential to the safe integration of the cyclist onto
the roadway. Vancouver presently has an extensive road maintenance program
which has been expanded to include the unique road maintenance requirements of
cyclists within the confines of approved budgeting. Small improvement
requests inclUding signs, ramps, and minor street modifications can be made to
the Engineering Department or the Bicycle Advisory Committee and may be
carried out depending on other priorities and the availability of funds.
The present road maintenance inspection program is coordinated through the
materials branch of the Engineering Depa~tment. Public spot improvement
requests can be made by written requests or by telephone to the Traffic
Management Branch of the Engineering Department. All requests are sorted in
terms of priority and type of improvement. The priority of an improvement
request is determined through commuter route priority of the street and
accident frequency of the location (see IStreet Priority System l ).
0392e/254E/06/88
- 68 -
0392e/254E/06/88
There are three major types of improvements. These are:
3) Structural Improvements - ramps, traffic barriers, bicycle parking,
short asphalt paths, lighting.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
regulatory signs, warning signs.2) Signage/Hazard Marking
1) Surface Improvements - pothole repair, crack filling, utility riser
installation, railroad crossing rubber fillers, drainage improvements,
gravel, sand, water, leaves, glass.
The spot improvement request, once prioritized, is forwarded to the
appropriate branch for action. Larger requests can be reviewed and bUdgeted
for, if required.
The present road maintenance program is an effective means of eliminating
potentially hazardous situations at relatively low cost. It provides a direct
communication link with the appropriate branches of the Engineering Department
allowing for the repair/removal of roadside hazards.
RECOMMENDATION:
13) That the existing street and lane maintenance program continue to identify
and repair bicycle hazards.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 69 -
RECREATIONAL ROUTES
Up to this point the plan has dealt mainly with the commuter cyclist and road
sharing. A large component of the cycling community, however, is made up of
pure recreational cyclists. Recreational cyclists include families, children,
middle-aged and elderly people wishing to enjoy the virtues of cycling without
dealing with motor vehicle traffic. The recreational cyclist may utilize
on-street facilities but only in off-peak periods such as evenings and
weekends. Usage of a vergeside path is highest (over 95%) where the path is
an alternative to a road with motor vehicle traffic in excess of 30,000
vehicles/day (ref. 22). Generally, the true recreational cyclist seeks out
separated bike paths. It is therefore clear that recreational cyclists prefer
segregation to integration.
Segregation can only be safely achieved in certain circumstances, these are:
(1) The proposed separate facility should have little or no cross traffic.
(2) Pedestrian traffic should be minimal.
It is difficult to locate areas in which these two criteria are met. Some
examples in which separate facilities have proven successful are as follows:
- Abandoned railway rights-of-way
- Lakeside, riverside, or oceanfront property
- Parallel major highways
0392e/254E/06/88
- 70 -
One of the most successful segregated bicycle facilities, The Burke-Gilman
Trail, is located in Seattle, Wash1ngton. The 12.5 mile Burke-Gilman Trail is
located on an abandoned railway right-of-way along Lake Washington. The Trail
is a success due to the innovative and safety-conscious design. Some
outstanding design features of this facility are as follows:
-"street traffic control signs (stop/yield) used on trail at intersections
- rumble strips before intersections warning cyclists
- all hazards are clearly marked
- all cyclists are strongly encouraged to "use bell or voice when passing"
through on route signage
- facility safety code was developed and promoted for all users of the
trail (see Appendix E)
The Burke-Gilman Trail should be used as a model for all segregated bicycle
fac1lities in Vancouver.
EXISTING RECREATIONAL ROUTES
There are many existing recreational routes in Vancouver. The following is a
brief overview of existing recreational routes and some recommendations for
improvement:
STANLEY PARK SEAWALL
The Stanley Park Seawall Cycle Route is an 8.0 km shared pedestrian/cyclist
path (see Appendix F). The cycle route runs in a counterclockwise direction
around the Park. The cycle route is separated from the pedestrian walkway by
means of a painted line and in some cases through a grade separation. The
cycle route is a very picturesque, well-maintained facility. Even though this
facility has no cross traffic, it does have very high pedestrian volumes.
This leads to a number of inevitable cyclist/pedestrian conflicts. The most
evident areas of conflict are at Second Beach, Third Beach and Lumberman1s
Arch, where pedestrians tend to congregate. Other conflicts occur along the
route during passing and with cyclists travelling too fast or the wrong way.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 71 -
RECOMMENDATIONS:
14) That the Park Board consider the following recommendations in order to
alleviate present cyclist/pedestrian conflicts on the Stanley Park Seawall:
A) In order to alleviate cyclist/pedestrian conflicts at Second Beach,
Third Beach and Lumberman's Arch, designated pedestrian crossings
should be established. Pedestrian crosswalks should be painted on
the cycle path with offset warning lines and traffic control signs
requiring the cyclist to "stop". "Cyclist dismount" signs should be
removed.
B) On route conflicts can be minimized through the use of "cyclist use
bell or voice when passing" signs, placed periodically along the
route.
C) A printed, up-to-date safety code should be distributed along the
route during peak-use periods and posted at key locations. Such a
safety code should be recommended reading for all bicycle renters
(see 'Enforcement on Recreational Routes ' ).
D) A suggested speed limit for cyclists.
B.C. PARKWAY (7-ELEVEN BICYCLE TRAIL)
The 7-Eleven Bicycle Trail completed in 1986 parallels the new Automated Light
Rapid Transit line, which runs from the New Westminster Waterfront to False
Creek in downtown Vancouver (see Appendix G). Designers of this 21 km bicycle
path had the difficult task of designing a recreational based segregated
bicycle facility through a heavily used transportation network. Busy
intersections, arterials and high volume pedestrian areas make this task
difficult to achieve without some cyclist/motorist and cyclist/pedestrian
conflicts. The trail is lined with 1500 trees and connects 32 municipal
parks. As a result, the 7-Eleven bicycle trail does provide a highly scenic
route for the traffic-conscious recreational cyclist.
Presently, heavy use of the trail is confined to the Burnaby and New
Westminster areas. This is partly due to the undeveloped termination point in
False Creek. Future False Creek developments are expected to greatly increase
cyclist/pedestrian volumes on the Vancouver section of the 7-Eleven Trail.
Accordingly, some areas of the trail can be improved in order to safely handle
the expected increased volume.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 72 -
RECOMMENDATIONS:
15) That B.C. Parkway consider the following recommendations for the 7-Eleven
Bicycle Trail:
A) stop and Yield traffic control signs should be placed before all
major intersections on the trail.
B) "Use bell or voice when passing" signs should be placed periodically
on the trail.
C) Some on-street sections of the trail should be analyzed for areas to
reduce potential conflict and signage. In particular the Grandview
Highway to Clark Drive section should be reviewed.
D) Bicycle access in the False Creek to Clark Drive section should be
considered during land development in this area.
THE HABITAT BICYCLE ROUTE
The Habitat bicycle route is a signed on-street recreational bicycle route
which runs from Stanley Park to The University of British Columbia. The bike
route was established in 1976 through a joint effort of Engineering and Park
Board Staff at a cost of $68,000. The bike route begins in Stanley Park from
the existing Stanley Park Seawall Cycle Route. The route runs along Beach
Avenue to a point south of the Bathhouse where it joins up with the seawall
again. The route is run along Beach Avenue to avoid the heavy pedestrian
volumes on English Bay Beach in Summer. 40% of the cyclists are using the
wide west sidewalk instead of the road at this point along the route. The
bike route runs along the seawall and returns to Beach Avenue at the Aquatic
Centre. The Habitat Bicycle Route continues over Burrard Street Bridge to an
on-roadway route into the Kitsilano area and eventually the University
Endowment Lands. Future development along False Creek may allow for a
continual seawall link to the B.C. Parkway 7-Eleven Trail. This would provide
a continuous recreational bicycle facility link from Stanley Park to New
Westminster.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
16) That the Engineering Department and the Park Board consider the following
recommendations for the Habitat Bicycle Route:
A) As on the Stanley Park Seawall "cyclists use bell or voice when
passing" signs should be placed periodically along the route in high
pedestrian use areas. These areas include: Sunset Beach (and Burrard
Street Bridge - (COMPLETED).
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 73 -
B) That Burrard street Bridge signage and access ramps be improved as
outlined in the Burrard street Bridge Bikeway Report (COMPLETED).
C) Surface conditions, signage and conflicts should be reviewed in the
Kitsilano area.
POTENTIAL RECREATIONAL ROUTES
As noted earlier there are certain areas in which segregated recreational
routes are feasible. Ocean and River Foreshores, Railway Reserves and lands
parallel to major highways/freeways all serve as ideal locations due to the
little cross traffic. Developing a segregated recreational bicycle facility
can be a major financial undertaking but the benefits of a well-designed
facility through increased cycling and public appreciation can quite easily
justify the costs involved. In cases where a major highways or development
project is to take place, a recreational bicycle facility can "piggyback" the
project providing a highly favourable aspect of the project benefiting local
neighbourhoods. In some cases a public controversy over a project can be
solved by beautification. Beautification through the addition of a bicycle
facility can greatly improve the livability of the area.
RAILWAY RESERVES
Abandoned railway reserves are ideal for recreational bicycle facilities as
they are generally isolated from other traffic and in most cases are not
located in heavy use pedestrian areas. In addition, most railways are built
not to exceed a maximum grade of 1.5 to 3% making them even more appealing for
recreational use.
The American Rails To Trails program has been very successful in converting
abandoned railway rights-of-way into recreational facilities. The
Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle is an excellent example of a successful Rails to
Trails Project (see 'Recreational Routes').
In Vancouver, the Canadian Pacific's Arbutus line may serve as an ideal
location for a segregated recreational facility in conjunction with any
transit improvements. Canadian Pacific may abandon the line some time in the
future.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 74 -
OCEAN & RIVER FORESHORES
In Vancouver, several ocean and river foreshores exist which have a great
potential for segregated bicycle facilities. Such foreshores are ideal
locations for a segregated facility due to the fact that there is little or no
cross traffic into the water (with the exception of boat launches, docks, and
waterfront developments). Ocean and River Foreshores are generally heavily
used by pedestrians in the summer months. For·this reason, any recreational
facility in these areas should be designed so as to minimize
cyclist/pedestrian conflicts. Some areas which show potential for such a
project are:
1. False Creek
2. The North Arm of the Fraser River
3. Burrard Inlet (Fraserlands)
Future False Creek Developments could include a segregate bicycle/pedestrian
facility. A major objective of such a facility would be to link the existing
seawall cycle route with the BC Parkway 7-Eleven Trail providing a continuous
facility from Stanley Park to New Westminster. The Fraser River Foreshore
shows some potential for recreational development in the Southland area and
east of Knight Street. Remaining areas along the river are under heavy
industrial use and would be difficult to develop without some upgrading of
present usage.
HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Some future major highway projects could include the construction of a
parallel bicycle facility as beautification to enhance livability in the area,
and provide direct, convenient access for cyclists. In Seattle, $22 million
of the $1.2 billion 190 project (from Seattle to Bellevue) will be devoted to
a separate bicycle facility. This facility will include a separate bicycle
tunnel, and on-bridge bicycle paths, to total over 10 miles of bicycle path.
Some projects where a parallel facility may be considered include the
following:
1. The Cassiar Connector
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 75 -
2. Burrard Inlet Transportation Corridor
3. Stanley Park Roadway
4. False Creek Connection (7-Eleven Extension)
The proposed Cassiar Connector project would provide an excellent opportunity
to improve bicycle access to 2nd Narrows Bridge. Possible development along
Burrard inlet as a Transportation corridor could also include wide shoulders
for cyclists or a segregated bicycle facility for use by recreational and
commuter cyclists. Stanley Park roadway improvements should also include
either on-street or off-street bicycle facilities due to the large number of
both recreational and commuter cyclists using the roadway.
In order to be fully-effective all recreational facilities should be designed
so as not to promote pedestrian/cyclist conflict and must allow safe, easy
access from the eXisting roadway. It should also be noted that any off-road
facility which parallels a roadway requires all cyclists, by-law, to use it.
In cases where such a facility falls on a major commuter corridor commuter
time and access may be sacrificed. In supporting the needs of one group of
cyclists we should try not to infringe on the rights of another.
Informational brochures, maps and other promotional material ensure proper use
of all such facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
17) That facilities for recreational cyclists be progressively provided,
wherever practicable, along railway reserves, Ocean and river foreshores,
and highway rights-of-way.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 76 -
EDUCATION
The education of the general public plays a vital role in the success of a
comprehensive bicycle plan. Only through education can we be assured that the
cyclist and the motorist will safely share our roadways.
Many people believe that riding a bicycle in traffic is dangerous. This fear
is based on the fact that the cyclist is more vulnerable to injury than the
motorist in bicycle/motor vehicle accidents. Even though this is indisputably
the case, records show that, on average, in 1985 2.3% of all vehicle trips in
Vancouver (CMA) were made by bicycle and that only 2.2% of all reported
accidents in 1985 involved cyclists. We can therefore conclude that, on
average, cyclists are not more likely to be involved in motor vehicle
accidents than motorists are.
Bicycle accidents are more likely to result in serious injuries and tend to
involve young children as well as adults (see IAccidents l ). Cyclists can
greatly reduce the likelihood of being involved in an accident by increasing
their traffic cycling and bicycle handling skills through proper education.
Bright reflective clothing and lights for riding at night further reduce the
likelihood of an accident. Should an accident occur, an approved bicycle
helmet will protect against head injuries. A successful bicycle education
program must therefore have the objective of encouraging the use of helmets,
lights, reflectors, safety vests, the need for a mechanically safe bicycle,
and most importantly the development of traffic skills. This program should
reach all ages with priority given to high risk age groups. Each age group
requires a unique program that will directly deal with cycling errors common
to that group. Young children, school age children, adult cyclists and
motorists, are all included as prime target groups in a successful
comprehensive bicycle education program.
Other relevant groups include parents, teachers, motor vehicle instructors,
police officers, engineers, planners, and bicycle retailers/renters. The
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 77 -
0392e/207E/02/88
----- INFORMATION
~ INSTRUCTION
CCA
BABC
VSC
BAC
INSTRUCTOR TRAINERS
YOUNG CHILDREN
ADULTS BC TEL
BCAA
r:M:;;'OT:;:;O;';,"RI;;;:S:;TS~"1.-~ ICBC
FIGURE 21 - PROPOSED VANCOUVER BICYCLE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRUCTURE
network through wh1ch the pr1me target groups are educated would requ1re the
d1rect 1nvolvement of the Parks Board, the Po11ce Department and the School
Board (see F1g. 21). In order to be effect1ve all educat10n programs run
through the above bod1es should be mon1tored and approved through one central
b1cycle educat10n adv1sory comm1ttee (the B1cycle Adv1sory Comm1ttee). Such a
comm1ttee would cons1st of representat1ves from var10us organ1zat1ons and
assoc1at1ons knowledgable 1n the area of b1cycle educat1on. Th1s 1ncludes The
Canad1an Cyc11ng Assoc1at1on (CCA), The B1cyc11ng Assoc1at1on of B.C. (BABC),
and others. The Vancouver Educat10n Program would be des1gned to educate the
pub11c us1ng two methods, d1rect 1nstruct1on, and Pub11c Awareness Programs
us1ng brochures and the med1a. For qua11ty control and safety purposes the
educat10n comm1ttee would ensure that CCA cert1f1ed 1nstructor tra1ners would
be ava1lable to tra1n and cert1fy teachers, po11ce off1cers and pr1vate
1nstructors. Mandatory 1nstructor cert1f1cat1on for on-road 1nstructors 1s
the only way to ach1eve qua11ty control and ensure a m1n1mum level of
competence.
( POLICE I----f#o--'" POLICEDEPT. OFFICERS
(SCHOO L/-t.,.lT.:.!EA~C.!l!:HE~RS=.ri::.::ll:=-=-=~L:S~CH~O~O!:.L .!:.A~GEUBOARD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 78 -
Informational brochures designed for individual target groups would be checked
for content by the committee and distributed through various organizations.
The proposed network would ensure each target group would be exposed to
bicycle education with emphasis given to the direct instruction of young
children and school children, and information transfer to adult cyclists and
motorists.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
18) That the terms of reference of the Vancouver Bicycle Advisory Committee be
expanded to include the role of a bicycle education advisory board for all
bicycle education courses held by the Parks Board, the School Board, and
the Police Department.
AND
That the representation on the committee be expanded to include
representatives from the School Board, the Park Board and cycling
associations knowledgeable in the area of bicycle education (COMPLETED).
19) That all bicycle education courses offered through the Vancouver School
Board or Park Board, which include an on-road riding component, require
that instructors of such courses be certified by the Canadian Cycling
Association as qualified bicycle instructors.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING pROGRAMS
There are a number of independent programs presently being taught to children
and adults in Vancouver. These existing programs range from independent
instruction to community or school based programs. Unfortunately, the
majority of the existing programs do not require any instructor qualifications
to teach on-road classes. Many of the following programs do not deal directly
with the major accident causes and instead veer off the objective of accident
prevention (which is the basis on which all bicycle education courses should
be structured). Fortunately, the Canadian Cycling Association has produced a
number of well structured, effective courses which teach real world cycling
skills and accident prevention. The CCA Can-Bike Program should be used in
the Vancouver Education Program and should serve as a model for the
restructuring of existing inadequate programs. The following is a brief
summary of each of these programs.
CANADIAN CYCLING ASSOCIATION CAN-BIKE PROGRAM
The Canadian Cycling Association is the only recognized national sport
governing body for cycling. Established in 1882, the CCA is funded by both
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 79 -
0392e/254E/06/88
Instructor Qualifications:
Instructors require CCA Can-Bike instructor certification.
Can-Bike Skills 1
Background: Can-Bike Skills 1 is a basic course designed for inexperienced
cyclists who want to improve their cycling confidence, knowledge
and ability. This course was adapted from the course 'Cycling
Freedom for Women I designed by Barbara Bernhardt.
16 Hours (five to eight two-hour courses)
Course content is basic and designed for beginners and occasional
cyclists. The course touches on bicycle maintenance, touring and
Effective Cycling Techniques (ref. 11). Upon completion of the
course, participants should feel confident enough to ride
regularly and safely for utilitarian and recreational purposes.
o Prevention of Bicycle Accidents
o -Using gears efficiently
o Improving bike handling skills
o Tailoring bike to suit specific needs
o Basic maintenance skills
Length:
Content:
Scope:
Sport Canada and Fitness Canada to promote safe and efficient cycling as well
as to maintain the rights and duties of cyclists. The CCA provides a number
of national guidelines from which regional courses can be structured by CCA
certified instructors. The Can-Bike Program was developed by the Canadian
Cycling Association Education Committee in 1984 in order to provide the
Canadian cycling public with a well structured CCA approved program. The
Can-Bike Program, based on John Forester's Effective Cycling course and text
(ref. 11), focuses on increasing cycling skills through in-class and on-road
instruction by nationally certified instructors. The Program presently
consists of two courses: Can-Bike Skills and Can-Bike Skills 2. Future
additions to the program include Touring I & II and Maintenance I &II courses.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 80 -
0392e/254E/06/88
Instructor Qualifications:
Instructors require CCA Can-Bike instructor certification.
Can-Bike Skills 2
Background: Can-Bike Skills 2 is an advanced course of cyclists who want to
ride confidently and safely in traffic or who require CCA
Can-Bike certification. This course is based on The Effective
Cycling Program by John Forester (ref. 11).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21 hours (often five three-hour sessions and one dayride)
Graduates of the Can-Bike Skills 2 course will be able to ride
confidently and competently through any conditions of traffic or
terrain.
o Advanced traffic cycling skills
o Safe group riding techniques
o Emergency avoidance techniques
o Wet weather and night-time strategies
o Dea1inq with all kinds of traffic and terrain
o Bicycle maintenance
Length:
Content:
Scope:
Bicycling Safe Start
Background: Bicycling Safe Start is a local program, created (and taught) by
Christine Code. It was designed to complement the Kids on the
Road program (see below) by providing quality bicycle education
for children who are too young to begin on-road instruction.
Classes are for children between the ages of five and eight
(Separate classes: 5 &6, 7 &8). Bicycling Safe Start uses a
variety of bicycle skill drills, games, songs, rhymes and visual
aids to make learning fun for children. The program is available
through some Vancouver community centres and upon request to
community groups.
0392e/254E/06/88
Instructor Qualifications:
Instructors require CCA Can-Bike instructor certification (and
some additional training).
Kids On The Road
As with the Bicycling Safe Start program, Kids On The Road program is a local
program created (and taught) by Christine Code. Students are required to have
safe bicycles and must wear properly adjusted approved helmets (helmets
provided). Kids On The Road consists of two on-road levels: an introductory
level and an advanced level.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scope:
Length:
Content:
- 81 -
Bicycling Safe Start teaches and refines basic cycling skills and
safety concepts in a protected, off-road environment. To begin
the program students must be able to start, pedal, and stop their
bicycles by themselves. Students completing the course will have
improved their coordination and judgement for cycling. They will
be able to shoulder check properly while riding in a straight
line and will be able to demonstrate correct behaviour for
cyclists at stop signs and driveways in a simulated off-road
environment.
Usually taught in five one-hour classes
o Helmets
o Bike checks
o Straight line riding
o Shoulder checks
o Smooth starts, stops and turns
o Hazard awareness
o Driveways
o stop signs
o Skill bUilding drills
- 82 -
0392e/254E/06/88
Instructor Qualifications:
Instructors require CCA Can-Bike instructor certification (and
some additional training).
Advanced Level
Background: The advanced level of Kids On The Road requires all registering
students to pass an on-road exam before admittance. The advanced
level continues to emphasize vehicular cycling principles and
teaches students how to apply their skills to more complex
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Students are judged to have completed the first level of Kids On
The Road when they are able to ride safely and confidently on
residential streets.
o Helmets
o Safe bikes and accessories
o Riding on the right
o Yielding to cross traffic when entering roadway
o Shoulder checking before moving laterally on street
o Hand signals/communicating with other road users
o Road placement
o Destination positioning
o Hazard identification/avoidance
Introductory Level
Background: This level of Kids On The Road is designed for children between
the ages of 9 and above. This program teaches on-road cycling
skills on residential streets with low traffic volume. This
program is very effective due to its high student involvement
and the fact that the content is set up to teach real world
skills for on-road cycling. Kids On The Road teaches children
the skills they need in order to prevent the accident types most
common for their age group. Students completing this level are
graduated to the advanced level of the program.
Scope:
Content:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 83 -
situations. After the screening test and a review of level one,
advanced Kids On The Road students begin riding on arterial
streets.
Scope: Upon completion of the course students should be able to ride
confidently and competently on most Vancouver streets and in
varied traffic conditions.
Length: five one and one half to two-hour sessions.
Content: Similar to introductory level.
Instructor Qualifications:
Instructors require CCA Can-Bike instructor certification (and
some additional training).
THE CANADIAN REO CROSS SOCIETY BIKE FOR LIFE PROGRAM
The Canadian Red Cross Society, established in 1859, is a volunteer based
organization which provides emergency relief and humanitarian service to the
public. The Society became first involved in bicycle education in the late
1970's.
Background: The Bike for Life Program was prepared by the Canadian Red Cross
Society in 1978. The Program is designed for children from
grades 2 to 7 and is generally taught by teachers, Red Cross
Cross Volunteers or Community Groups. The program includes two
learning sections, a classroom bicycle safety program and a
Roadeo. Bicycle safety theory covers the seven content items
listed below, and bicycle handling skills are tested during the
Roadeo. The Bike for Life Program differs from other programs in
that it includes a first aid lesson in which students are taught
some basic first aid for bicycle accidents. Major revisions are
required, however, to bring the existing program up to date and
in line with the concepts involved in Effective Cycling (ref.
11). The existing program kit may be purchased and taught by
anyone.
0392e/254E/06/88
0392e/254E/Ob/88
Instructor Qualifications:
No cert1fication 1s required of the instructor.
VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM
The Vancouver Po11ce Department, through the1r School Safety Patrol Squad, has
been providing a bicycle safety program 1n Vancouver elementary schools since
1951. Our Police Department 1s act1ve 1n bicycle and traff1c educat10n
through its Grade Three Program, The Ceperley Park traffic safety playground,
and the Petro Canada Rodeo.
Grade 3 Program
Background: The Grade 3 B1cycle Safety Program is taught by a School Safety
Patrol Officer and is approved by the Vancouver School Board.
The program 1s theoret1cally based and 1s taught 1n class. The
program differs from other programs in that it deals with the
rules of the road and bicycle theft as two major parts of 1ts
three part structure.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 84 -
Undefined
The program's object1ve 1s to reduce bicycle related acc1dents
through the introduct1on of some bas1c traff1c safety concepts.
B1ke For Life endeavours to create an increased awareness among
students of the importance of becoming safe and skilled
b1cyclists. It is designed to 1nstruct students in bicycle
safety and to prov1de them w1th an opportunity to practise what
has been taught in a controlled environment (the bicycle roadeo).
o Defens1ve dr1ving
o Your place on the road
o Intersect10ns
o Mechan1cal safety
o Being a good rider
o S1gns and signals
o First a1d for bicycle acc1dents
Length:
Scope:
Content:
0392e/254E/06/88
PETRO CANADA RODEO
(see Bicycle Rodeos)
CEPERLEY PARK TRAFFIC SAFETY PLAYGROUND
(see B1cycle Rodeos)
Instructor Qua11fications:
Instructor must be a School Safety Patrol Officer of The
Vancouver Police Department.
- 85 -
The Program 1s des1gned to educate young ch11dren on basic safe
bicycle r1d1ng tact1cs, the law and theft prevention.
o The Rules of the road (Motor Vehicle Act, City By-Laws)
o Safe b1cycle rid1ngtactics (18 minute film)
o Bicycle theft prevent10n
40 minutesLength:
Content:
Scope:
VANCOUVER SAFETY COUNCIL BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM
The Vancouver Safety Council is a non-prof1t, pub11c service agency devoted
exclusively to accident prevent1on. Incorporated in 1985, the Safety Council
1s affi11ated and co-operates with official agencies having legal
responsib11ity for safety. The Safety Council has been offering elementary
school bicycle safety education courses since the early 1970 l s and has been
involved with a number of bicycle rodeos (see 'Bicycle Rodeos l ). The Safety
Council offers three programs which are taught by Safety Council staff.
Grade 2 Program
Background: The Grade 2 Bicycle Safety Program is a short in-class program
designed to meet the short attention span of children in this age
group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0392e/254E/06/88
Instructor Qualifications:
No certification is required of the instructor.
Instructor Qualifications:
No certification is required of the instructor.
Grade 4 On-Road Program
Background: The Grade 4 On-Road Bicycle Safety Program takes place on quiet
residential streets in the vicinity of the school. Students are
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 86 -
The course is set at a very basic introductory level introducing
some basic concepts applicable to children in this group.
20 minutes
o Introduction of the bicycle as a vehicle
o Importance of choosing the right size bicycle
o Being visible
o Watching for hazards
The course is set at a basic introductory level.
40 minutes
o The place of the bicycle on the road
o Being visible
o Watching for hazards
o Hand signals (includes film)
Length:
Scope:
Content:
Grade 4 In-Class Program
Background: The Grade 4 In-Class Bicycle Safety Program is also a short
in-class program which presents some additional basic safety
concepts. The program consists of a slide show, a student
activity and a film.
Length:
Content:
Scope:
- 87 -
0392e/254E/Ob/88
1. Increase child and parent awareness of the need for cycling skills.
Instructor Qualifications:
No certification is required of the instructor.
supplied with helmets and have a bicycle safety check before they
are taken out on the road in groups of seven under the
supervision of the instructor.
The course is designed to improve on road confidence and safety
for young cyclists through a heightened awareness of traffic and
communication.
1 1/2 - 2 hours
o Riding on the right
o Right-of-way (looking and yielding to traffic/stop signs)
o Shoulder checking (looking behind before acting)
o Communicating with other road-users (hand signals)
Length:
Content:
Scope:
BICYCLE RODEOS
In general Bicycle Rodeos are a one or two day event in which large numbers of
young cyclists are run through a series of exercises in order to improve their
bicycle handling skills. These events are occasionally corporate sponsored
and often hosted by local safety organizations and police departments.
Bicycle Rodeos are held off-street in large open parking lots or paved areas
to facilitate learning without traffic concerns. Traditionally, bicycle
rodeos didn't deal directly with any of the known causes of bicycle accidents
(ref. 12). As a result, such events have often been criticized by
knowledgeable bicycle educators. One must however, consider the potential
value of such a mass event if it could be improved to reflect major safety
concerns of those experienced in the field. A properly run rodeo can have the
following benefits:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0392e/254E/06/88
- 88 -
4. Evaluate existing education programs/test new lessons.
AAA Bicycle Rodeo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Hand signals
o Stopping at stop signs/pedestrian crossings
o Safety tips, regulations (video)
The AAA Guide to Bicycle Rodeos (ref. 12 was prepared in
December 1985 by John Williams (Missoula BPC) and Dan Burden
(Florida BPC). This particular rodeo is similar in appearance
to other rodeos but is designed to teach real world skills that
2. Evaluate child's bicycle handling skills and identify areas requiring
improvement.
Background: At the 1986 P.N.E., Petro-Canada ran a Bicycle Roadeo and in
1987 they ran a "Right Riders Road Show". Endorsed by the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the program has
involved over 34,000 children aged three to thirteen years. All
participants are given a safety brochure and participate in a
safety contest before taking part in the rodeo. The Right
Riders course consists of a junior and senior track with road
signs and intersection. The junior track uses electric three
wheeled cycles (ATVls) and the senior track uses four wheeled
gasoline powered cycles. The rodeo includes a taped 5-8 minute
audio visual show exemplifying bicycle safety regulations. This
program is geared more towards general traffic safety and does
not focus on bicycle safety skills.
Petro-Canada Bicycle Rodeo
There are a number of bicycle rodeos presently being run, the following is a
short description of each of these.
3. Improve cycling skills that relate to on-street traffic skills.
Content:
Background:
0392e/254E/06/88
- 89 -
CEPERLEY PARK TRAFFIC SAFETY PLAYGROUND
Background: The Park Board, in cooperation with the Police Department,
operates the traffic safety playground at Ceperley Park every
summer. The Program is run for children between five and eight
years of age. The children practice the rules of the road by
driVing miniature pedal cars on a layout designed to imitate,
real roads, intersections, traffic lights and stop signs. Over
3,200 children took part in the program in 1987. The program
follows a basic rodeo structure in that it teaches children
basic traffic skills in a controlled off-street environment.
This program is geared more towards general traffic safety and
does not focus on bicycle safety skills.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Content:
Content:
relate to on-road cycling. The skills course is broken up into
nine stations, each set up to deal with known causes of
children's bicycle accidents. All participants ride bicycles in
order to simulate, as close as possible a real on-road situation.
o Basic bicycle sizing and maintenance
o Parent orientation to 'cycling and sense'
o Seeing and being seen
o Reasons for traffic laws
o Avoidance of 'driveway rideout' accidents
o Stopping at stop signs
o Looking behind for traffic (shoulder check)
o Control and balance
o Avoiding hazards
o Rules of the road
o Stopping at stop signs/traffic lights
- 90 -
VANCOUVER BICYCLE EDUCATION pROGRAM
The City of Vancouver can promote bicycle education in a number of ways. The
School Board, Parks Board and the Police Department can all work together
through the central Bicycle Education Advisory Board to establish a city-wide
education program. The prime target groups on which to focus such a program
are:
1) Young Children
2) School Age Children
3) Adult Cyclists
4) Motorists
To be most effective, the education of each prime target group should be
analysed and approached separately.
YOUNG CHILDREN
Children under the age of 9 represent a significant percentage of the cycling
population. This age group accounts for approximately 17% of all
bicycle/motor vehicle accident injuries requiring hospitalization (see
'Accidents ' ). Children in this age group have not fully developed their
reflexes and peripheral vision and are therefore more likely to be in an
accident .• Fortunately, the majority of children in this age category are not
exposed to heavy traffic conditions but rather ride in local neighbourhoods on
residential streets and sidewalks. Accordingly, the majority of child bicycle
accidents occur near the child1s home. Parents have the most important role
in the initial development of cycling skills for these children, but
unfortunately the majority of them lack the necessary information. For this
age group it is therefore important that the necessary information be
presented to parents in such a manner that it can be easily relayed to their
children. Some examples that can be used are:
pamphlets (given to children at school, mail outs, kindergartens,
community groups, police, attached to new bicycles)
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 91 -
educational promotions on radio, newspaper, etc.
The introduction of basic cycling skills and safety equipment through the
school system would also be beneficial in establishing a positive, safe
attitude towards cycling at this impressionable age. As with the information
provided to parents, such a program would have to be concise, and entertaining
to grasp the short attention span of children in this age group.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
20) That an informational brochure be made available for parents of children
under the age of nine. This brochure can be distributed through schools,
community centres, police and retailers.
21) That the Vancouver School Board work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee
and involved agencies to introduce a basic bicycle safety course for
children under nine years of age using 'effective cycling ' techniques and
CCA certified instructors.
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN
Children between the ages of 9 and 18 account for over 35% of all bicycle
accidents in Vancouver requiring hospitalization (see 'Accidents'). The
accident rate increases with this age group due to the increased exposure to
heavy traffic conditions and increased trip length. Education in this target
group should focus on traffic skills. In general children in the 9-18 age
group are becoming increasingly independent and the role of the parent often
decreases as a vital information source. The school must therefore playa
more prominent role in bicycle education. As noted earlier under 'Accidents',
the 10-14 year age group has the highest number of accidents. In order to be
most effective bicycle education for this age group must be incorporated into
the school curriculum between grades 4 and 7. This would ensure that all
students are receiving structured, consistent information. One time courses
have proven ineffective in the long term.
Bicycle education courses are not presently a part of school curriculum for
several reasons, some of which are:
1. lack of staff support and funding
0392e/254E/06/88
- 92 -
2. lack of available time
3. lack of bicycles
With increasing support of bicycle education and the noted increase in cycling
in our city, school based programs may be feasible with some program
restructuring and funding. Children in grades 4 to 7 require comprehensive
bicycle education which deals with the development of on-road traffic skills
and accident prevention. The most effective means of providing this education
is through on-road training by certified CCA instructors. It is recommended
that the School Board work with the bicycle education advisory committee
(Bicycle Advisory Committee) to incorporate a 20-30 hour cycling course into
the school curriculum for the fourth grade with annual refresher courses to
grade seven.
High school students are also in need of bicycle education but using a
different approach. Since most high school students will also become
motorists, it is important that they become aware of the cyclists rights and
responsibilities on the roadway. Programs outlining safe traffic skills and
road sharing can be introduced into existing transportation studies. High
school bicycle programs need to have a structured content yet be flexible upon
implementation. Trained community relations officers and teachers are best
suited to run such programs. Bicycle education in our school system will
require an increased awareness of the need for such programs by all
administration and staff. Some example steps in such a program are:
compulsory course for grades 4 to 7
provide instructional bicycle education kits for use in existing
transportation studies.
introduce bicycle education input into eXisting high school road safety
courses.
instructor training for designated teachers, school liaison officers
prepare refesher courses through school, community centres
educational promotions on radio, newspaper, television, posters, etc.
All programs should be continually evaluated for their success and updated
accordingly. Instructors should be trained and certified to be effective.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
- 93 -
RECOMMENDATIONS:
22) That the Vancouver School Board work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee
and involved agencies to introduce bicycle education as a compulsory part
of the elementary school curriculum for grades 4 to 1.
23) That the Vancouver School Board work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee
and involved agencies to introduce in-class bicycle education into
existing high school courses.
ADULT CYCLISTS
Adults make up a significant portion (over 36%) of the cyclists on the road.
The adult cyclist is one of the most difficult target groups to reach. Unlike
children, there are no common associations or clubs through which all adults
can be reached. If we are to depend only on primary school education programs
to educate cyclists it wouldn1t be until the year 2050 before we have a
bicycle-educated population (ref. 1). A successful education program must
therefore reach all cyclists including adults. Only a small percentage of
adult cyclists will seek out and attend bicycle education courses. This is
mainly due to the fact that most adult cyclists consider themselves
experienced road-users and that they don't require any further education.
Unfortunately, the statistics prove otherwise. Adult cyclists currently
account for over 41% of all serious cyclist injuries (requiring
hospitalization) in Vancouver (see 'Accidents'). Furthermore, it was found
that about 15% of all bicycle/motor vehicle accidents were either the direct
or indirect result of the bicyclist1s selection of a suboptimal course (ref.
30). Adult cyclists must be made aware of the availability of bicycle courses
and the need for special skill development required for cycling in traffic.
Adult educational brochures/courses, for Vancouver cyclists, should be geared
towards improving cycling skills in heavy traffic, dealing with the fear of
traffic, and riding in adverse weather conditions (see 'Vancouver Bicycle
Survey'). Some examples that can be used are:
Adult cyclist brochures (distributed through BCAA, ICBC, Be Tel, community
centres, attached to new bicycles)
provide police patrol cars with brochures for convenient distribution
0392e/254E/06/88
- 94 -
educational promotions on radio, newspaper, television
promote adult bicycle education courses
RECOMMENDATIONS:
24) That an adult cyclist brochure be made available for distribution through
automobile associations, community centres and retailers.
25) That the Vancouver Parks Board and community colleges and universities be
encouraged to expand their present bicycle education program to include
adult CCA Can-Bike courses at local community centres, campuses, etc.
MOTORISTS
The education of motorists is vital if cyclists are to safely share the
roadway. Many motorists are unaware that cyclists belong on the roadway.
Those motorists who are aware of road sharing are generally unfamiliar with
bicycle lane positioning and proper passing procedures. The motorists must be
educated on the rights and responsibilities of cyclists. The most direct and
efficient method is to incorporate bicycle related material into driver
training programs. Booklets provided to potential motorists and driver
training courses should give active consideration to cyclists. In addition,
the driving test itself (both written and on-road) should require the
candidate to express knowledge of the rights and duties of a cyclist. Such a
program would be slow in penetration, but it would ensure that all new
motorists are bicycle conscious. In order to reach the existing motorist, a
city-wide program similar to Toronto's 'Bicycles Belong ' program and
Australia's 'Be Aware of Bike Riders' program using the mass media and posters
seems to be most effective. Media education in this manner has an immediate
impact and is effective. For long term results, however, informative road
sharing tips should be relayed to the motorist periodically throughout the
year. Some examples are:
road sharing brochure distributed by ICBC, BC Tel
provide police patrol cars with brochures for convenient distribution
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 95 -
1nformat1on "share the road" PSA's on the radio, 1n the newspaper, and on
T.V. through public service announcements, etc.
'Share the Road ' bumper st1ckers
RECOMMENDATIONS:
26) That a 'road sharing' brochure geared towards motorists be made available
outlining the rights and respons1bi11t1es of the cyclist and the motorist
on the roadway. And that th1s brochure be made ava11able through lCBC,
BCAA, BC Tel, and b1cycle organizations.
27) That driver training booklets and courses be rev1sed to present cyc11sts
as an 1ntegral part of the road user env1ronment, outlining the rights and
responsibi11t1es of cyc11sts. And that the driv1ng test itself be revised
to test for such knowledge.
28) That a city-wide 'Share the Road ' med1a campa1gn be 1ntroduced. And that
promotional mater1al 1n th1s campa1gn include posters, bumper stickers,
T.V. and radio advert1sing.
OTHERS
A f1nal touch for a successful bicycle education program is the education of
those who mayor may not be cyclists but who have a d1rect impact on cyclists
in our C1ty. This group 1ncludes parents, teachers, motor vehicle
instructors, po11ce officers, engineers, planners, b1cycle retailers/renters
and pedestr1ans. Figure 21 out11nes some channels through which some of these
groups can be reached. However, there 1s no formal channel through which they
can all be reached. Comprehens1ve d1str1but1on of informational brochures and
use of the med1a w111 be generally the most effective means of educating these
remain1ng groups of cyc11sts requ1rements, r1ghts and responsib111ties. C1ty
of Vancouver Staff can be educated internally thro~gh bicycle videos and
informat1onal brochures.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 96 -
HELMET CAMpAIGN
The human skull is very vulnerable - an impact of only 7 to 10 km/h can
shatter it. A child's skull is even more vulnerable with a lower tolerance to
impact trauma and the likelihood of severe head injury is quite high from even
a short distance fall (ref. 9). In Vancouver over 36% of all bicycle accident
injuries requiring hospitalization included head injuries (see IAccidents ' ).
In Canada 90% of all cyclists fatalities involved head injuries. It has been
suggested that between 70-90% of the deaths due to head injuries would be
prevented through the use of a helmet effective in cushioning a severe blow
(ref. 9). With these staggering statistics it is surprising to see that only
a small percentage of most cyclists wear helmets. A helmet campaign
encouraging the use of helmets is required in order to effect a drop in these
accident statistics. Information outlining why one should wear a helmet and
what kind to buy should be relayed to the public. Some examples that can be
used are:
helmet safety brochures (given to children at school, attached to new
bicycles, community centres)
promotions in printed and electronic media (public service announcements)
helmet with a new bicycle promotional campaign
school bulk helmet purchase campaigns
helmet promotion posters (schools. community centres)
encourage all film production houses and advertising agencies to include
helmets in bicyle-riding sequences
compulsory helmet use for all school cycling activities
encourage helmet use by students riding to school
helmet subsidy scheme
Helmet campaigns have proven successful in Seattle, Washington; Missoula,
Montana; Eugene, Oregon; and Melbourne, Australia (see Figure 22). In order
to achieve this goal, a Bicycle Helmet Committee consisting of representatives
from ICBC, the Bicycling Association of B.C. (BABC) and the B.C. Medical
Association (BCMA) has been formed. The Helmet Committee's primary objective
is to produce promotional material that can be used across the province.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o.J----~=;;:....-----....,..-----ooy---------:r-------.,
RECOMMENDATI ONS:
o
COMMUTER
o
SECONDARY
_....------
to
20
so
30
10
PERCENT
100
1113 1184 1985 1986 1987
YEAR
Figure 22 - Melbourne, Australia Helmet Campaign Impact (ref/ 10)
- 97 -
MELBOURNE METROPOLITAN BICYCLE HELMET WEARING
10
70
10
The question of mandatory helmet use is an issue commonly raised in safety
conscious communities. Before mandatory helmet use is considered, however,
one must look at the feasibility of enforcing such a regulation. In
Vancouver, that would mean dealing with the majority of cyclists. Our Police
Department would not have the staff to enforce mandatory helmet use. It has
been Australia's experience that mandatory helmet use can only be effective
once 70% voluntary helmet use is achieved. Accordingly, cyclists must first
be encouraged to wear helmets through the previously mentioned programs until
a majority of the cyclists use helmets. Only then is it feasible to consider
mandatory usage.
29) That a City-wide helmet campaign be implemented to reduce present cyclist
inj uri es.
30) That future mandatory helmet use be considered when the majority of
cyclists are voluntarily wearing helmets.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 98 -
ENfORCEMENT
The third vital component of a successful bicycle plan is enforcement.
Without a strict enforcement program education efforts will be to no avail.
Cyclist behaviour is unlikely to improve unless the information reaching the
cyclist is reinforced through the enforcement of existing traffic laws and
regulations governing cyclists.
As noted earlier, over 52% of Vancouver Cyclists are under the age of 16 (see
'Cycling and Cyclists in Vancouver'). With this being the case, an
enforcement program must be structured to deal with violations made by
children of various ages. Presently, bicycle enforcement has not been a high
priority for the Vancouver Police Department partly due to the dilemma of
minimum age of legal responsibility and partly due to manpower constraints.
In Vancouver we note that a large percentage of the cycling population are
knowingly committing traffic offences (see 'Vancouver Bicycle Survey'). In
particular we summarize the most common offences as follows:
44% ride on sidewalks
33% run stops signs
21% run red lights
19% ride through crosswalks in use
17% cycle at night with no lights
9% ride against the flow of traffic
With the increasing number of bicycle accidents and an increase in public
awareness of the problem, bicycle enforcement should be reconsidered as a
higher priority. To be effective, increased enforcement should be geared
towards the prevention of certain types of behaviour and should be continually
re-eva1uated to track conformance. Such a selective traffic enforcement
program (STEP) allows for a more efficient use of manpower.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 99 -
other road users must also be made aware that the rights of cyclists will also
be protected by enforcement of present traffic laws and regulations. The
prevention of bicycle thefts through Bicycle Identification/Registration
programs also plays an important role in a successful bicycle enforcement
program.
EXISTING TRAFFIC LAWS AND REGULATIONS
As detailed in Appendix H, Vancouver cyclists are governed by both the
prOVincial regulations of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act and the municipal
regulations of the Vancouver street and Traffic By-Law (see Table 3). In
general, a cyclist has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle
with some additional duties. Most provincial and municipal regulations have
proven effective. Some minor refinements may be considered, however, to
reflect some present day accepted practices. Present interpretation of the
Street and Traffic By-Law (sect. 59) and the Motor Vehicle Act (sect. 185-26)
is not open for a cyclist to claim an entire lane for his or her own safety.
In addition, the feasibility of allowing the extended right arm right-turn
signal fo~ cyclists should also be investigated. Traffic regulations in many
American states has been updated to allow cyclists to claim an entire lane
when required, as is extended right arm right turn signals, when preferred.
In cases where both the provincial and municipal regulations overlap, the
regulations set by the higher level of government supersede those of any lower
level of government (BC MVA governs). The police officer may, however, issue
a ticket under either of the regulations.
0392e/254E/06/88
- 100 -
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CYCLISTS
Offense
R1ding on sidewalk
Must ride on r1ght side
of roadway
R1d1ng two abreast
R1ding w1thout at least
one hand on handle bars
Fail to ride on seat
Carrying passenger on
cycle
Riding when prohibited
by signs
Fail to ride on bike pathway
R1ding while attached to
vehicle
Fail to have head11ght
at night
Fail to have taillight
or reflector at night
Rid1ng without due care
and attent10n
Bicycle must be
equipped w1th a bell
Cycle on sidewalk
Cycle on sidewalk footpath
Cyc11st wear1ng head-
phones (both ears)
Cyclist fa11s to state
correct name &address
Obstruct Police Off1cer
1n course of duty
0392e/254E/06/88
Section
185-2-a MVA
185-2-b MVA
185-2-c MVA
185-2-d MVA
185-2-e MVA
185-2-f MVA
185-2-9 MVA
185-3 MVA
185-4 MVA
185--5 MVA
185-5 MVA
185-7 MVA
55 By-law 2849
60 By-law 2849
14(h) Parks By-law
60(A) By-law 2849
60(B) By-law 2849
118 Cr1minal Code
n nee $)
75.00
75.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
15.00
25.00
25.00
15.00
Arrest
Arrest
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0392e/207E/02/88
- 101 -
45 days
TRAFFIC BENCH
WARRANT FOR ARREST
UNTIL FINE PAID
Contest pay
.... -11SUr'1~10NS 11----_
I TO COURTI
..
30 days
DRIVERS LICENCE
INSURANCE NOT RE-
NEWED UNTIL FINE
PAID
Contest ~OFFENCEI pay Contest IBY-LAW OFFENCE I pay• • ~ ..
I
14 days 15 days
Contest pay Contest pay
FIGURE 23 - FINE COLLECTION STRUCTURE FOR MVA AND BY-LAW VIOLATIONS
Whether to t1cket under the MVA or a C1ty By-law generally depends on the
ser10usness of the offence and the att1tude of the offender. As seen 1n
Table 3, By law f1nes are generally much lower than MVA f1nes. In some cases,
a traff1c v101at10n comm1tted by a cyc11st may not be 11sted as requ1r1ng a
f1ne, but rather p01nts. These v101at10ns are generally reserved as f1nes
s1nce a p01nt v101at10n comm1tted on a b1cycle cannot be transferred to the
cyc11st ' s dr1v1ng record. The cyc11st must state h1s/her proper name and
address and can be arrested 1f he/she fa11s to do so (Sect10n 118 - Cr1m1nal
Code, Sect10n 108 - By-law 2849). If a cyc11st rece1ves a t1cket for
v101at1ng a C1ty By-law the collect10n procedure 1s d1fferent from that of a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 102 -
MVA violation (see Fig. 23). In the case of a By-law offence, should the
offender not pay the fine and fail to appear in court, a traffic bench warrant
will be issued for his/her arrest. This means the offender is arrested if
he/she is ever stopped by a police officer (for any reason). In the case of a
MVA offence non-payment and failure-to-appear results in the offender's name
being flagged in the provincial computer database. In this case the offender
is not allowed to renew his/her drivers license and/or insurance until the
fine is paid or until six years has passed (ref. 13). Originally the Court
Services Branch advised they would support a plan to proceed on a 'deemed
convicted' system for bicyclists who held B.C. driver's licenses. We are now
advised this sytem will not be available. Although there will be a deemed
convicted no follow up occurs if the ticket is not paid. The assumption made
in the above two collection procedures is that all cyclists have a drivers
license. The fact is that all cyclists under the age of 16 and many people
older than 16 do not have a drivers license. This raises the issue of whether
the independent licensing of cyclists is feasible. From the above discussion
we see that the licensing of cyclists may have some definite advantages, these
are:
1. Improved regulation and tracking of cyclists.
2. Immediate photo identification of a cyclist (traffic offender/accident
victim).
3. Ensured education and examination of all cyclists receiving a license.
4. Improved cyclist compliance to traffic laws and regulations due to
awareness of enforcement.
To incorporate cyclists licensing into the existing licensing program would be
both expensive and difficult to enforce. A licensing program would require a
system equal to the motor vehicle licensing system. A method of renewal of
licenses, age of licensee, etc. would have to be established. Such a program
may also discourage cycling for those people who could not afford the high
license fee that would be required to administer the program. For these
reasons, it may not be in the best interest of the general public to license
all cyclists. It may, however, be feasible to license cyclists who use their
bicycles for commercial purposes.
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.... --_ ..-----------------------------------c----
- 103 -
BICYCLE COURIERS
Downtown bicycle couriers have been used by Courier companies in Vancouver
since 1982 (ref. 14). From their initial introduction into the courier
business, the majority of courier companies have hired bicycle couriers due to
their fast delivery and inexpensive operation. Most of the downtown couriers
are paid on a piece rate (or per delivery commission). Courier companies have
found that a piece rate payment structure motivates the courier to deliver as
quickly as possible. With commissions ranging from 05 to 75%, and an average
of 40 to 50 trips per day, it is not uncommon for a courier to earn $100/day
(ref. 15). As a result, the industry has grown to a point where bicycle
couriers generate over $2.5 million worth of courier business per month (ref.
10) .
Unfortunately, due to the commission structure with which the majority of
couriers are paid, delivery times seem to take priority over traffic safety.
Bicycle couriers are becoming well known for their general disregard and
violation of traffic laws and regulations. The most serious offences commonly
made by many couriers include:
riding on sidewalks
unsafe lane changes
running red lights/stop signs
riding on crosswalks
riding without due care and attention
failure to signal change of direction
illegal passing procedures
Such violations are a threat to pedestrian safety and promote motor vehicle
accidents. With no means of identification many of these violations go
unreported. Vancouver Police have found that repeat offenders can accumulate
up to 4 or 5 violations per day (ref. 15). As noted earlier, outstanding
fines for By-law offences are not collected until couriers are arrested for
outstanding Traffic Bench Warrants. And if a courier doesn1t have a drivers
0392e/254E/Oo/88
--------------------------- - -
- 104 -
license, there is presently no means of ensuring payment of fines for
violations of the Motor Vehicle Act (see Figure 23).
In order to effectively control the bicycle courier problem, the City of
Vancouver in consultation with private industry, is in the process of
implementing a Commercial Bicycle Operator Licencing Program. The licensing
program will be structured to ensure minimum road knowledge of the cyclist, a
means of cyclist identification. and strong punitive action for repeat
offenders. In particular. the Commercial Bicycle Operator Licensing Program
will include the following:
1. That all bicyle couriers be examined on traffic skills, and traffic laws
and regulations.
2. That all bicycle couriers be required to carry photo identification
listing the operator's identification number, name and address as well as
that of his/her employer.
3. That bicycles used by licensed operators display a license plate with the
operator's identification number, and that such plate be located on the
bicycle so that it is visible from the rear.
4. That the licensed operator be fined and/or have his/her license revoked
upon accumulation of traffic offences.
With the above program in place and increased enforcement, a marked decrease
in traffic violations can be expected. The licensing program will be run
through the Permits and Licenses Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
31) That a Commercial Bicycle Operator Licensing Program, as outlined in this
report. be implemented in order to control the present downtown bicycle
courier problem (COMPLETED).
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 105 -
The program would be geared towards cyclists of all ages. Children would have
to be dealt with according to their age. A reasonable outline to follow would
be as follows:
During the actual week of enforcement, the campaign would require 3 to 5
officers per day who would be specifically assigned to enforce all traffic
laws and regulations governing cyclists. The enforcement officers could also
be supplied with informational brochures outlining traffic laws, regulations
and safety tips.
ONE WEEK BICYCLE ENFORCEMENT CAMpAIGN
Prior to increased bicycle enforcement, a one week bicycle enforcement
campaign can be very effective. Similar to that run in Victoria (from
September 28 to October 4, 1987), such a campaign can obtain overwhelming
public support through increased cyclist awareness of existing laws and
regulations. The week prior to the one week campaign would consist primarily
of a media blitz. utilizing radio stations, newspapers and possibly
television, the public can be made aware of the upcoming program and in turn
be educated at the same time. The distribution of informational brochures
through schools, community centres and bicycle shops would also be effective.
Action For Traffic Offence
Warning of first offence or ticket and explain
violation. Informational brochure provided.
stop child and inform of offence and reasons why
not to commit such an offence. Informational
brochure provided. Take name and address to send
form letter to parents.
Stop child and inform of offence. Legally entitled
to a ticket under "Young Offenders Act", but would
be better to contact parents and explain
violation. Informational brochure provided.
1 - 11
0392e/254E/06/88
10+
12 - 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 106 -
During the week of enforcement, daily media updates are essential to the
success of the campaign (ref. 17). As run in Olympia, Washington, an
Enforcement Diversion Program can also be incorporated into the enforcement
week where offenders could attend an education course in lieu of fines.
The one week bicycle enforcement campaign in Victoria was successful in that
it greatly increased public awareness of the rights and duties of cyclists and
that it obtained overwhelming public support (ref. 17). One hundred and six
tickets were issued creating a gross revenue of approximately $7,000
(excluding staff time costs). The Victoria Police Department plans to expand
its bicycle enforcement program to run one week out of every six weeks between
April 1 and October 31 of each year.
RECOMMENDATION:
32) That the Vancouver Police Department in cooperation with the Bicycle
Advisory Committee run a One Week Bicycle Enforcement Campaign, as
outlined in this report.
BICYClE REGISTRATION
The registration of bicycles in Vancouver began in 1959 and ran until 1978.
During this period bicycle registration shifted between being compulsory and
voluntary. in 1971 a new bicycle storage facility was built and the Bicycle
Registration Unit was expanded to include two Police Officers, two Bicycle
Inspectors and one Clerk. In 1977 a review of the comparative effectiveness
of the Unit (as opposed to costs) was undertaken by the Planning, Research and
Inspections section. As a result of this study, the two police officers were
withdrawn from the Unit and the Unit itself was disbanded in 1978. In 1978,
City Council withdrew By-law 4572 requiring the registration of bicycles. One
of the main arguments in the police report was that bicycles should not be
treated any differently than other valuable property. They reasoned that
bicycles should be included in the newly instituted identification programs
whereby owners were being asked to mark valuable property with their social
insurance number. Unfortunately, considerable debate exists within the
cycling community regarding the accuracy of these assumptions, due to the fact
that the SIN cannot be easily traced to the owner as would a drivers license
number and the program is not effective unless the majority of bicycles are
0392e/254E/06/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I--
I
I
I
I
- 107 -
marked/registered. The bicycle should be treated differently from other
valuables since it is a vehicle. As with motor vehicles, the bicycle must be
easily identifiable when stopped by a police officer.
For these above reasons, it is recommended that staff time and funding be put
into a Vancouver Bicycle Identification Program as opposed to a Province wide
registration program in order to reduce the present theft rate and improve
rider identification (see 'Bicycle Identification Program ' )
The Bicycle Association of British Columbia (BABC) has recently introduced a
province-wide bicycle re~istration program for their members. BABC members
mark their bicycles by means of a decal placed on the underside of the top
tube. The Vancouver Police or RCMP notify the BABC of recovered bicycles with
the BABC deca 1.
BICYCLE THEFT PREVENTION
Bicycle thefts in Canada have grown to a point where there is a real cause for
concern, requiring action by the RCMP and local police departments. Over $110
million worth of bicycles were stolen in 1986 in Canada (ref. 18). In
Vancouver, 15to 20 bicycles are stolen per day totalling over 500 missing
bicycles per month (ref. 18). Over 47% of Vancouver cyclists have at one time
had their bicycle stolen (see 'Vancouver Bicycle Survey'). The reasons for
this extremely high theft rate are simple:
l. There is no easy means of marking bicycles.
2. Bicycles are generally easy to steal.
3. One cannot recognize a stolen component unless it is marked.
4. Enforcement against bicycle theft is difficult.
5. Insurance companies readil y pay for bicycle theft.
from figure 24 we see the bicycle registration program run from 1959 to 1978
did not have a significant impact on the number of stolen bicycles in
Vancouver. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that the one
0392e/254E/06/88
Year
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
78787776
- 108 -
3.4 -r------------------------::=---------,
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
,
2.~
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
-~
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8 +----,---r--.......,r----r--.......,r---..ljL--r----r--r---""'T"'---!
7!S
FIGURE 24 - REPORTED BICYCLE THEFTS. VANCOUVER 1975-1986 (Ref. 25)
registration decal did not discourage bicycle theft for components. Decals
could also be easily removed from the frame leaving the stolen bicycle
inidentifiable. Bicycle Identification Programs, on the other hand, have
proven more successful.
0392e/207E/02/88
- 109 -
0392e/254E/06/88
5. The recovery rate of stolen bicycles has increased, decreasing the number
of fraudulent bike theft claims.
4. Prospective purchases of used bicycles can have the identification number
checked to confirm that the bicycle is not stolen.
program
Resale of
As the majority of stolen bicycles are stolen for parts, the
discourages this practice by making each part identifiable.
these items also becomes difficult for th~ thief.
1.
BICYCLE IDENTIfICATION PROGRAM
The RCMP in co-operation with various municipalities have run a Bicycle
Identification Program in an attempt to reduce bicycle thefts. In this
program,the bicycle and all its major removable components are marked with the
owner's/parent's driver's licence number. In cases where a drivers licence
number is not available the social insurance number is used. The advantages
of the program are as follows:
2. Use of a drivers licence number as identity marks enables police to
determine the owner of the bicycle in minutes. It also provides a tool
for the police to assist in identifying the rider of a bicycle or to
corroberate the name given by a rider who does not produce 1.0.
3. The program enables police to recognize a stolen bicyle by noting that
only one part of the bicycle is marked or that two different marks appear
on the same bicycle.
Police can look for irregularities on a bicycle to help spot stolen bicycles.
The size of the bike, irregular components, odd color coordination and damaged
areas from removed components signal that the bicycle may be stolen. The
bicycle can then be checked for identification markings. A similar program
run in Cranbrook, B.C. for 2 years reduced the theft rate by 40%. The above
identification program coupled with trained observations made by police
,
officers and secure bicycle parking facilities can greatly reduce bicycle
thefts in our City.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 110 -
RECOMMENOATION:
33) That the Vancouver Police Department consider working with local RCMP to
initiate a Vancouver Bicycle Identification Program to reduce bicycle
theft.
34) That the Vancouver Police Department prepare an informational memo to all
on-street officers outlining methods of identifying a stolen bicycle.
BICYCLE INSURANCE
In addition to the Proposed Bicycle Identification Program bicycle owners
should ensure that their bicycle is insured against theft. Bicycle insurance
is generally not available as a single policy but the theft of ones bicycle is
usually covered under household insurance. Most insurance policies, however,
have recently put a "roof" on bicycle theft coverage due to the high theft
rate. Cyclists should always confirm their bicycle theft coverage when
negotiating household insurance.
The most effective insurance against theft is a good lock and a secure
facility to which to secure one's bicycle. The bicycle plan is recommending
substantial provision of secure bicycle parking facilities in the Vancouver
Parking By-Law (see 'Bicycle Parking ' ). These provisions for new
developments, in addition to improved parking facilities at recreation and
community service centres, will greatly improve security against theft.
In addition to theft and damage in the course of theft, cyclists are exposed
to damage and injury claims when involved in motor vehicle accidents.
Presently, cyclists are not required to carry accident insurance. When
involved in an accident in which the motorist is 100% at fault, damage and
injury claims are covered under the motorists Third Party liability coverage
(Public Liability Property Damage). All motorists are required to carry a
minimum $200,000 in Third party liability coverage but can increase coverage
to $15,000,000. Underinsured Motorist Protection does not apply here since
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 111 -
cyclists are not required to carry accident insurance. In the case where the
cyclist is at fault, the motorist, pedestrian or other cyclist must puruse
legal action to retrieve damages. The Bicycling Association of British
Columbia (BABC) has provided all their members with Third Party Liability
Coverage of $1,000,000 to cover injury and damage to a third party. In
addition, the BABC plan covers all personal medical expenses in excess of BC
Medical coverage, up to $10,000 per year. This program ;s an ideal
opportunity for cyclists to obtain improved third party coverage. BABC
general membership costs $25 per year and can be obtained at the BABC office
at Sport B.C.
ENFORCEMENT ON RECREATIONAL ROUTES
Vancouver has a number of segregated recreational facilities on which
enforcement is difficult. The most prominent areas in which enforcement is
required are those where heavy pedestrian volumes share the same facility.
These areas iclude the Burrard Street Bridge section of the Habitat Bicycle
Route and the Stanley Park Seawall (see 'Existing Recreational Routes').
Enforcement on the Stanley Park Seawall is generally done on horseback and
during peak-use periods.
A large number of cyclists riding on the Stanley Park Cycle Routes are
tourists with rental bicycles. In general, most tourists are unfamiliar with
local traffic laws and regulations governing cyclists. One method of
educating bicycle renters would be to provide all Vancouver Bicycle Rental
outlets with informational pamphlets as required reading before rental. The
pamphlet would outline all traffic laws and regulations in addition to park
rules and pedestrian crossings (see Appendix E).
Many communities have increased enforcement through the use of deputized
officers on bicycles. Such "bike cop" programs have proven successful in
areas outside of the City such as segregated recreational facilities and
University campuses. Bike cops are an inexpensive method of enforcement due
to the low labour and vehicle maintenance costs. The University of California
0393e/254E/02/88
- 112 -
in Davis, California has successful used a deputized police officer to control
bicycle traffic for several years now. The program at the university gives
the bike cop the authority to ticket moving violations and has been effective
in enforcing common cycling violations: stopping at stop signs, red lights,
riding on the sidewalk, and riding at night without lights (see 'Cycling and
Cyclists in Vancouver l ). Seattle is using bike cops in the downtown area to
enforce criminal and traffic offences. The bike cops have proven effective in
response time and apprehension due to their manoeuverab1lity in traffic. In
Vancouver, bike cops have been used at the University of British Columbia by
the RCMP. The two RCMP officers, supplied with mountain bikes, have been
effective in controlling the UEL trails and traffic violations on campus
streets. A similar program using Vancouver police officers on mountain bikes
may be effective on the Stanley Park Seawall and English Bay area. Police
officers involved in the program would be required to complete a CCA Can-Bike
Skills 2 course before implementation of the program, in order to ensure such
officers have the necessary cycling traffic skills required to safely
negotiate city traffic and set a good example for other cyclists to follow.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
35) That an informational pamphlet, outlining cycling traffic laws and
regulations, be supplied to all bicycle rental outlets for distribution to
rental customers.
36) That the Vancouver Police Department consider the use of trained police
officers on bicycles to enforce traffic laws and regulations governing
cyclists on the Stanley Park Seawall and the English Bay area.
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~--~.~---~---------------------
- 113 -
ENCOURAGEMENT
Up to th1s point the plan has d1scussed ways in which Eng1neer1ng, Educat10n
and Enforcement programs are interdependent 1n ach1ev1ng 1ntegration of the
bicycle 1nto the exist1ng transportation network and in ach1ev1ng widespread
acceptance of the b1cycle as a vehicle. Just as the proper use of improved
eng1neer1ng fac1lities 1s dependent on cyclist education and education is
dependent on enforc~ment, so are all the proposed fac1l1ties and programs
dependent on increased usage. The full benef1ts of a bicycle conscious city
are atta1ned through increased cyc11ng. Cyc11ng can be encouraged 1n three
ways:
1) by 1mproved end-of-tr1p fac1lities
2) by promot10nal/1nformational programs
3) by intermodal trans1t links/facilit1es
END-OF-TRIP FACILITIES
The most effect1ve method of encourag1ng commuter cycling is to prov1de
convenient end-of-trip faci11ties at the workplace. When a cyc11st arrives at
his/her place of work he/she requ1res a secure parking faci11ty to wh1ch the
b1cycle can be locked, a 10cat10n in which to change (and store one's
clothing, helmet, etc.) and, 1deal1y, shower facilities. Therefore, the three
key end-of-tr1p fac1l1t1es for a commuter cyc11st are:
1) park1ng fac11it1es
2) lockers
3) shower fac1l1t1es
In general an add1ional 1-2% of an employment centre's workforce can be
expected to commute by b1cycle through the installat10n of secure b1cyc1e
parking fac1l1ties and an additional 1-2% increase can be expected if showers
and lockers are also supplied (ref. 23). In Vancouver, 23% of the cyc11sts
0393e/254E/02/88
- 114 -
surveyed are d'scouraged from r'ding the'r bike due to the lack of end-of-tr'p
fac'lities at the'r work place (see IVancouver B'cycle Surveyl). Unlike motor
vehicles, the bicycle has l'ttle protect'on aga'nst theft of ,ts components
and no protect'on aga'nst weather. As noted earlier (see 'Bicycle Parking l)
b'cycle park'ng fac'lities must offer varying levels of protection against
damage, theft and weather depend'ng on the duration of use and locat'on of
fac'lity. B'cycle Park'ng facil't'es which do not meet the required level of
service are avo'ded by cyclists. Substandard fac'lities result in cyclists
us'ng nearby parking meters, traff'c control s'gns, lamp standards, trees and
fences. Th's pract'ce is 'llegal and may be hazardous for pedestrian traffic
(By-law 2849 - sect. 71(1)). It's therefore essential that the gUidel'nes
for proper park'ng fac'l't'es be followed in order to provide effective
convenient b'cyclepark'ng that will be used. In addition to employment
centres encourag'ng b'cycle commuting through the provision of park'ng
facil't'es, 'mproved park'ng fac'lities at publ'c serv'ce outlets would
encourage city-wide cycling. Improved b'cycle parking facilit'es at Vancouver
schools, libraries, community centres, parks, museums, and other public
bu'ld'ngs should be considered as a v'tal component in our C,ty encouragement
program. The provis'on of such facil'ties would set an example for the
private sector to follow.
Wh'le park'ng fac'l't'es are requ'red by all by cycl'sts, shower and locker
fac'l't'es are generally only required by commuter cycl'sts. Employment
centres should be encouraged to prov'de such facilit'es if bicycle commuting
's to be encouraged. Add't'onal benefits for noon hour exerc'sers and late
workers can also be real'sed by such facil'ties. Recommendations at the
development permit stage can be made to developers for such facil'ties. Such
fac'lit'es can usually be accommodated in present developments by reallocation
of exist'ng washroom fac'l'ties or as part of other fitness amenities.
Some employment centres 'n Californ'a have found a marked increase in the
number of commut'ng cycl'sts by prov'd'ng end-of-tr'p facilit'es. Palo Alto
has ordinances requir'ng bicycle park'ng, showers and lockers 'n all new
employment centres. Accord'ngly, a 1980 census has shown that 11% of all work
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 115 -
trips in Palo Alto are made by bicycle. The Xerox Corporation headquarters
have 18-20% of their workforce commuting to work by bicycle through the
installation of parking, showers and lockers (ref. 23). Lawrence Livermore
Labs have 10-15% of their work force commuting by bicycle as a result of the
installation of similar end-of-trip facilities. Since the installation of
improved bicycle parking and shower facilities at Vancouver City Hall, the
number of employees commuting by bicycle has climbed to over 4%. Employment
centres can further encourage their workforce to commute by bicycle by
offering additional promotional and informational programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
37) That the City of Vancouver provide secure bicycle parking facilities at
Vancouver schools, libraries, community centres, parks, museums, and other
public buildings.
38) That private developers be encouraged to provide shower and locker
facilities in the development permit application stage.
PROMOTIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS
Cycling in Vancouver can be further encouraged through programs run by
individual employment centres and by City wide promotional campaigns.
Employees are usually hesitant about cycling to work for several reasons. The
most common reasons are:
1) Time
2) Safety
3) Weather
4) Inconvenience
The argument that cycling takes more time than driving to work is situation
dependent. Cycling is perceived to take more time than driving, but in urban
areas during rush hours, the bicycle is as fast or faster than driving a motor
vehicle. This is mainly due to the cyclist's ability to safely pass areas of
heavy congestion and generally park closer to the employment centre.
Commuting by bicycle also saves exercise time as this is accomplished during
the trip to and from work. Encouragement programs can include the provision
0393e/254E/02/88
- 116 -
of a BABC Vancouver Bicycle Map with local commuting times added. A common
deterrent for Vancouver commuters is fear of traffic. Over 35% of Vancouver
cyclists are discouraged from riding due to their fear of traffic (see
IVancouver Bicycle Survey'). Traffic skills and confidence can be increased
through CCA approved Can-Bike education programs which can be offered through
the employment centre to all interested employees. Riding in adverse weather,
which is a deterrent for over 51% of Vancouver cyclists, is also covered
through education of employees. The inconvenience of cycling is overcome
through provision of proper end-of-trip facilities.
Some employers further encourage bicycle commuting by offering financial
incentives. Varion Industries, in California, offers its employees a 50t/day
bike commuter subsidy. As a result, 5% of their work force commute by bicycle
(ref. 23).
In Vancouver, Bike to Work Day or "Working Wheels" is an excellent opportunity
for employers to create an initial interest in bicycle commuting. Organized
and promoted by the CCA in 1981, Working Wheels is a one day encouragement
campaign for commuter cycling. Employers across Canada are encouraged to take
part in this drive to promote bicycle commuting by encouraging their employees
to ride to work. Such a Bike to Work campaign can be enhanced by other
activities such as a cyclists breakfast or noon hour BBQ and bicycle safety
and maintenance clinics.
On a City-wide basis cycling can be encouraged through a number of high
participation events. Bicycle Sundays, promoted as a family cycling event,
began in 1969. Up until recent years the event has been held in Stanley Park
on Park Drive. Even though the road closure has been popular with cyclists,
low participation rates were evident as a result of the early hours (8 AM -
11 AM). Extension of the road closure into the afternoon was in conflict with
the restaurant owners who depend on motorist clientelle. In 1981, in an
attempt to find a new location, Bicycle Sunday was held in the False Creek
Area. A bicycle clinic, information booths and a Police Operation
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- --------------------,---------------------
- 117 -
0393e/254E/02/88
40) That fund raising cycling events be encouraged and supported by the City
of Vancouver whenever possible.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
39) That the Park Board continue to hold Bicycle Sundays with the objective of
encouraging safe cycling in Vancouver.
TOTAL
1,001 ,064
999,355
838,022
834,136
AUTO + PASSENGERTRANSIT
163,042
165,219
TABLE 4
Trips To/From Vancouver From Surrounding Municipalities
In a 24 Hour Period, 1985 (Ref. 19)
Identification Booth accompanied the successful event. Bicycle Sundays should
be continued in Vancouver as part of Vancouver's encouragement campaign. Fund
raising Wheelathons or cyclothons held in the city should be supported and
encouraged whenever possible.
INTERMODAL TRANSIT
Over one million people travel in and out of Vancouver each day from
surrounding municipalities (see Table 4). Approximately 16% of these trips
are made using Transit and over 84% are made by motor vehicle.
TO VANCOUVER
FROM VANCOUVER
If intermoda1 transit links and facilities for cyclists were provided, we
could expect a significant portion of these trips to include cycling in
combination with another mode. The encouragement of dual mode transport has
many benefits. Most significantly, dual mode transport with bicycles as one
mode would decrease the number of motor vehicles driven into the downtown
core. The resulting benefits being decreased traffic congestion and lower
demand for motor vehicle parking. Dual mode transport involving bicycles can
take three forms:
The Encouragement of cycling through a media campaign will be most
successfully accomplished when combi"ned with the proposed education campaign
(see IEducation l ). This would ensure that increased participation will not be
accompanied by an increased accident rate, as was the case during the 1984
Transit strike in Vancouver (see 'Accidents l ).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 118 -
o car, park and bike
o bike, park and ride
o bike, carry and bike
Car, Park and Bike
The car, park and bike form of dual mode transport is most common with
recreational cyclists. but also has benefits for the daily commuter. The
driving portion of the trip overcomes the long distance barrier and the
cycling component allows inexpensive. convenient parking at the employment
centre. In general. no specific facilities are required for this form of
transport besides proper end-of-trip facilities and some transit node parking
facilities. The commuter can park his/her vehicle at any location where it
can be safely and legally left during the working day. This combination does
require the ability of the vehicle to transport a bicycle either inside. or by
means of a bicycle rack.
Bike, Park and Ride
The most popular form of dual mode transport is the bike. park and ride
combination. Commuters from surrounding municipalities need only to ride to
the nearest transit exchange. park their bicycle. and ride to work. In the
Netherlands. where dual mode transport is encouraged, 35% of all Dutch
commuters arrive at a public transport station by bicycle (Ref. 24). And
where regulations do not permit the bike to be carried on public transport. it
is also popular to park a bicycle at the other end of their public transport
journey in order to cycle to their final destination. Approximately 12% of
all Dutch commuters store a second bicycle for the final leg of their trip to
work (Ref. 24). The bike park and ride form is popular with public transport
departments since vehicle carry-on conflicts are avoided, use of the transit
system goes up. and bicycle park and ride parking facilities are much more
cost effective than motor vehicle park and ride parking facilities. The
provision of proper bicyle parking facilities also increases the station
catchment area of commuters who would otherwise take their car. The greatest
provision is in Japan. where over 3 million. bicycle parking spaces are
provided at a total of 636 locations. It is estimated that 15% of Japanese
rail commuters use a bicycle for the journey to the station. and the numbers
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 119 -
are increasing at 20 per cent per year (Ref. 1).
In Burnaby and Vancouver, the majority of Transit exchanges coincide with the
above noted Skytrain stations. There are, however, a large number transit
exchanges in the region with off-street facilities. BC Transit has the
opportunity to promote bike, park and ride dual mode commuting on a region
wide basis by providing bicycle parking facilities at all such locations.
These exchanges include:
In Vancouver, the regional transit system includes buses, the Seabus, and the
Sky train (ALRT). With respect to the Seabus, bicycle parking is provided only
at the north Lonsdale Quay station. Unfortunately, the facility is in the
open and is of the Itoast rack' or 'wheelbender ' design providing no
protection against weather and little protection against 'damage or theft. The
southern terminus Waterfront station has no bicycle parking facilities. Of
the 15 Skytrain stations, 12 have bicycle parking facilities and only 6 of
these are undercover. Again, all of these facilities are of the 'toast rack'
design. To encourage 'bike, park and ride' dual mode transit, these
facilities could be improved. Bicycle parking facilities should be provided
at the Waterfront, Granville, and Broadway SkyTrain stations. In cases where
off street space is not available the provision of bicycle parking could be a
joint City/BC Transit effort. Where possible, parking facilities should be
located in highly visible covered areas. Facility design and location should
be as outlined in this report (see 'Bicycle Parking ' ). Further enhancements
at Seabus and Skytrain stations could include the installation of lockers and
the signing of parking facilities.
University Loop
Blanca Loop
Lougheed Mall
Coquitlam Centre
Dunbar Loop
Kootenay Marpole Loop
Sexsmith
Steves ton
Vancouver
University of B.C.
Burnaby
Richmond
Coquitlam
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0393e/254E/02/88
42) That BC Transit consider providing bicycle parking facilities at all Park
and Ride locations and off-street transit exchanges.
At locations where transit exchanges are located on-street, the municipality
should be encouraged to provide bicycle parking facilities.
43) That individual municipalities be asked to consider providing bicycle
parking facilities at transit exchanges where off-street space is not
available.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 120 -
Phibbs Exchange
Ladner Exchange
Newton Exchange
Scottsdale Mall
South Delta Exchange
North Vancouver
Ladner
Surrey
Tsawwassen
RECOMMENDATIONS;
41) That BC Transit be requested to upgrade bicycle parking facilities at all
Sky train and Seabus stations as outlined in this report.
Bike, Carry and Bike
The final form of dual mode transport is 'bike, carry and bike ' . In this
case, the cyclist is to carry his/her bicycle on board the transit system to
be used on the final leg of the journey. The advantage of this form of dual
mode transport is the fact that the commuter only needs one bicyle. As with
the 'bike, park and ride' mode, this mode can overcome major cyclist barriers
such as long distance, water, tunnels, bridges, etc.
Whether or not to allow bikes on trains or rapid transit has long since been a
point of controversy between transit officials and cycling advocates across
North America. Transit officials have a legitimate concern that the safety
(hence liability) and convenience of regular commuter services may be
compromised by allowing bicycles. Even though such concerns exist, several
rail lines have met the demand through innovative designs and planning. The
Austrian Federal Railway System has successfully introduced bicycle provisions
in 30 of their 120 electric rail cars. Each car is marked with a bicycle
pictograph on the outside and is provided with a bank of hooks above folding
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 121 -
benches, capable of securely carrying up to 10 bicycles. Bicycles are also
allowed on the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transit System (BART) at all
times except rush hours. On BART, commuter cyclists are required to take out
a 3 year bicycle commuter permit (with a release of liability) at a cost of
$3.00. Bicycles are allowed on the last car with a maximum of seven bicycles
per car. California Transit (CALTRAN) also allows bicycles on their Transit
Shuttle from the MacArthur BART station over the bridge to downtown San
Francisco. This system has been operating successfully since 1974. In
Montreal, Quebec, cyclists are allowed to bring their bicycles on the first
and last car of the Metro Subway System on weekdays after 7:00 p.m. and all
day on weekends and statutory holidays.
If such a system were considered for Vancouver's Skytrain, various issues
would have to be dealt with. Access to the train is a major obstacle. During
peak usage, stations are generally packed full with commuters. Bicycles may
not mix well during such periods especially during queuing, loading and
unloading. As with other systems, the only safe usage of the system by
cyclists would have to be during low use periods (non rush hour and
weekends). As the use of stairs and escalators by cyclists would be both
hazardous and inconvenient cyclists would be required to use the elevators in
all multi-level stations.
Bicycle access would therefore be permitted only at ground level stations and
multi-level stations with elevators. The final obstacle to be dealt with
would be safely loading/unloading the bicycle. As most rail lines have found,
the best method is to provide a convenient location for bicycles near the door
in designated cars only.
The Seabus is a very important link to downtown from the North Shore for
commuters. Bicycles have been permitted on the Seabus on Saturdays, Sundays
and holidays since 1979. Cyclists are required to pay double fare and are
asked to board last and disembark last. This system has proven very
successful with no notable conflicts or inconveniences. For this operation to
be acceptable an area in the back of the Seabus would have to be designated
0393e/254E/02/88
- 122 -
which would not prohibit access to lifejackets. This would be achieved by the
removal of 2 or 3 of the 400 seats to provide a bicycle storage area. Lost
revenue from lost capacity would be covered by the present double fare
charge. With this in mind, it is recommended that bicyles be permitted at all
times on the Seabus.
As noted earlier Caltrans operates a shuttle bus to downtown San Francisco
which carries bicycles. It runs all year round, 5 days a week and 7 times a
day. San Diego Transit has successfully equipped buses on 3 major bus routes
with external bicycle racks (see Appendix I). Cyclists are allowed to
board/unload only at designated stops. The racks have a capacity of 5
bicycles and are secured by the cyclist. A similar system in Greater
Vancouver could be used to transport cyclists from Surrey and Delta to
Downtown Vancouver in order to bypass the George Massey Tunnel. The Ministry
of Highways presently runs a bicycle shuttle through the tunnel during the
summer months, 4 times a day. For winter commuters, however, it would be more
feasible to equip express buses with an external rack. Scheduling problems
could be avoided by allowing cyclists to board only at major transit exchanges
and unload at one or two locations downtown. Loading several bicycles on a
well designed external rack, similar to the San Diego racks would generally
take less time than it does for all the passengers to board at these
locations. The cyclists could secure the bicyles before boarding and remove
them at the designated stop downtown. Such a system would be relatively
inexpensive and would:
o encourage transit use
o discourage highway cycling
o decrease demand for downtown motor vehicle parking
In Summer recreational cycling on the Gulf Islands and Vancouver
become very popular with cyclists in the Greater Vancouver area.
the number of cyclists using the BC Ferries system has increased
in the last year (see Table 5).
0393e/254E/02/88
Island has
As a result
significantly
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 123 -
TABLE 5
ANNUAL NUMBER OF CYCLISTS USING BC FERRIES (Ref. 26)
Year Total Number of Cyc1'sts
1984 48,429
1985 49,110
1986 48,864
1987 to Oc.tober 80,146
What makes dual mode transport different on a ferry is the fact that all·
vehicles are left on the car decks while operators spend the passage on the
passenger decks. The essential provision required in this case is proper
bicycle parking facilities. It is recommended that BC Ferries Corporation
provide improved bicyle parking facilities on the ferry car decks in order to
safely encourage the present increased trend towards recreational bicycle
touring.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
44) That BC Transit consider:
i) allowing cyclists to use the Sky train system during non-peak periods
(similar to Montreal and San Francisco)
ii) permitting bicycles on the Seabus at all times to facilitate North
Shore commuting.
iii) equipping express buses from Surrey and Delta with external bicycle
racks to transport cyclists from major transit exchanges to
designated unloading points in downtown Vancouver (similar to San
Di ego) .
45) That BC Ferries Corporation consider providing improved bicycle parking
facilities on ferry car decks in order to safely encourage the present
increased trend towards recreational bicycle touring.
I
0393e/254E/02/88
- 124 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(reference numbers refer to those used in body of report)
Perth Metropolitan Region Bikeplan-Main Report, by the Perth Bikeplan
Study Team. Perth, Western Australia; n.p., July 1985.
2 Geelong Bikeplan, by the Geelong Bikeplan Committee. Geelong,
Australia; n.p., 1977.
3 Ministry of Health, Division of Vital Statistics. Telephone interview,
October 1987.
4 Forester, John. Cycling Transportation Engineering, Palo Alto,
California; n.p., 1977.
5 Forester, John. Bicycle Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
MIT Press, 1983.
6 Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada, by the Council on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Canada; n.p., 1981.
7 Guidelines for the Design of Bikeways, by the Roads and Transportation
Association of Canada. ottawa; n.p., 1983.
8 Hibler, Michelle. "Bicycle Helmets", Canadian Consumer (June 1987).
9 Background Information on Bicycle Helmets, by Canadian Standards
Association Consumer Services; n.p., August 1987.
10 Bicycle Helmet Promotion in Victoria, Australia, by Ron Shephard, for
1987 Pro-Bike Conference in Missoula, Montana. Victoria, Australia;
n.p., July 1987.
11 Forester, John. Effective Cycling, Cambridge, Massachusetts; MIT Press,
1986.
12 Williams, John; Birden, Dan. "The AAA Skills Test and Bike Rodeo Guide"
Bicycle Forum, 12(1985).
13 Vancouver Traffic Counts. Telephone interview, September 1987.
14 Loomis Courier Service Ltd. Telephone interview, October 1987.
15 Licensing/Registration of Bicycle Couriers, by the Vancouver Police
Department, Bettante, Paul, 1986.
16 Rossiter, Sean. "Give It To A Fast Bike", Equity Magazine (March 1986).
17 City of Victoria British Columbia Police Department. Letter to author,
November 4, 1987.
0393e/254E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 125 _.
18 Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Bicycle Theft Video Cassette Record1ng.
Shown July 1987.
19 Greater Vancouver Regional District, Development Services Department.
Origin/Destination Survey, 1985.
20 F1tness Canada, Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute.
Canada Fitness Survey, Ottawa 1981.
21 Vancouver Regional Transit System Service Design Guidelines, by
B.C. Transit, December 1983.
22 Meyrick, S.; Meyrick, C. Cyclepath Usage Survey, Report No. 273,
Office of the Coordinator General of Transport, Western Australia.
23 Snyder, Ryan. "Quarterly Question" Bicycle Forum, 15(Spring 1987).
24 Brog, W. Presentation to Bicycle Planning Seminar, Perth 1985.
25 City of Vancouver Police Department, Research Branch. Telephone
interview, October 1987.
26 B.C. Ferries Corporation, Public Relations and Marketing. Letter
to author, December 2, 1987.
27 Ministry of Health, Province of B.C., Hospital Programs. Letter to
author, August 13, 1987.
28 City of Vancouver Police Department, Accident Database.
29 Guide For The Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Washington, D.C., 1981.
30 Cross, Kenneth D. Bicycle-Safety Education - Facts and Issues,
Falls Church, Virginia; AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1978.
0393e/254E/02/88
APPENDIX A. .CITY OF VANCOUVER LOCAL AREAS
--
..
•
'"
•
~
..
...
..
..
..
o
~
•
:0"-
.(2
10.I': :-
'~.o
r.
...
lSI
-....;.........
-
OIAMI'I..Wl
HfIC.PS
KII.LARNtY
.....0 ••
HAS11NGS-
SUNRISE
-
RENnEW-
COlUNG\¥OOD
I'CO••
.'CII.Ollit
..
••OArlWiI
M \,. I 1
~~!§O~
-
..
-
" ,. " " • " 0
....<;.
........
f " G LIS ..
-
II U.
'
C'''Allfl'
..
---
...,- '. .iiPV"Ilk • 0'. _ j
l '
CENTRAL AREA
LOCAL AREA
BOUNDARIES
STREETS·
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 8
ACCIpENT STATS '1985-8§)
VANCOUVER - HpSPITAL STATS ADMITTEQ
..,!g! Male female !.llil
0- 4 2 0 2
5- 9 10 8 18
10-14 18 6 24
15-19 14 5 19
20-24 8 6 14
25-29 11 3 14
30-34 7 2 9
35-39 4 1 5
40-44 1 1 2
45-49 2 1 3
SO-54 3 2 5
60-&9 0 2 2
85+ 2 0 -..l
119
APPENDIX B
VANCOUVER CITy 1985-86
CYCLIST ACCIDENTS BY INJURy TYPE (Ret, 2])
Male Fema le Total
-Fractured Skull 12 3 15
Fractured Upper L\mb 24 U 38
Fractured Lower L\mb 12 4 16
D\slocat1on 7 2 9
*Intracran1al Injury 18 8 26
(w1th1n the skull)
Internal Injury Chest 3 3 6
Fractured Sp1ne 3 1 4
-Open Head Wound 1 1 2
Open Wound Upper L1mb 1 ..I
Superf1c1al Injury _1
-L
TOTAL 82(70%) 36(30%) 118
* plotted as head 1njury
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
BICYCLE DECELERATION DATA
BICYCLE LENGTH (HUB TO HUB) • 0.97m
Cycl1st travels at a constant veloc1ty between p01nts A~~d B. Brakes are
appl1ed at p01nt Band cycl1st comes to a complete stop at p01nt C. S1x sets
of data were collected from one exper1enced cycl1st. The cycl1st s1mulated
brak1ng from an unexper1enced cycl1st to a h1ghly exper1enced cycl1st in order
to obta1n a full range of decelerat10n rates. Th1s exerc1se was performed on
asphalt 1n dry cond1t10ns at zero grade us1ng narrow rac1ng t1res. The
results of the test do by no means represent decelerat10n fates for all
cycl1sts. Rates w11l vary w1th vary1ng t1re w1dths, road-surface, weather
cond1t10ns, brak1ng mechan1sm and brak1ng method.
for the purpose of our calculat10ns we can assume the b1cycle has the
same decelerat10n rate as that of I veh1cle (4m/s 2).
2a .4.3m/s
V1Ot.Xl
1 34.15m 7.00s 4.9 6.00 2.40 - 2.0 m1n.
2 34.15 3.50 9.8 11.50 2.46 - 4.0
3. 34.15 7.17 4.8 2.00 0.93 - 5.2 max.
4 34.15 2.10 16.3 9.50 3.73 - 4.4
5. 34.15 1.50 22.8 5.50 4.46 - 5.1
6 34.15 2.14 16.0 11.85 3.30 - 4.8
TEST NO.
.
. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
CALCULATED INTERSECTION CLEARANCE TIMES
from f1eld tests performed on a 11ght-framed b1cycle 1n dry weather cond1t1ons
(see Append1x C) we conclude that the b1cycle has a decelerat10n rate of
4m/s 2 (s1m11ar to that of a motor veh1cle). If we assume that a b1cycle
veh1cle length averages 1 meter (wheelbase) and that the percept10n-react10n
rate of a cyc11st to be the same as that of a mator1st. we can vary the
approach veloc1ty and 1ntersect10n w1dth to compare requ1red clearance t1me
1ntervals (see Table below). .
CALCULATED INTERSECTION CLEARANCE TIMES
INTERSECTION 20 km/h 30 km/h 40 km/h 50/km/h·
WIDTH B1cycle t B1cyclett B1cycle MV B1cycle
8m 3.31 3.12 3.20 3.74 3.38
10 3.67 3.36 3.38 3.88 3.53
12 4.03 3.60 3.56 4.03 3.67
14 * 4.39 3.84 3.74 4.18 3.82
16 4.75 4.08 3.92 4.32 3.96
18 5.11 4.32 4.10 4.46 4.10
20 5.47 4.56 4.28 4.61 4.25
22 5.83 * 4.80 4.46 4.75 4.39
24 6.19 5.04 4.64 4.90 4.54
26 6.55 5.28 4.82 5.04 4.68
28 6.91 5.52 5.00 5.18 4.82
30 7.27 5.76 5.18 5.33 4.97
* . exceed requ1red clearance 1nterval of a motor veh1cle.t m1n1mum b1cycle des1gn speed for non-arter1al streets
tt m1n1mum b1cycle des1gn speed for arter1al streets
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W
1 sec.
1m
B1cycle
Motor
Veh1cle
y • t + V + (w+1) • requ1red t1me 1nterval
2a V
where V.approach veloc1ty (m/s) •.••••...••.•••. V
m
2 2a-decelerat10n rate (m/s ) •••..••••••••••.•.• 4m/s
l.veh1cle length(m)............................ 6m
t-percept10n-react10n rate(s) .••..••.•.••.•.•.• 1 sec.
wa1ntersect10n w1dth (m)........................ W
-- - --
APPENDIX E
Share the trail!
ALWAYS DEROSE DUE CARE AND CAlmON.
This brochure is .dapted from the model Path Usm
Ordinance dcvdopcd by the InMnationai Bicycle
Fund, 4247 1J1th Platt S.E., Bellevue, WA 98006
.....DiItributionoidle......,tdd--~ byl
CASCADE·BICYCLE CLUB
P.O. Box 31299
Seattle, Washlnglon 98103
(206) 522-BIKE
HAVE YOU ouroROWN
TRAIlS Trails haft cngintaiJJI
and desisn Iimiu. Ifyour speed or
styk cndangm 0Ihcr uscn check
for altnnativc routes better suited
to your nmIs. Sduting the right
location is safer and more enjoy-
Ible for all conccmcd.
a.EAN UP UlTER. Do not &raft glass, paper,
cans, or any 0Ihcr debris on or ncar a trail. Ifyou
drop IOIDCthing please mnove it immediatdy.
DON'T USE A TRAIL UNDER
THE INflUENCE OF ALCO-
MOLOR DRUGS. You may
AmI all ofyour rcfIaes quickly, do
not usc trails under the unfIuenc:e
of1Icoh91 or dRIp. "
- - - - .'.
USE LIGHTS AT NlGIn. When using a trlIiIany
time from dusk to dawn be equipped with lights.
Bicydists should hawe a white light visible from rift-
hundred feet to t~ front, and a red or ambn light
visible from fM-hundred feet to the 1aI'.Ot~ trail
usns should ...white light visible from tw~hun­
dred fifty feet to the front, and a red or ambn light
visible from tw~hundred fifty feet to t~ 1aI'.
YIELD WHEN
ENTERING &
CROSSING TRAILS.
Wlim mttring or eroD-
ing a tnilat uncontrolled
points, yidd to tnffie on the
tnil.
-I'I •
DON'T BLOCK THE TRAIL.
Wh~n in a group. including your
pm. u~ no more than halft~
trail. 50 as not to block t~ flow of
ot~~I'5.
GIVE AUDIBLE SIGNAL WHEN PASSING.
Giwe a clear warning signal btfim passing. Signal may
be produced by voi~. bdI, or hom.
PASS ON THE LEn. Pass ot~n. going in your
direction. on t~ir kit. Look ahead and back to make
sure t~ lane is c1ar bd"ore you pull out. Pass with
amt* stparation. Do not movt bac~ to t~ right
until safdy past. (Fastrr traffIC is mponsible for yidd-
ing to slowrr and on-coming traffIC.)BE COURTEOUS. AI trlIiI UICIS, including: bicyd-
_ jogm, walken, whcdchain. skatcboardcn and
skaten, should be rapeaful ofother users regardless
of their mode, speed or IcwI olskiD.
KEEP RIGIn. Stay IS near to
the right side olthe millS is_,
CJlcept wllm pauingUIOl~ user.
BE PRIDICfABLE. Tnwd in a
consistent and pmfic:tal* manna:
Always look behind before dwIs-
ing position ont~ tnil.
t'
USER 8UlDBJNfS FOR .l1l-U5E TRAIlS
,
Trails (or pltht) fOr non-motoriIJed ..haft become
my popular. A c:onscq~ of their SUCttS5 is con-
pion. With this, a major SIC has become safety.
R~1csI ofwhahcr you lie bicyding. w.lking,
ioging. or skating. ifyou follow t~ same srt of rules
• everyone dsc your trip wiD be safrr and more
enjoy....
Share the
-----------~------
-
,safet~
code Y
...........--....'*-_........,011""'8urt.·~ Trail
M .....
• Obey aB trail and tralhc signs and regulations.
• Show courtesy for other Irall users at an Umes.
• Respect the rights 01 property owners.
• Keep dogs on leash (maximum length 8 feet) and
n!lnoue pel feces from Irall.
.........
HunldpalCode U.44.J20, CounfJr Code &Stole code.
You Ire mpon5lble for the safe operation 01 your vehicle
under CIty, County and RCW Code.
• YIeld to pedestrians.
• Give audible warning when passing pedestrians or other
bicyclists.
• Ride at a safe speed. Slow down and form a single file
for congested conditions. reduced visibility and other
hazardous conditions.
.........
• Watch for other trail UII!I'I.
• Be especially alert when running.
• listen for audible signals and help faster Irall users
(runners and bicyclists) pass safely.
• Form single or double file for congested conditions.
Seattle/KllltlCcMI..ty
B...eoG.......Tr.U
......... eotnt..., MFECO 1.....IIe.C~p• ..,
-------
.... C-
OJtO e ...
_. - .'""'1 :::::r'
3$CD
Q)
::s
----
~j;if::::.:.:;W,_..'. ·r~1oi.. "
,. . . .~.~
..•. - "'e'.,
.~~.,.,.... ' . ,.' ."'; ..
.' ~"., . .,' .. ....,:. ' ':
- .. 4:r.~.. . • " '. t~_.9
- . ~ . . ,,- ""~. ~.... ~.. ,-
. '.~~ ~ ' ..-,'. '.
....~ I"~
....... ~~.~.... M·· :.. ~. 4j
.---.'"~-' . '.
. ~ .
'. ...,
""-"... '."..
§
CltyofS-....
Charles Royer. Navar
SeaUIe City Council
Norman 8. Rice, Pralden'
George 8en5Ofl
VIrginia Galle
Michael HIId.
Paul Kraabel
Dolores Sibonga
SamSmllh
James Street
Jeanette WU8ams
Waher R. Hundley, Su,,"nfenden'0/Parb
.and Recreatfon
Harvey S. PoD, Chair, Board0/Parle Commissioners
K...e-...,
Randy Revelle. [xec.utlue
King County Council
Gary Grant, Chairman e
Paul Barden ~
Ruby Chow
Bob Gretve ,-,
Audrey Gruger
8ruceLaIng
loIsNOI1h
8IRRearm
Cyn.hla Sulhan
HoDy Miller, DIrector, Prann'ng and
Community Dellf!fopmen'
'"n "h"", M""""r"r P"rh ,,",f ,:f,.~ntfn" """~"'"
King County's 2.25 miles of trails were
designed by Mary Booth. Edward Macleod and
Associates designed the City of Seattle's
7.2-mile section. The Burke·Gilman Trail was
dedicated August 19, 1978.
Burlington Northern's application In 1971 for
abandonment of the Sumas spur was part of II
pattern by then familiar to all across the United
States. By the 1970's, the general decline In
railroading had resulted In the disuse and
abandonment of over 50,000 miles of track.
Through funding support primarily from th'e
1968 Forward Thrust bond Issue, Community
Development Block Grants, and Federal
Gas Tax (FAUS) funds, the city, county and
Unlverslly of Washington have created a 12.5
mile recreallonal hiking and biking trail which
extends from Gas Works Park to Kenmore
logboom Park.
Alert clllzens quickly recognized the
recreallonal potenllalln this unexpected resource
and launched a movement to acquire the
rlght·of·way for a public hiking and biking trail.
Olher communilies across the nallon have come
to recognize the Immense opportunity afforded
by the long, na"ow-oflen scenic·strips of land In
abandoned railroad rlghts·of-way and other "ralls
to trails" projects are being undertaken.
U·"'.r '.
./.. "
Judge Thomas Burke and his friend Daniel
Gilman headed a group of 12 Investors who In
1885 set out to establish a Seaule-based railroad.
Theirs was not the first such attempt nor would"
be the lasl. Their plan was to build northward
across the mountains to Spokane and conned
with the Canadian Transconllnentailine
at Sumas.
TIM! Burke·Gllman Trail owes "s historical
stgnlflcance to the saga of the Iron Horse and
the struggle of a young dty to win a place
among major transportation centers and reap
the economic benefits of Internallonal and
domesllc trade.
TIM! 5, LS and E (Sumas) spur was acquired
by the Northern Pacific In 1913 and continued In
fairly heavy use until 1963 when through-Iraln
operallons were stopped. The Great Northern,
Northern Pacific, and ,Burlington lines were
merged In 1970 to become Burlington Northern.
hist°Cg~kground
While their Sea«le. Lake Shore and Eastern
'Railroad never got past Arlington, It did become
a malor spur line serving Puget Sound logging
areas, and helped to keep Sea"le's hopes alive
In the race to become a major Northwest rail
terminus. In 1893, the first of James Hili', Great
Northern trains puffed Into Sea"le. and the
transcontinental link was established.
I
i
i
,
I
I
•I
I
I
t
I,
-----~-------------
.'1"
, ~ .
'i~ I;
-
t. ;. ~ '::~
.;\ ", .' .:: ~ :'
~ I: "
, I"'/,,
• ~~. ( I
.:' !:~ ,.':1
<~,o#~ , "1.';
• J _ ,.
,4.: "; f'!'~" " •Of¥'
,,: ;j, .1'0'
'~ ; 'J!~.f
':': "~~ ":i;.'. '
, ·.···.t·· .... ,~'Jy:fl
·': {"::i..;.f " l ..~;~;~I:'.:,jj
~" '. ;.!l
.,: t',l;'t~~"(ill~'
"':'j:":nt~;;,·~[;
hh:i!::
,;,::,' r: ,,';:' I
• :. I
I "
,~ ' ..
· ..-);:~
,,::,,; ,:,,::~
, .'
',":= :. : ~. :
.; l
\,
.. ,
I'~' ~.
"I
"
.'
~ • !'.,!
,
.:.; ~
..! ',~~/
• ~.> •
:. ~ .i"
; .
.j !,' .<!. .:~~,
.\~.: .. ~~:.:. :::}',
.:iJ . I
: / J~~:~lot! .!
. J
...,-- ....
~{~.
! '.~
:";'!,
.(. '
.'
.......,.. ,.. ~." ..
",...
•
A'
• Help prevent theft from autos•
Lock valuables In your tn.-nk.
APPENDIX F
Le,•••
P.......I••/C'.I. "'&8
C,cl. Rout.
C,cl./RolI.l' 80.t.
• • III II "' 8....11 P••••trl.. W.lk
I 'P.rld.. Are••
DI..bl.. W••hrooa•
C,cl. Roate DlneUo.
STANLEY PARK,
"-",,' : p? ,T·
Bura... 1.10'
~
Plu' N.rr.w,
,fJ'
1i7
-I
-~-,..
...11••••,
'.
••'1'." e. V.IIe....r a.r....r
\
;,~
,-, .
1
~. I
,.. :'
--
-------,I
~ .~
. I
I'
,'1'"
: I
~ .<
I'
• If you plan to ride at night. equip your
blc:ycle with a white front light and
a red rear reflector or taillight
(Provindel Motor \WlIc:Ie kt. Sec. 185.5)
• Useyourbell forwarnlng your approach.
(Oty by-Iew 2849 Sec. 55)
• Nways lookbehindyou before changing
direction.
I.
~'r
,:""
· ~ ..
••
,-
j i:J
',j'l'
t' •
i l"
.,
\ .:' I;:
. " /, i ~ :
'.: .
, ,
I,: ,
: , ,1,~ i.~"; • ~ : ~ :
\.. ( I';:
.1 I'
. I,
"
.1
..i>
· "
'0 " ,.,;
Lord Stanley. :. 'i",::,
, ,I ~ ., . I" ...
OCNemo",Oene'" of ' ,!' i::, 1;1'1'.
Canada. dedicated :,', .
Stanley Park In 1889•.:,"
MAP
" I
"il
· '
VNlCOUVER.CNtAD.\ .',' ":. . .r
:" . ~ ~ ':,
-,
.....to the use and enjoyment
of people of aD colours, '
creeds and customs
for aD time•••"
STANLEY
PARK
Other Horticultural Highlights In
Vancouver
BlOEDa. CONSERVATORY
Queen EJlzabeth Park
33rd Avenue f., Cambie Street
"An Indoor tropical paradise of exotic birds ...
and plants."
summer hours: 10:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
winter hours: 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
VANDOSEN GARDENS
37th Avenue & Oak Street
"A 55-acre garden of native and exotic plants.
Olft shQP, tool
summer hours: 10:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
winter hours: 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
SEAWALL YN..K I CYClE PAnt
CauItesy Code:
• Stay on your side of the path.
• Exercise caution In congested areas.
• Yield to pedestrians.
• MalntaJn a safe speed.
• Warn others when passing.
(use your ben)
i
"
j,
~.
'j"
~ .
" "
'J','" \i·:: '
II·' ' , '~{' "
I'
:r, '1 ROADROLES
, .• Ride with motortrafftc not fadng or
'I
'j' '. against It.
:( ': • Signal before turning.
,: '. • Do not ride on a sidewalk unless
; j
,.' ' posted by a sign.
(Oty by-Iew 2849 lee. 60)
i ' • EYery blc:yde shaD be equipped with
~~ \ a warning bell.
~.,',. (Oty by-law 2849 Me. 55)
t
SAFETY HINTS FOR BICYaJS1S
;
~ .:.!!
• I • • ~ :' .1987
VANCOCJVER BOARD OF PARKS &- RI!<:REA11OtI
2099 BEACH AVENUE. . "
VANCOUVER. B.C., CN'IAD\
V6Q1Z4
The \tlncouver Board of
Parks and Recreation
encourages park users
to be aware of these
regulations to make your
visit a safe one.
------~------------
~~_;.:-_., ' 0 _. ~~'. :_~~.-;:':' 0 ••
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f)
b)
c)
g)
a)
d)
e)
APPENDIX H
B.C. MOTOR VEHICLE ACT (RSBC 1979. Chapter 288)
.... - .... -- ...- ..... -~ '''--.--' --.-. -_.'-"-~':'._....- -....__... _.
Rights and Duties of Operator of Cycle
185
(1) In addition to the duties 1mposed by th1s sect10n, a person operat1ng a cycle
on a h1ghway has the same r1ghts and dut1es as a dr1ver of a veh1cle.
(2) A person operat1ng a cycle
(4) A person shall not r1de a cycle. coaster, roller skates, sled or play veh1cle
when it 1s attached by the arm and hand of the r1der or otherw1se to a .
vehicle on a highway.
shall not r1de on a s1dewalk unless otherw1se
d1rected by a s1gn;
shall, subject to paragraph (a), r1de as near as
pract1cable to the r1ght s1de of the roadway;
shall not r1de abreast of another person
operat1ng a cycle on the roadway;
shall keep at least one hand on the handlebars;l
shall not r1de other than on or astr1de a
regular seat of the cycle;
shall not use the cycle to carry more persons at
one t1me than the number for wh1ch 1t 1s
designed and equipped; and
shall not r1de a cycle on I h1ghway where signs
prohib1t their use.
(3) A person operat1ng a cycle shall not r1de 1t on a roadway 1f there 1s a
usable path 1ntended for the use of cycles adjacent to the roadway.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(5) A cycle operated on a h1ghway between 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour
before sunr1se shall have a 11ghted lamp mounted on the front, capable of
d1splay1ng a wh1te 11ght v1s1ble under normal atmospher1c cond1t10ns at
least 150 m 1n the d1rect1on 1n wh1ch the cycle 1s p01nted, and a red
reflector of a make or des1gn approved by the super1ntendent for the
purpose of reflect1ng or d1splay1ng a red 11ght toward the rear. In
add1t1on, every cycle operated on a h1ghway shall h~ve the most
consp1c10us port10n of 1ts rear mud guard, for a length of not less than
22.5 cm and the full w1dth of the mud guard, pa1nted wh1te.
(6) (a) If an 1nc1dent occurs by wh1ch a person or property 1s 1njured,
d1rectly or 1nd1rectly, ow1ng to the presence or operat10n of a cycle
on a h1ghway, the person 1n charge of the cycle shall
(1) rema1n at or 1mmed1ately return to the scene of the 1nc1dent;
(11) render all poss1ble ass1stance; and
(111) g1ve to anyone susta1n1ng loss or 1njury, and to any peace
off1cer who 1s present, h1s name and address and the name and
address of the owner of the cycle, and 1f the cycle has been
11censed and reg1stered, the 11cense or reg1strat1on number
of the cycle.
(b) Where an 1nc1dent on a h1ghway, e1ther d1rectly or 1nd1rectly causes
death or 1nJury to a person or damage to property caus1ng aggregate
damage apparently exceed1ng S25, the person 1n charge of the cycle
shall 1mmed1ately report the matter to a po11ce off1cer or a person
des1gnated by the super1ntendent to rece1ve those reports, and shall
furn1sh 1nformat10n, 1nclud1ng that referred to 1n sect10n &1 (4),
respect1ng the 1nc1dent as may be requ1red by the po11ce off1cer or
person des1gnated.
.- ... --- -_••••• -.--__ ..... ''OII:~._-••- --.-_. - - .•--_.'_. ..... '_ ... _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19.07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(7)
(8 )
(1)
(c) Every report ~de under th1s sect10n 1s w1thout prejud1ce and 1s for
the 1nformat10n of the Prov1nc1al or mun'c'pal pol'ce, and shall not
tie open to publ'c 1nspect'on". The fact the report has been lllade 1s
adm'ss1b1e 1n ev1dence solely to prove comp1'ance w1th th1s sect10n,
and the report 1s adm'ss'b1e 1n ev1dence on the prosecut'on of any
person for the offence of mak1ng a false statement 'n 1t.
(d) Notw'thstand'ng paragraph (c), a peace off'cer may, where g'v1ng
ev1dence 'n a proceed1ng, refer to a report prepared by h1m under
th1s subsect'on to refresh h1s memory.
A person shall not r1de or operate a cycle on a h'ghway w1thout due care
and attent10n, or w1thout reasonable cons1derat'on for other persons
us1ng the h'ghway.
(a) Where a person's conv1cted of an offence under th1s Act 1n respect
of h1s r1d1ng or operat1ng a cycle, the court may, 1n add't10n to or
'n l'eu of any penalty otherw'se prescr1bed, order the cycle se'zed,
and on the exp1ry of that per10d the person ent1tled to H may aga1n
have possess1on of the cycle. .
(b) For the purpose of se1z'ng and 'mpound1ng a cycle pursuant to an
order made under paragraph (a), a peace off'cer may enter by force
any place or bu11d1ng 'n wh'ch the cycle 1s s1tuated~
Except as author1zed by a perm't 'ssued by the M1n'ster of Transportat10n
and H1ghways, and except for cross'ng a h'ghway at an 'ntersect10n. use
of any h'ghway named 'n Schedule 1 by the fo1low1ng 's proh1b1ted at all
t1mes:
---... _.._-- ... -_.._~~ .. -,... .. - .. ~ _... _.- ... " -_.-
(a) veh1cles drawn by animals;
(b) livestock, as defined in the Livestock Act;
(c) farm 1molements and farm machinery, whether self-propelled or towed;
(d) pedestrians. unless attending a disabled vehicle;
(e) vehicles incapable of ma1nta1n1ng a minimum speed of 60kmlh on level
road, except construction or maintenance equipment owned or hired by
the Ministry of Transportation and Highways while working on or
travelling to or from a works1te located on a highway named in
Schedule 1.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to pedestrians and to operators of pedal
cycles and'mopeds using footpaths constructed adjacent to the travel
portion of the highway or the shoulder on the travel portion of the
highway where the minister causes signs to be erected designating the
footpath or shoulder for such permitted use.
Schedule 1 - Highways
(1) Trans-Canada Highway 11 - from the ferry terminal at Horseshoe Bay to the
north approach to the Second Narrows bridge; from its intersection with
Rupert Street to its junction with Route 13 in Hope; from its junction
with the Coqu1halla Highway (Aberdeen Interchange) to its intersection
with Valleyv1ew Drive at Kamloops.
(2) Hope-Princeton Highway 13 - from its junction with the Trans-Canada
Highway in Hope to its junction with the Coqu1halla Highway. 7.7 km east.
*(3) Coqu1halla Highway IS - from its junction with the Hope-Princeton
Highway, 7.7 km east of Hope to the north interchange with Route I5A in
Merritt.
,--_ - - - .__. -..,... _ _ -_ '.-.,.1.~.,,- ·.. _.a .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(.) Annac1s H1ghway #91 - from 1ts 1nterchange w1ththe Vancouver-Bla1ne
H1ghway to the south approach to the Annac1s Br1dge; from the north
approach to the Annac1s Br1dge to the south approach to the East Channel
Br1dge; from the north approach to the East Channel Br1dge to the
R1chmond Connector.
(5) Annac1s H1ghway #91A - from the R1chmond Connector to the south approach
to the Queensborough Bridge.
(6) Vancouver-Bla1ne H1ghway #99 - from 1st Avenue 1n Surrey to the south
approach of the Oak Street Br1dge.
·The M1n1stry of Transportat10n and H1ghways 1s 1n the process of seek1ng a
cab1net amendment for th1s schedule wh1ch may include overturn1ng th1s 1tem.
Vancouver Street and Traff1c BY-Law No. 2849. (up to July 23. 1985)
55. Bell Requ1red on B1cycle.
Every b1cycle shall be equ1pped w1th a bell to be used as a warn1ng of
danger.
59. The dr1ver of every slow mov1ng veh1cle shall dr1ve such veh1cle as close
as poss1ble to the right hand edge or curb of any street unless 1t 1s
1mpract1cable to travel on such s1de. For the purpose of th1s sect10n a
b1cycle shall be regarded at all times as a slow moving vehicle.
60. No person shall ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk except where posted by
signs. (By-law 499., Aug. 10,1916).
"-
-~ ... . ·"r··_""!'_· ._ . ........ __ ..._._. _. ...... _
Criminal Code of Canada
.•..- - ~ ---_ __ .. -.-.-_ _--,.-':"' .. _.- --.- _ .
Vancouver Parks BY-Law
By-Law No. ~792, Amendment 5120: allows cyclists to use the Granville Mall.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A police officer may arrest without warrant any bicyclist whom he
finds committing a breach of any provision of this by-law 1f such
person fails to stop and state his proper name and address when so
requested by the police officer. (By-law No. 5870, Feb. 5, 1985).
No person shall ride a bicycle upon a street while wearing
headphones, or any other manufactured device capable of transmitting
sound, over or in close proximity to both ears, except that this
prohibition shall not apply to the wearing of a device designed and
worn for the purpose of improving the wearer's ability to hear sounds
emanating from outside of the device. (5923 July 23/85)
(#5712-83.09.20)
60 A.
60 B.
1~(h) No person shall, without permission of the Superintendent first had
and obtained, ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk, footpath or
promenade in any park unless such a sidewalk, footpath or promenade
has been so designated as a cycle path and specifically provided
therefore, and in this respect the provisions of the Street and
Traffic By-law No. 2849 and amendment thereto shall reply motates
motand1s.
118 Everyone who, a) resists or willfully obstructs a Pub11c Officer or
Peace Officer in the execution of his duty or any
person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer.
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-- -_.-_.----
b) om1ts w1thout reasonable excuse to ass1st a Publ1c
Off1cer or Pol1ce Off1cer 1n the execut10n of h1s duty
1n arrest1ng a person or 1n preserv1ng the peace,
after hav1ng reasonable not1ce that he 1s requ1red to
do so.
c) res1sts a w1l1fully obstructs any person 1n the lawful
execut10n of a process aga1nst lands a goods or 1n
mak1ng a lawful d1stress or se1zure.
1s gu1lty of an end1table offence.
--~- --- ._--_.. --.-- _. '-:-.-"~-'- .
'.
./
r
-ROUTE 9
_s-.....-_..
---
Haw to
take
JOI!Irbike
forabusride.,~
~~
~
Try" this weeki
- _,,-..---.._ - .._-- ..-
--- _--.
.........---_ ..
- _.---"""'"-.....
... ...wr ,... ,... ",. Nlc ...
,,_~~,A........ ..., .... -.. .
..~.. t_ • ..-t..,_....
....... ,., ........
",... ....-.- _..
Doop _I _-- ........_ F__V....,.
........,." c.... - --
., ,..c-. -- ..
~, _--
........-.•._-........--. - _..__.
•
~.
:l:...._N•• SlINDIlQO1. .'0
APPENDIX I
..............
1._ _,,-
~ ,_ PInIIc'" Dr. ,,.....0IIl..
J _ _.o." _OIlU'
.....-- ~ ,~ .....I')I. •. _ __.._OIllYl
............ t. ..,.
1 C CM.Y)
......."--("-•. C -.-·C ...
II. ("_ .., • .,.
NCR:'" :::~=~~ .,. It·
~ " . .....-~ •• a(" •I. II ....-. SM.,-It "" Dt,·I'~ .. f1("__ .-".
• ... ... !I("_ .....:..".,,-
............-___llClI ,
• .1 .to.. ...........·11·
.. . ,. ~ ~ "lin •
"- ...~ r............ If.-~" ~
•
.. • •.•t. '12'.-3. .• ••• • Y.
_........1._"'.-"'-..............."...:: ;:::..::.~::~.
,......, ,.....
...... 11--.,_ tI.·
1 &.-. .
.... tll. ' ......
..._-
IIOUT£ 10
-_.-....~_.
__.wrr--
•
-
=:1...
""~
--
A
,--
--_.----
1IOUTI41
--.......-
--
._ .....
I ......cw. '__...•a._..... _ .
..--_ .
......... ' __ c....
t Ai•.• .--.Dr,-
I. A...........•
' A••~Dr,·
.......... " .. 801'...-0·
....... " .•._V...,_e--_
...--
=.......:.:::=:.-:..-:.r::t.~
_.1_.- _......-
._.V,. ......
;
,
"
"
~
!
1.
1!,
\
I .
!
,
:i
~
I
"j
t
I I
I
, I
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- --- -- ._-------".-"'- .. _...'- - - .,-. .- ..... - _.. " ".- ,- " ... ~.- .....
APPENDIX J
RS-1A A minimum of one space.
0393e/213E/02/88
RT-1A, RT-3, FM-l A minimum of one space for every
residential unit.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCLE
PARKING
NONE
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
NONE
A minimum of one space for
every dwelling unit, except
that the maximum number of
spaces for a site having a
one-family or two-family
dwelling as the only use
other than an accessory
use shall be: -
A minimum of two spaces for
every dwelling unit
Site width at rear property line.
Spaces less than 10.0 m 2
at least 10.0 but less than
12.2 m 3
at least 12.2 but less than
14.5 m 4
14.5 m or more 5
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
RT-2A A minimum of one additional space for
every dwelling unit newly created.
RS-2, RT-l, RT-2, RT-4, RM
except FM-l, C, M, I,
DEOD:
Two residential units A minimum of two spaces.
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
R, C, WED, DEOD
4.2.1 Dwelling
FSD
4.2.1.1 One-Family Dwelling, Two-
Family Dwelling, Infill
One-Family Dwelling, or
Infill Two-Family Dwelling
in the following districts:
4.2.1.2 Multiple Conversion Dwelling
in the following districts:
A minimum of one space NONE
for every dwelling unit.
A minimum of one space 25% of units
for every dwelling unit.
A minimum of one space 25% of units
for each 70 square metres
of gross floor area.
A minimum of one space 25% of units 1
for each 80 square metres
of gross floor area.
A minimum of one space NONE
for each 37 square
metres of floor area used
for sleeping units,
exclusive of bathrooms.
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCLE
PARKING
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
A minimum of two spaces.
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
A minimum of one space for each 70
square metres of gross floor area.
A minimum of two spaces for
every dwelling unit.
A minimum of one space for
each 80 square metres of
gross floor area.
RS-2, RT-2, RT-4, C,
DEOD, RM except FM-l
and except sites less
than 500 square metres
in RM-3Al and RM-3B
FSD
Three or more resi-
dential units
Two residential units
RT-1A, RT-2A, RT-3,
FM-l, sites less than
500 square metres in
RM-3Al and RM-3B
WED
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
WED
Three or more resi-
dential units
4.2.1.3 Multiple Dwelling or Infill
Multiple Dwelling in the
following districts,
except as provided for in
sections 4.2.1.7 and
4.2.1.8:
4.2.1.4 Rooming House.
4.2.1.5 Dwelling Units up to a
maximum of two in
conjunction with a
Neighbourhood Store.
0393e/2l3E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2.1.7 Three or more dwelling A minimum of one space
units designed solely for every six dwelling un1ts.
for senior c1tizens ' housing
under the provis10ns of
the National Housing Act
or the Hous1ng Construction
(Elderly Cit1zens) Act, or
other s1m1lar use.
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
4.2.1.6 Dwel11ng Un1ts 1n con-
junct10n w1th another
use except as prov1ded
for 1n sect10ns 4.2.1.5,
4.2.1.7,4.2.1.8.
0393e/213E/02/88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCLE
PARKING
1
2-covered
1
NONE
NONE
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
25% of units 1
5% of
auto
5% of
auto
5% of
auto
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
A m1n1mum of one space
for each 67.5 square
metres of gross floor area.
No requirements.
A minimum of one space
for every two dwelling units.
A min1mum of one space
for each 37square metres
of floor area used for
sleeping un1ts, exclus1ve of
bathrooms
A m1n1mum of one space
for each 28 square metres
of gross floor area.
A m1n1mum of one space
for every dwelling unit
and one space for every
two sleeping or house-
keeping units.
Semi-Public and Health
Hotel or Motel.
Temporary Accommodat10n
Institutional. Pub11c and
Spec1al Needs Res1dential
Facllity.
C11n1c or Office for
med1cal, dental,
veterinary, or s1milar
use.
4.2.3.2
4.2.1.8 Three or more dwell1ng
units designed solely
for fam1l1es of low
income under the prov1-
sions of the National
Housing Act.
4.2.2
4.2.1.9 Residential Unit
associated with an
forming an integral
part of an art1st studio.
4.2.2.1
4.2.3
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.5 School (public or A minimum of two spaces for 1 space/ 2
private). every three employees in 3 stud.
elementary schools and one
and one-quarter spaces for
each employee in secondary 1 space 2
schools, except that where 2 stud.
spaces required as the
result of an extension to an
existing school would
diminish the existing school
playground area, the Director
of Planning may require a lesser
number of additional spaces.
4.2.:3.6 Coll ege. As determined by the Director 20% of 2
of Planning in consultation - auto
with the City Engineer.
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
4.2.3.3 Hospital or other similar
use;
Institution of a religious,
philanthropic, or
charitable character, or
other similar use.
4.2.3.4 Church, chapel, funeral
home, place of worship,
or similar place of
assembly.
4.2.4 Cultural and Recreational
4.2.4.1 Community centre, activity
centre or similar
place of assembly;
Library, gallery, museum,
or aquarium.
4.2.4.2 Theatre, auditorium, dance
hall, club, or lodge.
0393e/213E/02/88
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
A minimum of one space
for each 93 square metres
of gross floor area.
A minimum of one space for
each 9.3 square metres of
floor area used for assembly
purposes, except that where
two or more separate areas of
assembly exist within a site
and are not used concurrently,
the Director of Planning may
require parking for only the
largest of these areas.
A minimum of one space for
each 18.6 square metres of
floor area used for assembly
purposes.
A minimum of one space for
each 9.3 square metres of
floor area used for assembly
purposes.
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
5% of
auto
NONE
15% of
auto
15% of
auto
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCLE
PARKING
1
1
1
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
4.2.4.3 Stadium, arena, exhibition
hall, rink~ ring, pool,
or similar place with
spectator facilities.
4.2.4.4 Gymnasium, Health Club
or Spa;
School or Academy for the
teaching of drama, music,
art, dance, meditation,
self-defence, self-
improvement, or similar
arts.
4.2.4.5 Billiard Hall or Amusement
Arcade.
4.2.4.6 Bowling Alley or Curling
Rink.
4.2.4.7 Racket or Ball Court.
4.2.4.8 Archery, Golf Driving,
or Miniature Rifle
Range.
4.2.4.9 Marine, Sailing School,
or Boat Facilities.
4.2.5 Commercial
4.2.5.1 Office, Business School,
or Retail, except as
noted below.
0393e/213E/02/88
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
A minimum of one space for
every 5 seats, or one space
for each 9.3 square metres
of pool or surface area used
for assembly purposes,
whichever is the greater.
A minimum of one space
for each 18.6 square metres
of gross floor area.
A minimum of one space for
every table or game.
A minimum of three spaces
for every alley or ice sheet.
A minimum of two spaces for
every court.
A minimum of one space for
every range or target corridor
A minimum of one space for
every two mooring berths, with
dditional spaces for launching
facilities and sailing schools
as determined by the Director
of Planning having regard to
design and use.
A minimum of one space for
each 93 square metres of
gross floor area up to 279
square metres, and one
additionalspace for each
additional 46.5 square metres
of gross floor area.
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
10% of
auto
15% of
auto
15% of
auto
15% of
auto
15% of
auto
15% of
auto
10% of
auto
5% of
auto
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCLE
PARKING
1
2
2
covered
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 MINIMUM REQUIRED
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE BICYCLE CLASS
I PARKING SPACES PARKING OF BICYCLESPACES PARKING4.2.5.2 Office in the followi ng A minimum of one space for 5% of 2-covered
districts: each 70 square metres of auto
I gross floor area anda maximum of one space for
each 46.5 square metres of
I FC-l gross floor area.4.2.5.3 Restaurant or Drive-in A minimum of one space for 5% of 2 covered
Restaurant. the first 111 square metres, auto
I or portion thereof, of grossfloor area, and one additional
for each additional 37 square
I metres of gross floor area.! 4.2.5.4 Premises, or portions A minimum of one space for NONE
I
thereof, licensed each 5.6 square metres of
pursuant to Provincial floor area open to the public.
legislation for the
regular sale of liquor,
I except for a Cabaret,Neighbourhood PublicHouse, or Liquor Store.
I 4.2.5.5 Cabaret, licensed for the A minimum of one space for NONEsale of liquor. each 9.3 square metres of
floor area open to the public.
I 4.2.5.6 Neighbourhood Public A minimum of one space for NONEHouse, licensed for the each 18.6 square metres of
I sale of liquor.
floor area open to the public.
4.2.5.7 Production Studio. A minimum of one space for NONE
each 93 square metres of
I gross floor area.
4.2.5.8 Neighbourhood Grocery No requirements. NONE
I Store.4.2.5.9 Artist Studio. A minimum of one space for
I
every studio.
4.2.6 Industrial
I 4.2.6.1 Manufacturing Uses; A minimum of one space for NONERepair, service, each 93 square metres ofprocessing, or gross floor area in the
I
laboratory facilities; building, or one space for
Wholesale Uses. every five employees on a
maximum work shift,whichever
is the greater.
I 0393e/213E/02/88
4.3.1 Non-residential Uses - DD and CWD Districts
Except as provided in section 4.3.2, all non-residential uses in the DD and CWD
Districts shall provide parking in accordance with the following:
4.3 Table of Number of Required Accessory Parking Spaces in DD and CWD Districts
(except for Designated Heritage Sites), and in HA Districts
[Additional regulations for developments located in Central Waterfront District
sub-area 3 are contained in the Central Waterfront District Official Development
Plan.]
Area as
outlined on
Map 4.3.1 Required Parking Spaces
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCL
PARKING
NONE
NONE
2-covereo
2-covered
2-covered
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
5% of
auto
5% of
auto
5% of
auto
area.
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
As determined by the Director
of Planning in consultation
with the City Engineer.
A minimum of one space for each
185 square metres of gross floor
area.
A minimum of one space for
each 115 square metres of
gross floor area and a maximum
of one space for each 100 square
metres of gross floor area.
A minimum of one space for each
100 square metres of gross floor
area and a maximum of one space for
each 93 square metres of gross floor
A minimum of one space for each 93
square metres of gross floor area
and a maximum of one space for each
80 square metres of gross floor area.
Area II
Area II I
Area I
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
4.2.6.2 Transportation and
Storage Uses, except
as provided for in
section 4.2.6.3;
Utility and
Communication Uses.
4.2.6.3 ·Storage Warehouse.
0393e/2l3E/02/88
0393e/213E/02/88
Non-Dwelling Uses - HA Districts - New Floor Space
Hotels in the DD and CWD Districts shall provide a
minimum of one parking space for every two sleeping,
housekeeping or dwelling units.
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCL
PARKING
2-covered
2-covered
5% of
auto
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
5% of
auto
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
Hotels - DD and CWD Districts
Except as specified in section 4.3.5, all non-dwelling
uses in floor space created after November 4, 1986 in
HA Districts shall provide parking in accordance with
the standard specified in section 4.3.1.
4.3.2
4.3.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0393e/213E/02/88
For the purpose of this section Passive Uses (P) include vacant space, storage
space and warehouse space; and Active Uses (A) include all other uses. Except
as specified in section 4.3.5, all non-dwelling uses in floor space existent on
November 4, 198& in HA Districts shall provide parking as follows:
Change of Use Required Parking Spaces
P to P no requirement NONE
P to A 0.4 times the standard specified in 15% of 2-coverec
section 4.3.1 auto
A to P no requirement NONE
A to A no requirement NONE
Residential Uses - 00 and CWO Districts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCL
PARKING
2-coverec
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
25% of
units
25% of
units
25% of
units
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
1 space per dwelling unit for units 100 square
metres or less in size;
2 spaces per dwelling unit for units greater
than 100 square metres in size.
Non-Dwelling Uses - HA Districts - Existing Floor Space
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
(a)
(b)
Non-Dwelling Uses - HA Districts - New and Existing Floor Space
on Small Sites
All non-dwelling uses on sites in HA Districts less 15% of
than 325 square metres in size shall provide one parking auto
space for the first 750 square metres of gross floor area
plus one parking space for each additional amount of
floor space equal to 0.7 times the standard specified in
section 4.3.1.
Except as provided in section 4.3.8, residential uses in the 00 and
CWO Districts shall provide a minimum of:
Except as provided in section 4.3.8, dwelling uses
in HA Districts shall provide a minimum amount of
parking equal to 0.75 times the standard specified
in section 4.3.&.
Dwelling Uses - HA Districts
Dwelling units in the 00, CWO and HA Districts for senior NONE
citizens or low income families as provided for in sections
4.2.1.7 and 4.2.1.8 shall provide parking in accordance with
sections 4.2.1.7 and 4.2.1.8 respectively.
Dwelling Units for Senior Citizens or Low Income Families - 00, CWO
and HA Districts
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.&
4.3.7
4.3.8
0393e/213E/02/88
4.4.1 Non-Dwelling Uses - New Floor Space
4.4 Table of Number of Required Accessory Parking Spaces for Provincial
and Municipal Heritage Sites Outside HA Districts
Non-Dwelling Uses - New and Existing Floor Space on Small Sites
REQUIRED
CLASS
OF BICYCL
PARKING
*and
bicycle
parking
2-coverec
2-coverec
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
25% of
units
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
Change of Use Required Parking Spaces
P to P no requirement NONE
P to A 0.4 times the standard for the 15% of
District in which the site is located auto
A to P no requirement NONE
A to A no requirement NONE
For the purpose of this section Passive Uses (P) include vacant
space, storage space and warehouse space; and Active Uses (A)
include all other uses. Except as specified in section 4.4.3,
all non-dwelling uses in floor space existent on November 4, 1986
in Provincial or municipal heritage sites outside HA Districts
shall provide parking as follows:
in accordance with the standard for the District in which the
site is located.
Non-Dwelling Uses - Existing Floor Space
Except as specified in section 4.4.3, all non-dwelling uses in
floor space created after November 4, 1986 shall provide parking*
Dwelling Uses
All non-dwelling uses on sites in Provincial or municipal 15% of
heritage sites outside HA Districts less than 325 square auto
metres in size shall provide one parking space for the
first 750 square metres of gross floor area plus one
parking space for each additional amount of floor space
equal to 0.7 times the standard for the District in which
the site is located.
Except as provided in section 5.4.5, dwelling uses in
Provincial or municipal heritage sites outside HA
Districts shall provide a minimum amount of parking
equal to 0.75 times the standard for the District
in which the site is located.
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0393eJ213EJ02J88
Dwelling Units for Senior Citizens or Low Income Families
Dwelling units in Provincial or municipal heritage sites
outside HA Districts for senior citizens or low income
families as provided for in sections 4.2.1.7 and 4.2.1.8
shall provide parking in accordance with sections 4.2.1.7
and 4.2.1.8 respectively.
4.4.5
COLUMN 1
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
COLUMN 2
REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
MINIMUM
BICYCLE
PARKING
SPACES
NONE
REQUIRE[
CLASS
OF BICYCl
PARKING
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0393e/213E/02/88
* Lane widths of 2.7 and 2.8m are only to be used when no alternate solution
is available.
+ curb lane widths of less than 3.6m are not recommended for use on any street
designated as a priority 1 or '2 bicycle commuter route (see Street Priority
System).
+ Curb lane widths of less than 3.6m are not recommended for use on any street
designated as a priority 1 or 2 bicycle commuter route (see 'Street Priority
System l ).
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.8
+3.1
+3.2
+3.4
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
Lane Width
Curb Lane 2nd Lane
APPENDIX K
RECOMMENDED LANE PAINTING PROCEDURES
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
For 4-Lane Roadways
1/2 Street Width
A.
B. For 6-Lane Roadways Lane Width
1/2 Street Width Curb Lane 2nd Lane Thi rd Lane
8.2 *+2.8 2.7 2.7
8.4 *+2.9 2.7 2.8
8.6 *+3.0 2.8 2.8
8.8 +3.0 2.9 2.9
9.0 +3.1 2.9 3.0
9.2 +3.2 3.0 3.0
9.4 +3.4 3.0 3.0
9.6 3.6 3.0 3.0
9.8 3.6 3.1 3.1
10.0 3.6 3.1 3.3
10.2 3.6 3.2 3.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I