Why aren't more people using bike lanes?
(Photo courtesy of Paul Krueger)
“I’ve noticed there aren’t a lot of people using the downtown bike routes. I worry that they just weren’t a very good idea.”
A well-meaning friend said this to me yesterday. A day later, I have figured out what I should have replied. Better late than never, I guess.
In a nutshell, people are slow to embrace change. In fact, it’s quite fascinating to look back to the advent of motors cars, and see how people resisted cars as fiercely as some people now resist bicycle lanes. Cars were first invented in 1885, but it would be decades before they posed any threat to horses and bicycles. As late as 1907 they were seen as little more than annoying, noisy, smelly nuisances. The editor of the New Glasgow Eastern Chronicle commented:
“The automobile fever is catching. [Soon] ... the chug-chug noise will be quite common. ... The horsemen need not get alarmed that the motor car will injure their business in our country. “
[New Glasgow Eastern Chronicle, 19 April 1907]
Good thing this fellow was in newspapers, not in the investment advice business.

Christchurch New Zealand in the early 20th century:
This photo shows the ongoing struggle for road space, as motorists attempted to wrest control of the roads from people on bikes
As cars slowly became more common, antipathy against them increased – and fear grew. A newspaper correspondent referred to them as the “running stinkers,” saying he was “one who doesn't own an auto – but one who is likely to get run over.” As cars continued to encroach on the roads and fear escalated, moralists came out in force. In just the same way as motorists are now preaching to cyclists, the Chronicle editor cautioned:
“The auto people have the right to use the public roads, but they must do so in a reasonable manner. If they go rushing about the country regardless of whom they may annoy or injure they can be hauled up with a round turn, but as long as they are careful and regulate to statutory speed their right is undeniable.”
A correspondent chimed in, declaring passionately:
“There surely should be some legislation for the people who maintain the roads and who in their daily avocation are constantly called on to use these roads. Their rights should be protected against these life endangering pleasure jaunters.”
Unlike today’s unreasonable fear of cyclists, the fear of cars a century ago was very sensible. Their noisy engines and horns on formerly peaceful country roads terrified both horses and humans. One correspondent admitted that he was:
... “(in) mortal terror of one of these devil wagons meeting us when we are driving along the road, our horse taking the nearest fence and leaving us stranded on the roadside, possibly maimed for life, and our good looks considerably out of joint.”
Legislation was bought in to defend the fearful horse-riding majority against the motorized encroachers:
“The speed of the stink wagons [motor cars] is limited to a mile in 8 minutes [12 kph]. On passing a team [of horses] if the driver of the team holds up his hands, the Chauffeur of the stink wagon must bring it to a standstill and remain in that condition until the driver of the horse gives permission to start.”

500 Block of Carrall Street, Vancouver, in 1906:
The streets still belonged to cyclists, horses and pedestrians –
but cars were lurking on the horizon, poised to take over
(Vancouver Public Library: Special Collections Historical Photographs)
Exactly as today, business owners were terrified of losing trade because of the newfangled “stink wagons” – also referred to as “gasoline devils” and “devil wagons.” The editor of the New Glasgow wrote:
“... we feel fairly certain that besides the danger and injury inflicted, these `devil wagons’ will lose the merchants of the town thousands of dollars worth of trade, because the country people will not, and justly so, risk their lives, coming or going from town, by meeting one of these machines.”
The notion of people being afraid to go downtown for fear of meeting a car seems ludicrous today – but perhaps our ancestors were more sensible than we, given that nine pedestrians have already been killed by cars in Vancouver this year? Today pedestrians have entirely gotten over their fear of cars – instead, business owners fear that their customers will be afraid of walking a couple of blocks after parking their cars, due to the removal of a few dozen parking spaces to accommodate the new bike lane on Hornby Street!

Henry Ford, first man to mass-produce cars, sits in the first car he made, in 1896. It would be many years before the majority of people would accept his mass produced “stink wagons.”
Opponents of the “stink wagons” used an argument similar to that used today against cyclists, equating horse riders with sensible business people and car drivers with frivolous layabouts:
“If we have to put up with them [motor cars], drivers of horses will be driven off the roads. Drivers of horses are mostly on business, but the `devil wagons’ are used for fun. Has the whole county, whose people built the roads for their own use in order to do their work, to put up with these pleasure jaunters?”
Interesting that the horse-riding majority was claiming to have built the roads by and for themselves, and resented the new car drivers (falsely claiming motorists had not contributed to the building of the roads). This is exactly like many cyclophobes today, who allege that roads are paid for solely by people who happen to drive cars (falsely claiming that frivolous cyclists do not own property or pay taxes, and therefore have no right to use the roads!).

Cars have changed dramatically since 1896 –
but they’re still “stink wagons”!
As we know, people did eventually accept motor cars. However, it did not happen overnight – in fact, it would take DECADES before cars were accepted and adopted in large numbers. I am very confident that people will be a little quicker to accept the positive change embodied in increased cycling, especially given that the current turmoil in the Middle East suggests we may be on the brink of massive oil price hikes.

In Montréal, thousands of cyclists use the well-established, mainly separated bike lanes at rush hour - freeing up the roads for cars.
In the meantime, let’s just remember that change takes time. Expecting the brand new separated bike lanes of Vancouver to immediately resemble the crowded bike lanes of Montréal or Copenhagen does not take into account that humans take time to embrace change.
It all seems to come down to Gandhi’s wise adage:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Cyclists are now at the stage of being fought with, but inevitably, we will win. Our city planners are well aware that Vancouver cannot be sustainable in the future unless viable alternatives to cars are embraced. Be it ever so glacial, change is nonetheless inevitable.

Already, despite the newness of the lanes and unusual coldness of this winter, Hornby Bike Lane is beginning to look pretty busy (photo by Alex-boy)





Bikes aren't a new invention like cars were in the historical parrallel you draw. Bike lanes also aren't new. The fact that they are seperated isn't going to push a significant number of riders onto them. That is the fundamental problem.
And as one reader on Facebook mentioned the image of 5 bikers in the new Hornby bike lane does not make it busy. As I said on Facebook:
Wait 20 years then us old fogies will hopefully be saying, "Arg! those kids are always filling up the bike lanes. Where am I supposed to ride my scooter?"
Insightful article. What amazes me, is that I keep seeing this tired old line about how such-and-such destroys business, and will cost xx millions in profit - how many times did I see that tired old line in the news? Good to point out that this same rationale has been trotted out a century ago.
Of course, city designs have been molded around car obsession. The necessary change not merely bike lanes, but structuring our cities around different mental models, and rebuilding of neighbourhoods, and such things as shifting one's allegiance away from mega shopping centers to smaller merchants whose faces you know.
Good article.
Answer: fear campaigns (preventable.ca I'm looking at you) and hat-hair.
Vancouver must think of cyclists as almost-pedestrians. Sidewalks (bike lanes), crosswalks and no silly laws telling you what to wear.
Fortunately, more and more members of the Church of Sit-Up Cycling know that being seen and travelling gently is more important than being protected and travelling quickly. And they know that helmets are not, in fact, mandatory in the province of British Columbia.
Interesting historical article but bikes are certainly not new in 2011 any more than they were in 1911.
It's a false historical analogy and a nice bit of historical revisionism - which in this context is NOT a compliment1
You've nailed it.
I should have thought of this too.
By 2020, cyclists will be the cars of 1930. They will be the way to go. I hope that carrall street goes back to its original state. and/or it becomes a no-car street.
Cyclists are the past, and will be future of Vancouver and Earth's transport.
"By 2020, cyclists will be the cars of 1930."
The poster as quoted has been sniffing far too much exhaust-the world is a much much different place now.
The reasons more people don't use the bike lanes is because cycling is seen as expensive, dirty, incovenient, too difficult physically, elitist & dangerous-take your pick.
I'm downtown Mon-Friday all this week but today and tomorrow are far too cold for me maybe I'll take my bike Wednesday-if it doesn't rain.
Numbers will pick up with warmer weather but the scenes a la 1930 will never be repeated-remember Vancouver was a much smaller slower place then.
Note-I speak as a long time Vancouver cyclist-I had my first bike built back in 1974 so I've pretty much seen it all.
The only reason so many people rely on cars for transportation in Vancouver is because the transit is unreliable, expensive and overcrowded (at times). Bicycles are not the future partly because of Vancouver's hills, climate and inability to carry lots of stuff. Until transit is improved people will stick to their cars. You can beat this drum 'till you're blue in the face. Vancouverites will simply not start riding bikes in droves. Gregor has been playing to a very small minority of zealots.
I'm new to cycling, and the lanes were built for people like me - slowpokes on upright bicycles who aren't in a hurry and who like to take life slowly. You'd think I'd be all over them.
But the reality is, the lanes don't go anywhere I need to go. If I were to take the Dunsmuir Viaduct into town, I'd have to go about a mile out of my way. Why do that when the Cambie Bridge is closer? And while I've used Hornby once or twice to investigate new lunch options or to do a little lunchtime shopping, Hornby doesn't go anywhere I need to go, either.
I ride my bike 5-6 days a week. If I were to use Hornby/Dunsmuir, it would be for recreational riding. Sadly, now that I ride to work every day, I do even less recreational riding than I used to.
...because once oil hits over $150 a barrel, there's going to be a lot less cars on the road and a lot more bicycles.
If Jeff Rubin's predictions hold true, http://www.veloweb.ca/blog/2010/12/06/book-review-why-your-world-is-about-to-get-a-whole-lot-smaller-and-more-beautiful/ the bike lanes may indeed prove to be a boondoggle, because they will be wholly inadequate to contain the number of alternate human-powered vehicles on the road.
I go downtown from East Vancouver almost every day. Before I would go along the SeaWall and cross Pacific Blvd at Helmcken and work my way up the hill to Burrard. This involved doing some odd things, cutting through a condo parking entrance, crossing on a pedestrian only crosswalk, going through a little park, going up a ramp alongside a building, etc. Some of these things would probably be considered "bad" by some people but there was no other choice.
Now I just get on the viaduct, make a left at Hornby and I'm there. It used to take me 20 minutes and now it takes 10 and I no longer have to do "bad" things to get where I'm going. I stop at all the lights, signal and wait and I'm still there in less time. Bravo!
I think it's great that the cycling taxpayers of this city are finally getting a few things after all those years of subsidizing motor vehicle infrastructure.
One could also ask the question: why aren't more people using the Golden Ears Bridge?
An interesting argument. Given the fact that the statistics show a steady increase in usage throughout the winter (after an initial drop when the wet weather came) you could be right.
Anyways, the poster who said that bicycles are seen as the too expensive option should give his head a shake. Too dangerous? Maybe... Too expensive that's just silly. Elitist? I've heard that one before, but hard to compare to a $40,000+ automobile. Dirty, perhaps, I assume you mean sweaty. This is actually true, but given the health benefits your improved physique will probably compensate for any bad side effects. Especially with the very recent invention of showers.
On the other hand cars are seen as expensive, dirty, incovenient, too difficult physically, elitist & dangerous-take your pick. It's why I don't drive one.
Good Article!
I have been commuting from Vancouver's Westside to Richmond for 15 years. There's only one short separated bike lane on my route. That said, I see many more cyclists in the past 2 - 3 years than I ever did before along my route (nice days and horrible rainy cold days). 15 years ago it was a busy day when I passed one cyclist in the early morning along my route. Now I pass 20 - 30 and it's growing.
The other difference that I have encountered is the riff that seems to be growing between cyclists and motorists. I have encoutered more incidents in the past year with angry (at bikes) motorists in the past year then in the first 12 years or so of riding. This scares me. I think that cycling as transportation is a very important solution (not the only one) to Vancouvers crowded roads. The other alternatives are much more expensive (new roads, bridges and public transit infastructure). But, I think that some effort is required towards good bicycle PR and public education to help quiet the angy mobs on both sides.
And please ride smart guys, the road is for everyone no one type of transport owns it; don't ride like you do.
Good Article!
I have been commuting from Vancouver's Westside to Richmond for 15 years. There's only one short separated bike lane on my route. That said, I see many more cyclists in the past 2 - 3 years than I ever did before along my route (nice days and horrible rainy cold days). 15 years ago it was a busy day when I passed one cyclist in the early morning along my route. Now I pass 20 - 30 and it's growing.
The other difference that I have encountered is the riff that seems to be growing between cyclists and motorists. I have encoutered more incidents in the past year with angry (at bikes) motorists in the past year then in the first 12 years or so of riding. This scares me. I think that cycling as transportation is a very important solution (not the only one) to Vancouvers crowded roads. The other alternatives are much more expensive (new roads, bridges and public transit infastructure). But, I think that some effort is required towards good bicycle PR and public education to help quiet the angy mobs on both sides.
And please ride smart guys, the road is for everyone no one type of transport owns it; don't ride like you do.
The 2 separated lanes downtown are incomplete. Hornby has an awkward connection to the Burrard bridge, and once you get to the south end of the bridge, there are not many good routes to link up with. Cornwall needs to be more bike friendly and the Cypress bike route has been poorly designed. The same applies to Dunsmuir and the connections to the east side.
Cecily is right about downtown. More lanes are needed with better connections across the other bridges, so that a cyclist can truly get anywhere in the city safely and conveniently.
The separated lanes are a good start, and will attract more people to cycling, but we need a better long range plan for cycling in Vancouver that what we currently have.
What an interesting parallel to draw between the novelty of cars then and the novelty of increased cycling now. Interesting, and accurate. Excellent article
I have been commuting by bicycle to work and to school since I first arrived in Vancouver in 1997. Change is afoot. I see more cyclists now than ever--about five times the number, and far more female cyclists.
As for the impracticality of it, there is nothing difficult about cycling up hills if you have the proper gears for it. In fact, I pull my two children for a combined weight of 100 pounds, up the hills in Vancouver. It just requires patience. I also use the trailer for grocery shopping. If I can do it, any able bodied person can do it.
Love your article. It is really kind of sad, all the fuss and complaining though, when cycling has so much to offer a city. I live in the suburbs, way out there in the Fraser Valley. I enjoy coming into Vancouver via the West Coast Express and cycling around the city, stopping for lunch at a restaurant along the way, it is a wonderful way to spend a day. I am not alone on this either, I have friends that do the same, travel to Vancouver just to cycle in Vancouver because of its cycling infrastructure.
At other times my husband and I have stayed in a Vancouver hotel over a weekend, to cycle and enjoy what Vancouver has to offer. As a result of the cycling improvements I have chosen to spend more of my time and money in the City of Vancouver. Last time I stayed in a hotel on Hornby Street right by the separated bike lane, it was great, and I will definitely look to stay along the route again next time.
Honda civic costs $15,000 in Vancouver give or take.
Honda civic attracts $37,500 in TAXES in Copenhagen so it costs $52,500. That's why Danes bike. They dont like it any more than we do in winter but are being bludgeoned into it by their social engineering government intent on 'saving the planet' meanwhile generating 80 % of their electricity with brown coal despite the decorative windmills around the permiter. WE have hydro in abundance and we dont need to do that so WE dont need bikes.
By the way, 1 average auto makes 4 tons of co2 per yr. 1 coal plant makes 10 - 20 MILLION tons per year. China alone brings onstream 1 new coal plant per week. Are we beginning to see how silly this bike stuff is?
WE have hydro in abundance and we dont need to do that so WE dont need bikes.
Are we beginning to see how silly this bike stuff is?
Your assumption is that the reason people cycle as transporation is to reduce carbon emissions. That may be the reason for some but for me and many others the reason is that cars always seem to want money. Even when running well they want money. (And this is even after the infrastructure for them has been subsidized.) When they break down they want more money. Out in the country they're very useful and it's good we have them but in a city they're just a burden.
I for one am very glad I live in a city with choice.
People around the world are discovering that they can't afford to do the car thing anymore and the cities that provide space for what the people are now doing are the smart ones that are preparing for the future. Most young people (the future) have no interest in cars. They'd rather spend money on an iPhone or a fixed gear bike.
Check out these articles. Car usage isn't rising like predicted.
http://rss.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2011/03/01/whered-the-traff...
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/how-could-they-get-it-so-wrong/
We can ignore what the people want to do or we can accommodate them.
The reason there are not more people using the short sections of bike lanes in Vancouver is simply because they can't complete their entire trip on bike lanes. People want protection from motorists yet on most of their cycling trips they have to cycle mostly on roads where they are completely exposed to the Little Hitlers driving cars who may wish to use their cars as weapons against cyclists.
Even though there are a few more bike lanes, Vancouver motorists have become more agressive and dangerous and people want the physical protection that a seperated bike lane offers. Install the cycling infrastructure and people will ride their bikes.
Sue, I was glad to hear that you are visiting our great city to enjoy the cycling infrastructure. More and more city administrations are starting to realize that a decent cycling infrastructure will attract tourists - and therefore money. My wife and I are planning to vacation this year in Melbourne - it was a toss-up between Sydney and Melbourne, but we chose Melbourne because it has a Bixi (bike taxi) service. We enjoyed the Bixi service in Montreal last year, and found we were able to vacation without gaining weight ... and we just loved exploring the city by bike.
Nick, totally agree with you. I don't feel like I am FORCED to cycle - I do it because I love it, and because it has made me fit and healthy, and because I am certain it has added years to my life and life to my years. And also because I do want to contribute to saving the planet and ensuring there is a sustainable future for our city, so that my kids and grandkids will have a decent place in which to live their lives.
My kids have zero interest in cars, even though the oldest is 19. Even my 10-year-old is smart enough to understand that a sustainable future for our city can NOT be created by lone drivers in cars. To me, watching the endless procession of lone drivers in pollution-spewing cars is like watching a mindless lemming-like species racing (or rather crawling, because of traffic gridlock) towards its own destruction. I hope enough of us wake up before its too late.
Catherine, thanks for the kind words. I am so impressed by your story of towing TWO children uphill. Hats off to you! They say that the measure of a city’s success in cycling infrastructure is how many women are cycling. I plan to research that and write about it in a future post. It gives me a lot of hope to hear from women like you.
Mark, thanks for pointing that out. I thought of doing it, but when people display an inability to follow a simple logical argument, I get so depressed I just despair and can’t be bothered. I think logic should be a compulsory subject in our school systems. That would elevate the level of public debate so much! Socrates and Plato must be spinning in their graves …
That said, the majority of readers clearly found my argument as simple as I intended it to be, so I guess there is hope :)
Most young people (the future) have no interest in cars
I strongly suggest the poster as quoted visit the parking lots of a few local highschools to learn the way of the world.
If kids (or more likely their parents) can afford a car it's the first thing they buy-it was ever thus.
"Dirty, perhaps, I assume you mean sweaty. This is actually true, but given the health benefits your improved physique will probably compensate for any bad side effects. Especially with the very recent invention of showers."
Sadly I'm not fortunate enough to work anywhere that offers employees showers on site-nor I suspect are most people.
Staff are expected to arrive @ work in a condition fit to serve the public not looking like they just changed a tire.
Nick:
Check out that Iphone of yours and do a little snooping around the rest of the world, and you may find that the China's people ( including young people) are in fact showing anything BUT zero interest in cars and are on track to surpass the US as the world's largest car market. Already it is the worlds fastest growing market for cars. Contrary to what you want to believe, the Chinese are buying cars and LOTS of them, ditching their bikes as they are able to afford cars. India is right behind.
Joe Cyclist, if all you had to do was to 'build it and they will ride' then the Danes would not need to punish people out of using cars in Copenhagen. But they do because they built it and they didnt ride. Remember, we already have a very expensive alternate commuter system into downtown Vancouver (Translink) with special curbside docks and sometimes dedicated lanes. We do not need to destroy the flow of traffic at huge future cost just to make a duplicate transity method that makes us look like we are saving the planet when in fact, it is ineffective compared to the global scope of emissions.
The bike lanes are a bikers 'nice to have' not a city 'need to have'. They are a politician's drum to rally the troops. And if you want to save GHG you can still get on the bus, get on Skytrain.. we already pay dearly for this transit infrastructure as and it is supposed to be a low carbon alternate. God knows Translink uses that as its excuse for sucking us dry often enough.
Craig, I am not sure if you are attempting to be ironic by being the motoring enthusiast that Average Joe has described in this article.
Indeed it is true that China is replicating the American post-war model of automobile-based central planning. However, that model has not been a stunning success in the United States and given the magnificent number of people in China being killed by motorists it would appear that the Politburo may be encouraging automobile use as a covert form of population control. Who needs a one-child policy when motorists can do the job for you?
The car policy in Denmark is known as full-cost accounting, where motorists pay some of their fair share of the damage they do to the Danish economy. Like British Columbia, private automobiles are a drain on the Danish economy and result in a net outflow of capital as well as increased external costs such as traffic congestion, increased health-care costs and a degraded quality of urban life. In British Columbia, transit users and cyclists subsidize motorists through general taxation. I occasionally ride my bike in Denmark and as far as I can tell Danes do not seem to feel they are being punished when they ride their bikes. In fact they seem to enjoy riding their bikes.
As far as the greenhouse gases are concerned, uh... you may wish to check your figures. Bicycles are not big greenhouse gas emitters and contrary to what you suggest bicycles do make a difference to total greenouse gas emissions, especially in a city like Vancouver, where most of the air pollution comes from transportatiion, and most of that from cars.
The only reason so many people rely on cars for transportation in Vancouver is because the transit is unreliable, expensive and overcrowded (at times). Bicycles are not the future partly because of Vancouver's hills, climate and inability to carry lots of stuff. Until transit is improved people will stick to their cars. You can beat this drum 'till you're blue in the face. Vancouverites will simply not start riding bikes in droves. Gregor has been playing to a very small minority of zealots.
I find it difficult to carry lots of stuff on transit, too.
Roadkill, I fear you are being too kind in thinking that Craig is attempting to be ironic. Sadly, most motorists live in a (deliberate?) fool's paradise, blissfully ignorant of the fact that all of us non-car owners are subsidizing their lazy and selfish habits. Then they see a country like Denmark as being punitive to motorists - whereas, as you point out, Denmark is simply being fair. Denmark simply APPEARS punitive in comparison to countries such as ours, which heavily subisidize motorists.
Good point about China - the fact that China is emulating the USA is cause for sadness, not celebration. In cities like London (UK), the assumption is that people do NOT drive cars, and excellent transit options are available. But here in North America (and presumably in China) we are brainwashed by the media to believe that one cannot be fully mature and independent unless one sacrifices the environment, and one's children's rights to inherit a decent environment, as well as one's health, by spending one's life travelling in solitary "splendour" in a car.
Sadly, only a few people have enough independence of mind to see that that is a lie, invented to prop up the oil industry, and related industries such as car manufacture. I am amazed that so few people see through it! It's just so blatantly obvious. Tonight I was pedalling rapidly up Lougheed Highway, passing the cars as if they were standing still. There all those motorists sat, trapped at a crawling pace, growing fat and unhealthy in the cars that are supposed to guarantee their "freedom"! I don't think spending hours each day trapped in a metal box in traffic gridlock is freedom .. but that's just me :)