Why aren’t these bicyclists using the allegedly safe cycle track, which is mandatory by law?

Critique of: “Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street” shows that two cycle tracks increased bicyclist danger, three were neutral, neither decreasing nor increasing danger, and at one cycle track the effect was unknown. This contrasts with the investigators’ claim that the six cycle tracks had a combined 28% lower injury rate than their eight reference streets.

4 Responses to “Montreal Cycle Tracks”

  1. Michael. Kary has prepared another review of the Lusk et al study, now online here: http://john-s-allen.com/reports/montreal-kary.htm

  2. […] Worse still, some studies have made comparisons between bikeway streets and non-bikeway streets without keeping the other street characteristics consistent. For example, in the Lusk, Furth et al study of Montreal cycle tracks, one-way, one-lane residential streets with cycle tracks were compared to two-way, four-lane commercial streets without bikeways. They also ignored crashes that might have been relevant, but we can’t tell from their paper. (They also omitted a cycle track section that was already known for a high crash rate.) Critiques of that study can be found here and here. […]

  3. […] In his footnote #5, Egan again cites the study Lusk, A. C., Furth, P. G., Morency, P., Miranda-Moreno, L. F., Willett, W. C., & Dennerlein, J. T. (2011). Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Injury prevention, 17(2), 131-135 as demonstrating a 28% lower crash rate for cycle tracks in Montreal, relative to comparison streets. Do the people at Harvard School of Public Health know what they are doing? If so, they are intentionally biasing their work. Flaws of the study include describing stretches of paths in parks and away from streets as cycle tracks, including stretches which had not been built yet in the reported mileage, selecting a multi-lane comparison street 10 blocks away with heavy, faster traffic for comparison with a cycle track street which is small and has light, slow traffic, examining short stretches which end just short of busy intersections, giving the length of one of the paths as twice as long as it is, halving its reported crash rate, and neglecting injuries to pedestrians. A detailed rebuttal and a link to the study online may be found at http://john-s-allen.com/reports/montreal-kary.htm. Another review reaching similar conclusions is at https://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/critiques/montreal-cycle-tracks/ […]

  4. […] injuries to pedestrians. A detailed rebuttal and a link to the study online may be found here. Another review reaches similar […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: