The worst trouble spots for cyclists
CBC looked into the most dangerous intersections for cyclists.
-
Kate
Reply
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- H. John on Churchill Falls deal: Innu not consulted
- R T on PQ won’t hold referendum under Trump
- CE on PQ won’t hold referendum under Trump
- Kevin Butler on PQ won’t hold referendum under Trump
- Joey on PQ won’t hold referendum under Trump
- Tim S. on PQ won’t hold referendum under Trump
- Taylor C. Noakes on PQ won’t hold referendum under Trump
Pages
Other levels of gov’t
Sideblog projects
Enviro Montreal is a Bluesky feed that follows local environment news. Also available on Mastodon.
Archives
Pages rescued from montreal.com
Meta
Ian 10:24 on 2026-08-01 Permalink
None of them on Parc!
DeWolf 10:42 on 2026-08-01 Permalink
Not surprising that the Gilford/St-Denis intersection is so problematic. That has been a problem ever since the REV was built. Drivers whip off St-Denis without looking for pedestrians or cyclists. There are also some drivers who make illegal left turns. The city installed a bunch of blue bollards to restrict the turning radius, forcing drivers to slow down. That helped a lot, but still doesn’t solve the underlying issue.
The easiest way to fix the problem is to switch the direction of Gilford so that it runs east, towards St-Denis.
Mark Côté 10:58 on 2026-08-01 Permalink
Heh there’s a mistake in one of the captions: ‘According to SafeMobility, 20 per cent of Montreal’s collisions are considered ‘very hazardous”‘. Pretty sure they meant intersections…
Kate 11:05 on 2026-08-01 Permalink
I expected to see the corner of Berri and Ontario, specifically the southbound side where cyclists come down the hill. Maybe the REV has made it safer – I always flinched from that corner when I was cycling.
Chris 13:37 on 2026-08-01 Permalink
“most dangerous” isn’t really the most accurate summary. It’s “most collisions”. And only in the last 2 years.
And they don’t normalise by either the amount of bike traffic or motor traffic. The “most dangerous” routes could be those that cyclists avoid entirely, and if fewer cyclists, fewer collisions. Hypothetically, if Parc Av only had 2 cyclists ever, but all both died, it wouldn’t make this list, but I’d sure call it most dangerous.
Still an interesting article.
Nicholas 20:22 on 2026-08-01 Permalink
The podcast This Is Montreal covered this, and they specifically say they think Park is low because people don’t cycle on it. And yes, it’s not normalized for the number of cyclists.
su 09:56 on 2026-08-02 Permalink
I am surprised that the decarie/de maisonneuve quagmire did not get a mention
DeWolf 12:29 on 2026-08-02 Permalink
@Kate The REV doesn’t extend below Cherrier so the Berri path is the same as it has always been. Worse, actually, because now Berri is closed for construction and there is a very bad, temporary path along Ontario to serve as a detour.
I see cyclists on Park Avenue but only a tiny fraction of what I see on St-Laurent (another bad street to bike on, but much better than Park). Given how many deaths have taken place there I’d say it’s way more dangerous than anything in the CBC article, if only because you are much more likely to be killed rather than simply injured.
Kate 15:42 on 2026-08-02 Permalink
Thank you, DeWolf.
Ian 15:46 on 2026-08-02 Permalink
@Chris, Nicholas, good points.
I guess this is a good example of how statistical information can be misleading depending on what measures are used and what conclusions are drawn from them.
I know back in the day bicyclists avoided streets with bike paths becasue that meant it was a dangerous street, but the planning has improved a lot and now it’s more about managing emergent chokepoints and dangerous modal interactions.
@Mark haha yes, I should hope that is what they intended 😀