final cycling review
TRANSCRIPT
4037ENV Transport Planning
Transport Literature Review
Planning for bicycling: A review
Michael Tanko: Undergraduate s2738758
Word Count: 1,666
Submission Date: 15 October 2010
! "!
Introduction
Growing concerns of environmental sustainably and traffic congestion have led to
bicycling increasingly being considered as a solution to transportation problems.
Bicycling is an environmentally benign mode of travel that is inexpensive, compact,
time efficient, equitable1 and offers significant health benefits (McClintock, 2002a,
2003; Pucher and Buehler, 2008; Tolley and Turton, 1995). These social,
environmental and economic benefits are increased by its high substitutability
potential for the majority of existing car journeys, a third of which are distances of
less than 3 kilometres (Brög et al., 2001), an ideal distance for bicycling (Pharoah,
2003). However, apart from in some European countries, bicycling remains a fringe
mode of transport. This review of the current literature will investigate the reasons for
this, then suggest how planning, both by physical infrastructure and policy measures,
can contribute to increase bicycling levels.
Barriers or enablers to cycling
The majority of research has identified safety as the single greatest factor affecting
whether or not people choose to cycle (Pucher and Buehler, 2008; Pucher et al.,
2010a; Rietveld and Daniel, 2004). However, it has been argued by many that it is far
less of a dangerous activity that what attitudes in society perceive it to be2 (Dekoster
and Schollaert, 2000; Pucher et al., 2010a). This division between real and perceived
danger is significant, with high-perceived danger identified as a major contributor to
decrease bicycling and vice-versa (Pucher and Buehler, 2008).
The convenience and flexibility of bicycling is another issue often cited in the
literature regarding choice of bicycling. Some argue that bicycling is a highly flexible
form of transport, allowing for door-to-door travel and trip chaining3 without the
inconvenience of traffic congestion, while also being faster than walking
(McClintock, 2003). Others however, highlight restrictions such as unpredictable
weather conditions, differing topography, and lack of ability to transport items as
inhibitors to the convenience and flexibility of bicycling (Clarke, 2002).
! #!
The image and status of bicycling has also been identified as a factor contributing to
its popularity (Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000; McClintock, 2002b). Some believe that
in areas without a historical tradition, it is stigmatised as a ‘poor man’s’ form of
transport (McClintock, 2002a; Tolley, 1990). Conversely, in areas with an existing
bicycling culture, such as European cities and/or college campus towns, bicycling can
be viewed as a respectable, fashionable, or even dignified form of transport4
(McClintock, 2003).
Promotion though infrastructure
Physical infrastructure in the form of well designed cycle paths, cycle lanes and
parking facilities are significant contributors to promoting bicycling5 (Bauman et al.,
2008; Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000; McClintock, 2002a; Pucher and Buehler, 2008,
2009; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000; Pucher et al., 2010a, 2010b). It is recommended that
this be achieved through a hierarchy of paths from highway to local streets with
different infrastructure characteristics for each.
At the top of this hierarchy are rural and main thoroughfare roads with speeds over
60km per hour where a physical barrier separating bicycle and car traffic is widely
advocated (Bohle, 2000; Jensen, 2007; McClintock, 2002a; Ploeger, 2003; Pucher and
Dikstra, 2000), as shown in Figure 1. This addresses the issue of vehicular traffic
being the greatest identified threat to cyclists (Pucher et al., 2010b).
At the road network level below on urban streets it has been suggested that integrating
car traffic and cyclists is possible with the assistance of traffic calming techniques
(Dekoster and Schollaer, 2000; Morrison et al., 2004; Smith, 2002). The majority of
the literature also supports a reduction of motor traffic speeds to 30km per hour in
these areas. The methods for achieving this reduction, however, is not only a law
requiring this which simply could be ignored, but street design methods such as road
narrowing, chicanes or speed bumps which physically restricts speed (Bauman et al.,
2008; Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000; Jensen, 2007; McClintock, 2002a; Pucher and
Buehler, 2008; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000, Pucher et al., 2010a, Pucher et al., 2010b).
In this environment a clearly defined cycle lane beside car traffic is deemed sufficient
for cyclists (Figure 2).
! $!
Figure 1: Segregated cycle path in Bristol, England. Source: Bicycling England 2008
Figure 2: Traffic calming techniques such as chicanes and speed bumps restrict vehicle
speed, making the unprotected cyclist safer. Milwaukee, USA. Source: West North 2009
! %!
Finally, at a completely localised suburban level integration of cars, cyclists and
pedestrians is possible and even desirable, modelled on the Woonerf (home zone)
concept, originating in the Netherlands (Figure 3). This arrangement facilitates traffic
at very low speeds (less than 10km per hour), relying on informal relationships that
encourage greater respect between road users (Pucher and Buehler, 2008; Department
of Transport, 2007; Hartman, 1997; Pharoah, 2003; Tolley, 1990; Yeates, 2002).
However, it has been observed that infrastructure measures should not come at the
expense of a direct route, which is a major consideration of cyclists (Dekoster and
Schollaert, 2000; Hartman, 1997; Hülsmann, 1997; McClintock, 2002a; Pucher and
Buehler, 2008; Rietveld and Daniel, 2004) As such, this cycling network should be
designed on a citywide scale6 with an interlinked grid pattern that is permeable to
allow through access to cyclists7 (Department for Transport, 2007; Ploegler, 2003).
Another important infrastructure consideration is end-of-trip facilities such as parking
racks, lockers and showers, the availability of which increase the potential for cycling
(Brunsing, 1997; Holladay, 2002; Martens, 2007; Pharoah, 2003; Pucher and Buehler,
2008, Pucher et al., 2010a, 2010b; TRB, 2005). Much of the literature points to
strategically placing these facilities at work places (Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000;
Rye and McGuigan 2001, Pucher et al. 2010a) or public transportation hubs8 in an
effort to promote integration and maximize the wide geographic “feeder” potential of
bicycling (Brunsing, 1997; Holladay, 2002; Martens, 2007; Pucher and Buehler,
2008, 2009; TRB, 2005).
Brunsing (1997), Holladay (2002) and Pharoah (2003) also emphasise the need for
cycling and public transport to work together to shift transport away from car use,
instead of bicycling decreasing public transport patronage, whereby creating no net
benefit9. This cooperation also has the benefit of minimising parallel networks of
public transport and cycle paths that compete with each other. Although infrastructure
provision has seemingly supported bicycling, it is worth mentioning that the extent to
which it increases bicycling numbers is currently unsupported with quantitative data.
Instead, links between greater feelings of safety and convenience provided by
infrastructure is often simply assumed to increase cycling levels10 (Pucher et al.,
2010a).
! &!
More effective land use planning has also been suggested to facilitate greater cycling
(Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000). As demonstrated by the popularity of bicycling in
compact cities of Europe (The Netherlands and Denmark) it has been suggesting that
increasing densities and promoting mixed use developments will encourage cycling
by reducing distances to facilities to trip lengths coverable by bicycles, while at the
same time discouraging car use (Pucher et al., 2010a). However, the relevance of
density on travel patterns (Mees, 2009; Newman and Kenworthy, 1989) is still a topic
of debate, and as a result the relationship between density and bicycling levels isn’t
certain.
Figure 3: A Dutch Woonerf. Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
Promotion through information programs and policy
As well as providing infrastructure, it has been widely agreed that a coordinated
program of cycling education and policy is an important part of encouraging cycling
(Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000; Hartman, 1997; Hülsmann, 1997; McClintock, 1997,
2002b, 2003; Pucher and Buehler 2005, 2008, 2009; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000;
Pucher et al., 2010a, 2010b). However, unlike infrastructure measures, which are
commonly agreed upon, the literature identifies the effectiveness of information and
policy programs as more contentious.
! '!
Positive policies include education programs that focus on the economic, health and
environmental benefits of bicycling and challenge misconceptions about constraints
such as weather and topography11 (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). They also highlight the
disadvantages of car use (McClintock, 2002b, 2003; Pucher et al., 2010a). In theory
this is seen to help lift cycling’s social acceptability to increase its popularity2
(McClintock, 2002b; Roberts, 1997).
However, the reliability of data on the effectiveness of travel behaviour change
programs so far is lacking and needs to be improved before their actual effect is
known (Moreton and Mees, 2005; Pucher et al., 2010a), especially for cycling. For
example, Pucher et al. (2010) identified the data from these programs as mainly
focusing on vehicle trip reductions, with little being said about the effect on bicycling
levels (Pucher et al., 2010a).
Within policy it has also been identified that disincentives are needed to promote
bicycling (Pucher et al., 2010a, 2010b). Some of these include legislation that
enforces speed limits and punishes drivers that are inconsiderate of cyclists
(Hülsmann, 1997; Pucher et al., 2010b). The majority of these polices, though, are
focused on decreasing car ownership and use, which has been identified as a necessity
to allow bicycle use to expand (Pucher et al., 2010a). Examples include greater taxes
on car ownership and increased fuel levies, which are common in Western Europe
(Pucher et al., 2010b; Rietveld and Daniel, 2004). However, it has been noted that the
success of implementing these negative polices can pose difficulties where they are
politically unpopular, such as policies impinging upon car ownership and use in the
United States (Pucher 2005, Pucher et al. 2010b).
One particularly controversial issue within Australian bicycling policy is mandatory
helmets laws. Traditionally, this has been viewed as a positive policy that promotes
greater safety. However, current literature (Curnow, 2003, 2005; Voukelatos and
Rissel, 2010) has cast doubt on this assumption. It has been argued that the legislation
has only served to attach a perceoption of danger to bicycling and create an
inconveniencing barrier that has decreased its popularity13 (Dowe, 2010).
Subsequently, it has been questioned to what effect this has had on bicycling levels in
Australia. In any case, this highlights the effect policies can have on bicycling.
! (!
Conclusion
While most agree that a coordinated approach of mutually reinforcing physical
infrastructure combined with pro-bicycle polices increases the instance of cycling, the
exact relationship remains tenuous with a lack of literature linking specific measures
with the actual impact on the amount of increases in bicycling. This occurs both for
the effect of infrastructure provision and education programs and policies. More
substantive quantitative research is therefore required to determine the cause-effect
relationship of these measures to better inform practice for cycling planning in the
future.
! )!
References
Bauman, A, Rissel, C, Garrard, J, Ker, I, Speidel, R, Fishman, E, 2008. Cycling-
Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Get More
Australians Physically Active Through Cycling, Cycling Promotion Fund.
Report produced for the Department of Health and Ageing. Australian
Government, Melbourne, Australia.
Bicycling England 2008. Cycling Lanes: Cycling England, Department of Transport,
accessible at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-
content/uploads/2008/11/cycle-lanetrack-bristol-tr.jpg>
Boston Biker 2009. Why Vehicular Cycling Failed: Or How I learned To Love The
Bike Lane, accessible at: <http://bostonbiker.org/2010/05/24/why-vehicular-
cycling-failed-or-how-i-learned-to-love-the-bike-lane/>.
Brisbane City Council 2010. CityCyle Bike Hire Scheme, accessible at:
<http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/cycling/citycycle/index.htm>
British Medical Association 1992. Cycling: towards health and safety. Oxford
University Press, 1992 !BMA location: BMA 649
Brunsing, W 1997. Public transport and cycling: experience of modal integration in
West Germany Chapter in: Tolley, R (Ed.), The Greening of Urban Transport.
Wiley, Chichester.
Brög, W, Grey-Smith, H, Funke, S 2001. Want a Change? Just Walk!, accessible at:
<http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/walking_21centconf01bpaper_bro
g.pdf>
Bohle, W 2000. Attractiveness of bicycle-facilities for the users and evaluation of
measures for the cycle-traffic, accessible at:
<http://www.velomondial.net/velomondiall2000/PDF/BOHLE.PDF>.
Curnow WJ, 2003. The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury.
Accident Analysis & Prevention 2003;35:287–92.
Curnow WJ, 2005. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets.
Accident Analysis & Prevention 2005;37(3):569–74.
Clarke, A 2002. US Bicycle Planning, Chapter in: McClintock, H (Ed.) Planning for
Cycling: principles, practice and solutions for urban planners, Woodhead, Boca
Raton, USA.
Dekoster, J, Schollaert, U 2000. Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities,
European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, Luxembourg.
Department of Transport 2007. Manual for Streets, accessible at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/pdfmanforstreets.pdf*+
Dowe, N 2010. quoted in: The bicycle helmet laws, Background Briefing - 19
September 2010 - ABC Radio National Australia, Canberra.
Elvik, R 2009. The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally
sustainable transport, Accident Analysis and Prevention. 41, 849–855.
Forester 2001. The Bicycle Transportation Controversy, Transportation Quarterly,
Spring 2001, Vol 55 No 2.
Hartman, J 1997. The Delft bicycle network, Chapter in: Tolley, R. (Ed.), The
Greening of Urban Transport. Wiley, Chichester.
Holladay, D 2002. Cycling with public transport: combined in partnership, not
conflict, Chatper in: McClintock, H (Ed.) Planning for Cycling: principles,
practice and solutions for urban planners, Woodhead, Boca Raton, USA.
! ,!
Hülsmann, W 1997. The ‘Bicycle-Friendly Towns Project in the Federal Republic of
Germany. Chapter in: Tolley, R (Ed.), The Greening of Urban Transport. Wiley,
Chichester.
Jensen, S 2007. Pedestrian and bicycle level of service on roadway segments. 86th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Lehner-Lierz, U 2003. The role of cycling for women, Chapter in: Tolley, R (Ed.),
Sustainable transport: planning for walking and cycling in urban environments
Woodhead Publishing Ltd. United Kingdom.
Litman, T, Blair, R, Demopoulos, B, Eddy, N, Fritzel, A, Laidlaw, D, Maddox, H,
Forster, K, 2006. Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A Guide to Best Practices,
accessible at: <http://www.mrsc.org/ArtDocMisc/PedBikePlanGuide.pdf>.
Martens, K., 2007. Promoting Bike and Ride: The Dutch experience. Transp. Res.
Part A 41, 326–338. Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part D 5, 71–75.
Pucher, J and Buehler, R, 2008, Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The
Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Reviews, 28: 4, 495 — 528 .
Morton A, Mees P 2005. Too Good to Be True? An Assessment of the Melbourne
Travel Behaviour Modification Pilot. In T Raimond (Ed.), Proceedings of the
28th Australasian Transport Research Forum. 1-13. Perth, Australia: Planning
and Transport Research Centre.
Mees, P 2009, How dense are we?, accessible at:
<http://www.promaco.com.au/2009/soac/PDF/Mees%20Paul.pdf>.
McClintock, H 1997. Planning for the bicycle in urban Britain: an assessment
Chapter in: Tolley, R. (Ed.), The Greening of Urban Transport. Wiley,
Chichester.
McClintock, H 2002a. The mainstreaming of cycling policy, Chapter in: McClintock,
H (Ed.), Planning for Cycling: principles, practice and solutions for urban
planners, Woodhead, Boca Raton, USA.
McClintock, H 2002b. Promoting cycling through ‘soft’ (non-infrastructural)
measures, Chapter in: McClintock, H (Ed.), Planning for Cycling: principles,
practice and solutions for urban planners, Woodhead, Boca Raton, USA.
McClintock H 2003. Overcoming the attitude barriers to greater cycle use, Chapter
in: Toller, R (Ed.), Sustainable transport: planning for walking and cycling in
urban environments, Woodhead Publishing Ltd. United Kingdom.
Morrison, D, Thomson, H, Petticrew, M 2004. An evaluation of the health effects of a
neighbourhood traffic calming scheme, Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 58, pp. 837–840.
Newman, P and Kenworthy, J 1989. Cities and Automobile Dependence: An
International Sourcebook. Aldershot, U.K, Gower Publishing. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 2009. PBIC Image Library, U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, accessible at:
<http://www.pedbikeimages.org/pubdetail.cfm?picid=1349>.
Pharoah, T 2003. Walking and cycling: what to promote where, Chapter in: Tolley, R
(Ed.) Sustainable transport: planning for walking and cycling in urban
environments, Woodhead Publishing Ltd. United Kingdom.
Ploegler, J 2003. Infrastructure planning for cycling, Chapter in: Tolley, R (Ed.),
Sustainable transport: planning for walking and cycling in urban environments,
Woodhead Publishing Ltd. United Kingdom.
Pucher & Dijkstra, 2000. Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,
Transportation Quaretery, Summer 2000.
! "-!
Pucher, J and Buehler, R 2005. Why Canadians Cycle More than Americans: A
Comparative Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies, Transport Policy, May
2006, Vol. 13, pp. 265-279.
Pucher, J and Buehler, R 2008, Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The
Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Reviews, 28: 4, 495 — 528.
Pucher, J and Buehler, R 2009. Integrating bicycling and public transport in North
America. Journal of Public Transportation 12 (3), 79–104.
Pucher, J, Dill, J, Handy, S 2010a, Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase
Bicycling: An International Review, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, No. S1,
January 2010, pp S106-S125.
Pucher, J, Garrard, J, Greaves, C 2010b, Cycling down under: a comparative analysis
of bicycling trends and policies in Sydney and Melbourne, Journal of Transport
Geography 2010, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.02.007
Rietveld, P and Daniel, V 2004. Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies
matter?, Transportation Research Part A 38, 531550.
Roberts, J 1997 The economic case for green modes In: Tolley, R. (Ed.), The
Greening of Urban Transport. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 299±306.
Rye, T and McGuigan, D 2001. Green Commuter Plans: Do they work?, accessible
at: <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156447/0041992.pdf>.
Smith, G 2002, Homezones and traffic calming: implications for cyclists, Chapter In:
McClintock, H (Ed.), Planning for Cycling: principles, practice and solutions
for urban planners, Woodhead, Boca Raton, USA.
Tolley, R 1990 Introduction: trading-in on the red modes for the green, Chapter in:
Tolley, R. (Ed.), The Greening of Urban Transport. Wiley, Chichester.
Tolley, R and Turton, B 1995. Transport Systems, Policy and Planning: A
Geographical Approach, Longman, Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex.
TRB, 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit, TCRP Synthesis Report 62,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Voukelatos, A and Rissel, C 2010, The effects of bicycle helmet legislation on
cycling-related injury: the ratio of head to arm injuries over time, Journal of the
Australasian College of Road Safety August 2010.
Wardlaw, MJ 2000 Three lessons for a better cycling future, British Medical Journal
2000; 321 : 1582 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7276.1582.
West North 2009, Off-Milwaukee: a bike route, accessible at:
<http://westnorth.com/2009/10/21/off-milwaukee/>
Yeates, M 2002. Making space for cyclists: A matter of speed?, Chapter in;
McClintock (Ed.), Planning For Cycling: Principles, Practice and Solutions For
Urban Planners, Woodhead Publishing Ltd. United Kingdom.
! ""!
Appendix
! "#!
NOTES
1. Pucher and Buehler (2008) show that cycling levels are almost equal amongst different
social classes, suggesting a highly equitable form of transport (Pucher and Buehler, 2008).
Furthermore, Tolley (1990) shows that the relative cheapness of bicycles allows for greater
access to services by a wider range of the community without access to a car (Tolley, 1990).
2. Many have commented on the exaggeration of safety concerns of cycling, highlighting the
fact that the health benefits of cycling far exceed the dangers (Pucher et al., 2010a, Dekoster
and Schollaert 2000 p34)
3. This is especially significant for women as their travel patterns invariable include trip
chaining (Lehner-Lierz, 2003), so in one way cycling can be see as more flexible to their
needs. However, women also depend more on public transport (Lehner-Lierz, 2003), so if
public transport and cycling integration were lacking then cycling may become less appealing
to women.
4. This is reflected in the fact that there are far more utilitarian journeys in Europe than in
other countries where the main purpose of cycling is for recreation (Pucher and Buehler, 2008
However, for cycling to have significant environmental benefits it has been noted that it needs
to become a serious transport option for everyday commuting trips (Pucher and Buehler,
2008)
5. Not all agree with this assertion though. The Vehicular Cycling movement in particular
states that the safest method of cycling is by integrating cyclists fully into traffic and training
them to behave in the same manner the vehicular traffic (Wardlaw, 2000), without the need
for cycle paths (Forester, 2001). Indeed Forester, the main proponent of the theory believes
cycle paths to be more dangerous (Forester, 2001). However it has been assessed (Boston
Bicyclist, 2010) that even if cycle ways do not actually increase safety, the point is that they
create a perceived feeling of safety, which has been show by many (Pucher et al., 2010a)
McClintock, 2002a) to contribute to people being more likely to cycle, a point which is lost
on VC theorists.
6. Pucher et al. (2010b) demonstrate the need for a large-scale network through analysis of
the Sydney and Melbourne bikeway networks. It was shown that these facilities were mainly
confined to the inner city, with the suburbs largely neglected. This resulted in links between
inner and outer areas often overlooked and “black spots” emerging within the network
(Pucher et al., 2010b) As a result the gains made by cycling in the inner city were far
outweighed by the majority of car use still rampant in the suburbs due to inadequate cycling
infrastructure being provided in these areas.
7. McClintock (1997) observed that even if a safer route is provided, most cyclists are
unwilling to take that route if it involves more than about 10 per cent extra distance
(McClintock, 1997). This contributes to a debate within cycling about to what degree to cater
toward speed vs. safety in infrastructure provision, and as an implication what cyclists to cater
for who value either safety or speed more highly.
8. In this case cycling integration with public transport is by the park and ride model.
However, another method is the cycle-ride-cycle or “sandwich” model (Holladay, 2002). Park
and ride requires space for secure storage and restricts trip chaining. Alternatively taking
bicycles onto transport needs no such storage and offers the potential for greater flexibility of
trip chaining. However, this creates logistical problems of storage on the train/bus/tram,
especially during peak hour, as discussed in Brunsing (1997), Holladay (2002) and briefly in
Pucher et al. (2010a). The trend of public bicycle hire schemes (Brisbane City Council, 2010)
may be the solution to this issue, offering flexibility to cycle from public transport.
! "#!
9. It has been noted however in Pucher et al (2010b) that unburdening over capacity public
transport by cycle can also have its place (Pucher et al., 2010b). On the other hand, though,
better public transport can decrease cycling levels if it is quicker and more convenient than
cycling (Pucher et al., 2010b)
10. It has been identified that these facilities improve the perceived safety and convenience to
cyclists. In Pucher et al. (2010a) both revealed preference and stated preference studies
identified a general feeling of greater safety when riding on segregated pathways (Pucher et
al., 2010a). However quantitative data that identifies the real impact on safety by cycle ways
is currently absent from the literature. Also absent is quantitative data relating the exact
relationship between how greater safety increase the amount of people cycling.
11. Often these factors are overemphasised by potential cyclists who see them as restrictions
to bicycling that cannot be overcome (McClintock, 2002). However, it has been demonstrated
that even in many wet and cold mountainous region such as in Switzerland cycling can
consist of up to 30% of overall journeys (Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000). Also, while it is true
that the urban sprawl common in non-European countries pose difficulties to the viability of
cycling (Clarke, 2002), Pucher and Buehler (2008) have shown some success of infrastructure
and policies increasing bicycling in low density Portland, USA (Pucher and Buehler, 2008).
12. Another education policy that has been widely advocated is driver training to instil a
greater sense of consideration from drivers for cyclists (British Medical Association, 1992;
Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000; Litman et al., 2001). Also education for children has been
identified as a factor to not only increase bicycling (Pucher and Dijkstra 2000) but also to
encourage the next generation of bicyclists (Dekoster and Schollaert, 2000; Lehner-Lierz,
2003)
13. It has been suggested that helmet laws actually make cycling seem more dangerous that
what it actually is by creating this need for special. In Australia, where helmets laws are
mandatory it has been suggested as one of the reasons for the low cycling levels. The
argument is that if there were no helmet laws, there would be more cyclists, and the safety is
numbers theory says overall it would be safer (Elvik, 2009). Cyclist would then have the
numbers to be able to lobby more effectively for cycle paths and other needs, further
increasing safety (Dowe, 2010), and reducing the need for helmets at all.
!