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.

!