Urban Cycling Institute

🥵 When we let driving and parked cars monopolize our streets we amplify urban heat stress and lower our quality of life.

Yet another hidden societal cost of private car ownership.

𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 [𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑛]: 1. the double standards we apply to the car-dominated status quo in the face of potential change. 2. also known

(🖼️ by Dave Walker Cartoons)

Inspiration from the country that invented car dependency.
If Seattle🇺🇸 can change, why can't your city?

Registrations for the Cycling Research Board Annual Meeting in are now open!

Did you know that Ghent ranks #3 among the most bicycle-friendly cities in the world? Or that this city created 's very first bicycle street back in 2011, a pioneering move that set the tone for everything that followed.

So what better place to to discuss all things than the city with cycling at its core? Come to CRBAM to go beyond the hashtag room and deeply understand how Ghent is actively the of urban .

today at https://pretix.eu/CRBAM/2026/

🚨 Something is rotten in the state of Denmark🇩🇰. Their world-famous cycling culture is under pressure with 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲. We should all pay attention!

For years, Denmark has been presented as the global model for urban cycling, bicycle safety, and increasingly also helmet promotion campaigns: ⛑️📈 Effectively targeting children and their parents has seen major increases in helmet wearing on their bikes.

But a major new national study now shows that everyday cycling is declining across society. Especially among younger people, but also among older adults in several categories. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡, 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

Key findings from 2020-2025 data:
🚴📉 Cycling to work/education at least 3 times per week fell from 28% to 26% since 2020.
🧒📉 Among 15–19 year, cycling dropped from 38% to 32%.
🧑📉 Among 20–29 year, it fell from 38% to 34%.
👩‍🎓📉 Student cycling declined from 41% to 36%.
👵📉 Cycling also declined across most older age groups, with even people in their 70s cycling less for transport than before.

(report by Center for forskning i Idræt, Sundhed og Civilsamfund (CISC)/Jasper Schipperijn linked in comments)

A critical detail: the Danes are not cycling less because distances became longer. In fact, they now generally live closer to work and education than five years ago. So this is not simply an infrastructure story. It may be a behavioural and cultural one.

And that raises an uncomfortable question: 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬?

Over the past decade, safety messaging has intensified dramatically in Denmark: helmets, high-visibility gear, campaigns, warnings, regulations, and constant risk-focused communication. Of course safety matters. But behaviour follows perception.

Historically, Denmark and the Netherlands built world-leading cycling cultures because cycling felt ordinary, easy, spontaneous, and normal. You simply got on a bike and go.

But once an activity starts feeling like it requires equipment, preparation, and risk management, participation changes: especially among groups that are highly sensitive to friction, social perception, confidence, and routine.

And that is exactly why these findings are so troubling.

Young people are forming lifelong mobility habits right now. Older adults are the group with the most to gain from maintaining everyday movement, independence, cardiovascular health, balance, and social mobility. If both ends of society are slowly opting out of cycling, the long-term consequences could be enormous.

𝐈𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐧𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬.

You want safer streets, fewer deaths, higher quality of public space, less noise and air pollution? Just reduce the speed of motorized vehicles (feared traffic chaos never materialized)!

For years, reducing urban speed limits has been framed as “anti-car”, as creating traffic chaos and as politically risky. But the data now shows something completely different. A new .eu survey across 38 cities in 19 European countries shows that 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿.

The survey focused largely on targeted 30 km/h zones in residential neighborhoods, school streets, and historic centers. What’s especially striking is that 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, once people experienced the benefits firsthand.

📊 Key findings from the Eurocities Pulse survey:
3️⃣0️⃣ 57% of surveyed cities now have more than half of their road networks below 50 km/h
☠️↘️ 75% of cities reported fewer road deaths and injuries after reducing speeds
😃↗️ 91% saw at least one broader positive impact on urban life
🚑↘️ Cities reported reductions in crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries across all road users
🌫️↘️ Lower vehicle speeds contributed to less noise pollution and cleaner air
🚶↗️ More walking and cycling were observed in many cities
⏱️⏸️ No overall negative impact on congestion, traffic volumes, or journey times was reported
😤↘️ Political opposition dropped from 45% during rollout to just 18% after implementation
🪧↘️ Public opposition also declined significantly once measures were in place

This is a critical reminder for policymakers, mobility leaders, and urban planners: People adapt faster than politics does.

Cities like and are already treating speed management as a core public health and urban livability strategy. Not just a transport policy. And the broader Vision Zero movement across Europe is gaining momentum because the evidence keeps accumulating.

The bigger lesson here may be that urban mobility debates often focus too much on ideology and not enough on outcomes. If lower speeds can save lives, reduce pollution, support active mobility, and maintain travel efficiency at the same time, the real question becomes: 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴?