Just in case you think you're safe in Scotland...

Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign, has produced a handout about the upcoming transport budget cuts in Scotland.

Oh, hang on. Did I say cuts ? It's only a cut for walking and cycling. The total budget for transport is being increased from £1804m to £1884m, while the part of that budget which is for walking and cycling combined is being reduced from £20m to £15m.

There are 5.2 million people in Scotland, so the budget for cycling and walking combined is being reduced from £3.84 per person per year to £2.88.

In other words, the budget is being reduced from 1% of the transport budget to 0.7% of the transport budget. That's not investing in cycling, it's fobbing off cyclists.

Scottish politicians who promised to "increase the proportion of transport spending on ... active and sustainable travel" would seem to have gone back on their word. Another broken promise.

You can read more on the handout itself (click and it gets bigger) or on the Spokes website.

It's a long way from the level of expenditure which is required for growth to a significant rate of cycling. The Dutch spend about €30 per person per year on cycling.

However, some local authorities in Scotland remain bullish: In Dumfries and Galloway, where the cycling modal share is approximately 3%, the new local transport strategy says "Overall, cycling and walking infrastructure is considered to be of a good standard and the council consequently considers that only incremental improvements to existing networks will be required in the short term".

Clearly they're not aiming very high. If the infrastructure was truly good, the modal share would be higher. There is pent up demand in Scotland just as anywhere else, but people don't cycle as much as they'd like to due to a lack of subjective safety.

The Cycling Action Plan for Scotland says that 2% of children in Scotland currently cycle to school. Cycling Scotland say it's 1% of primary school children and 2% of secondary school children. Like many organisations which despite lots of hard work still don't manage to increase the school cycling rate significantly, they are both placing more emphasis on training than on infrastructure improvements. That's why you don't see scenes like this every single day around every Scottish school.

£2.88 per person per year isn't enough to change the infrastructure so that cycling becomes something that people want to do. It can't be achieved on a shoe-string, and it certainly can't be achieved when budgets shrink rather than grow. When the transport budget in Scotland is growing, what can possibly be the excuse for shrinking the budget for cycling and walking ?

July 2013 update. D & G council talks to the press
In Dumfries, the BBC reports that "Plans to extend a sustainable travel project have been put on hold until firm evidence is produced to prove its effectiveness".

Less than two years ago, as you can read above, I pointed out that their boasting of already having "a good standard" of cycling infrastructure was premature. Considerably more investment is required to produce conditions in which people feel safe to cycle. Building just a few scattered and half-hearted pieces of infrastructure has never worked. A comprehensive network with very high quality is required.

Dumfries and Galloway could have sent representatives on one of our Study Tours two years ago in order to find out what was required, but they didn't. We would still like to welcome people from Dumfries and Galloway in the future. There is much to learn. Assen is town not much larger than Dumfries and we experience far harsher winters winters than does Dumfries but people cycle here in numbers which are unknown anywhere in the British isles. Come and see how this was achieved.

First cycle "superhighway" revisited

A man cycles towards a junction. At a steady speed, doesn't slow down, doesn't speed up. A large truck comes to a full stand still to let him pass. Cyclists on the cycle path have the right of way after all. The man passes, but the truck cannot drive on just yet. There is another cyclist coming and the long truck could never clear the junction in time. So the truck driver waits, until the junction is clear and no new cyclists approach it.

Welcome to the every day reality of cycling in the Netherlands.

The above scene is from a new video of the Netherlands' first cycle 'superhighway'. It's been almost two years since David showed you my videos of this "fietssnelweg" (fast cycle route) from Breda to Etten-Leur that was built in 2003 and finished in 2004.

More fast cycle routes were built since this first one. I will try and visit some of them and make a series of videos to show you what the Dutch themselves consider state of the art cycling infrastructure. But a series wouldn't be complete without the first actual route so I revisited it.

The -upright- cyclist icon at a junction
in the Breda - Etten-Leur cycle highway.

We already showed and told you a lot about this route in the post of December 2009, but here is a quick recap of the most important facts.

• The route is over 7 kilometers or 4.5 miles long, from the center of Breda to the edge of Etten-Leur.
• Cyclists have priority on all junctions but one that is traffic light controlled.
• Costs in 2003: one million guilders per kilometer. Total costs amount to about 3.5 million euros.
• The route was financed by North-Brabant province (80%) and the city of Breda (20%).
• Width of the route at least 3.5 meters (11.5 ft) with a surface of smooth red asphalt.
• It has a consistent design, even for the lighting and the distance between planted trees.
• Extra features: three shelters that can be used in rain or as a meeting place to ride together
• And: one observation tower, height 18 meters or about 60ft.

Some things were striking since my last visit. Maintenance on this route is excellent. It still looks brand new even 7 to 8 years after it was completed. None of the newly planted trees uprooted the surface in any way. Also interesting: the design of the route is not special anymore. This route has set a standard (in width and surface) that has since been largely followed for cycling infrastructure around the country. And lastly Breda’s city limits were moved. I have no idea why, but the built up area of the city expanded to the west by one kilometer.
This new video focuses on aspects that deserve some extra attention: the people using the route and the way the priority on the junctions works.

There is a schoolrun and people going to the supermarket in the town of Etten-Leur. And at the junctions you can very clearly see how the interaction between motorised traffic and cyclists works in the Netherlands. Perhaps interesting to see that in this country motorised traffic is not automatically at the top of the traffic hierarchy. Yes, big trucks yield to children and elderly on a bicycle. I kept the original sound. So you can hear how quiet the route is once it is completely away from motorised traffic.

Two views of the school run in Assen

Two views of the school run in Assen videoed by people who came on the CEoGB study tour.

I think it's worth pointing out that motorists have priority over cyclists at the crossing. However, the occasional toots you hear are from drivers indicating to cyclists that they can cross:

David Arditti.

Joe Dunckley.

If you start the first video, wait 25 seconds and then start the second, then you'll see two views of the same scene synchronized.

This is what it looks like when cyclists truly don't come second best to drivers. This is what it looks like when there are genuinely "safe routes to school". This is what the Netherlands looks like forty years after the Stop de Kindermoord campaign fought for the safety of children.

Compare with the chaos that still exists in the road where we lived in Cambridge.

To book a study tour, click here.

How "Bikeability" and "Cycling Proficiency" have failed British cyclists.

Bikeability is the current form of cycle training in the UK. It is now almost the only thing to do with cycling which is funded by the British government, and it has become a small industry with "Bikeability registered providers" offering services around the country.

Bikeability is described by the British government as being "cycling proficiency' for the 21st Century!". They say that this training "gives you the skills and confidence to cycle in modern road conditions".

British children preparing for battle - photo courtesy of Bikeability website.

In a recent press release announcing more funding for Bikeability, it further claimed that “This Government is strongly committed to cycling – it is a crucial part of building a healthy and sustainable transport network for the future. That is why we have provided £11m of funding this year for the Bikeability programme, which not only promotes the benefits of cycling as a healthy and enjoyable way of getting around, but enables children to do it safely and confidently.”. They also say that it "promotes a healthy life style choice and ensures that the children are safer when cycling on our busy roads.”

However, once again the British public are again being sold short. Sadly, the truth is that "modern road conditions" in the UK still look remarkably similar to 40 year old road conditions in the Netherlands.

The same Dutch street in the 21st century.
Not much like Britain any more.

1960s Dutch street scene.
Very like Britain now.

Not only is training not nearly enough to reverse a long term decline. In fact, it's not enough to make any measurable difference at all. Peter Miller made these graphs a few weeks back which show that while walking to school is on the decrease and driving continues to increase, "cycling is lost in the noise at the bottom".

While conditions remain as they are on Britain's roads, cycling for most people will not progress further than the very first achievement in Bikeability level 1, which reads: "Get on your bike, start cycling, then stop and get off".

Where did the training emphasis come from ?
According to the CTC, they proposed "cycling proficiency" in 1936. However, not until 1948 did the government "endorse RoSPA to roll out CP".

Cars vs. bikes in the UK

In other words, the whole history of cycle-training in Britain has been over a period while cycling declined.

The decline of cycling in Britain
It is often not appreciated just how popular cycling once was in the UK. In 1949, no less than a third of the total distance travelled on the roads in the UK was by bike: 23.6 billion vehicle km vs. 46.5 billion km for all motor vehicles combined. Just 20.3 billion vehicles km were by private car and taxi. i.e. more distance was covered each year by bike than by car. This is a remarkable level of cycle usage, and something that no nation, including the Netherlands, can claim today.

Cars vs. bikes in the UK (zoomed)

In 1959, after ten years of cycling proficiency, this was down to 13.6 billion vehicle km by bike and 104.2 billion km for other vehicles. In this initial period of cycle-training, the absolute distance travelled by bike had more than halved and proportionately it had reduced to a third of what it was. As time went on, cycling declined even more.

An enthusiast: Ten years ago with my eldest
daughter "ready for battle" on Britain's roads.

It is quite fair and accurate to say that cycle training, in all its forms, has not only failed to do anything at all to increase cycling rates in the UK, but it has also failed to do enough to stem a very rapid decline.

What we are left with in the UK now is an almost total lack of cycling a few people due to economic reasons and a keen group of enthusiasts. These are the people who have stopped cycling from declining to zero. In Britain I was one of them and of course I trained my children to cycle as safely as possible under the circumstances.

What caused the decline ?
I am, of course, not saying that cycle-training caused a decline in cycling. That's not the case at all. Rather, as cars became more affordable they displaced bikes from Britain's roads. Due to a lack of good subjectively safe conditions for cycling, driving became the least bad option for most people. It costs a lot to drive in the UK. It is often reported that a high percentage of the income of people on low salaries goes into the petrol tanks of their cars. However, people continue to drive despite of this cost. It's not a positive choice, but a reaction from people who don't see that they have a choice. Driving in the rush-hour is a source of stress, not pleasure. However, other alternatives including cycling are worse.

If not only training, then what ?
After 62 years of the same approach producing the same results in Britain, it is time for a change in policy. The only sensible approach is to copy the Netherlands as this is the country where cycling has most successfully resisted the rise of motoring, and even risen once again after the reasons for the decline were noted and action was taken.

Infrastructural change is needed to make cycling desirable. Obviously starting sooner rather than later would be best, and therefore it would be best if recent calls for change were listened to, rather than waiting for another thirty years to pass.

Once the infrastructure is in place, training can then come into its own. The efforts of people who train cyclists will no longer be wasted.

In my view, cycle training, especially of children, is valuable. However, it is only a small part of what is required. It can't result in a higher cycling rate unless conditions are changed such that cycling becomes a desirable activity. Governments which want to increase cycling cannot rely merely on training. They have to invest in cycling infrastructure. The evidence shows that on its own, attempting to train cyclists to cope with ever degrading road conditions simply does not increase cycling rates.

I took a course as a cycle trainer in the
UK and was given this badge. Sadly
this was not a high quality course.

Of course, some people will question the cost of providing proper cycling infrastructure. The best infrastructure in the world costs about €30 per person per year. This is not a large amount out of the nation's budget. If Britain could achieve just ten percent of journeys by bike, far fewer than in recent history, the payback would be much larger than the cost. The extent of the infrastructure required is no more overwhelming than in the Netherlands. Britain isn't nearly so huge and spread out as some people think. In fact, the population density of England is comparable with that of the Netherlands and the population density even of relatively sparsely populated Wales is comparable with that of the Dutch province of Drenthe, where we live.

Britain's transport budget next year is 22.4 billion pounds or around 420 euros per person per year from central government (this is not the total spent). Building decent infrastructure for people to cycle in the UK is easily affordable, but Britain seemingly prefers to spend money on such things as ever larger ships for the navy, trying to rejuvenate the same rather antique military aircraft not just once, but twice. Britain's defence budget is one of the largest in the world. For next year is over 47 billion pounds, is approximately €880 euros per person per year. That's substantially more than the total amount of money than leaves the country each year.

Wasteful projects such as these, and an over-reliance on imported fuel for motorized transport, are the means by which Britain has achieved a cumulative deficit three times as large as that of Greece. Cycling is part of the solution to the country's financial problems.

I was initially prompted to write this after reading the response by a cycle trainer, Londonneur to a post by David Arditti on the Movement for Liveable London. Cycle trainers in the UK work very hard at what they do. However, one should never confuse "working hard" with "achieving results". Cycle training can help a few nervous but keen individuals to cycle in a hostile environment. However, it's not something which scales to support the entire population in cycling for a significant proportion of all journeys. To achieve this requires cycling to be an efficient and safe means of transport. Changing the streets to increase subjective safety and give cyclists more direct routes is the way to achieve this.

All figures were published by the DfT.

Another myth about population density

Some myths just get repeated again and again and again.

I just read a comment under David Arditti's excellent post "Some more thoughts on Dutch cycling" (please read it) that said "This should be considered in the context of just what a congested country the Netherlands is: a population of 18m crammed into an area the size of Wales, if that, so population per square km is much higher than ours, and even in rural areas you can expect to pass a house every couple of hundred metres and a village every km."

This is an emotive way of putting an argument, using Wales as an example because it's generally thought of as a relatively sparsely populated part of the United Kingdom. However, it's also highly inaccurate because he's exaggerated the population of the Netherlands by more than a million people, and is suggesting that Wales is the same size when actually is only half the size of the Netherlands (20779 km2 vs. 41848 km2).

Guessing at things like this is rather pointless when real figures worth comparing are remarkably easy to find in Wikipedia. England makes an interesting comparison with the Netherlands because as it turns out, the population density of England is 395 people per square km while that of the Netherlands is 403 people per square km. i.e. the densities of these two countries are very nearly exactly the same. What has been achieved in the Netherlands could also be achieved in England if British people want it enough.

What's more, the population density even of Wales, at 140 per square km, is not that much lower than the population density of Drenthe, where we live, which has 183 per square km.

Americans use this excuse even more often than the British, but as I wrote about that before, I won't bother to repeat myself. When considering any of this, bear in mind that US cities are some of the most densely populated in the world, and that population density of cities have no correlations at all with their cycling rates.

Note also that Dutch commutes are the longest in Europe.

Another article which I recommend highly this week is Dutch Pick and Mix. More about Britain on Monday...

For the benefit of a blogger with a comprehension problem who misunderstood this post when he linked to it, nowhere above do I imply that Wales is merely a province. Wales is, of course, a country in its own right.

Maastricht Cycling Infrastructure

The city of Maastricht –birth place of the euro– has a bit of a reputation of “not being the best cycling city” in the Netherlands. But with a modal share of cycling of almost 30% of all trips up to 7.5km it is really not doing bad at all. At least not compared to cities in any other country. The historic city (founded by the Romans) in the extreme south of the Netherlands is surrounded by some hills. But since it was formed on the banks of the river Maas (Meuse) the city center is still relatively flat.

Inset: Wikipedia example of a cycle path. The big picture shows it is not used anymore, a bad example of an equally bad situation, and not a good representation of Maastricht cycling infrastructure.

A strange picture of a Maastricht cycle path can be found on the Dutch Wikipedia page ‘Fietspad’ (cycle path), see inset in the larger picture above. A large yellow chunck of concrete is blocking almost the entire width of the cycle path. Weeds are growing in abundance and the surface seems a bit neglected. When you look at the picture you could come to the conclusion that the Maastricht cycling infrastructure does not have the quality we are used to in the Netherlands. But if you were to actually visit the site of the picture it becomes clear that this particular stretch of cycle path has been out of use for a long time. In yellow painted lines it is clear that a diversion was created. Granted, it is a strange situation that has apparently been like this for some years now (the yellow paint has already faded) but it is clear that this selectively cropped picture is not representing Maastricht cycling infrastructure in a good way. Such a delibrate misrepresentation of Dutch cycling infrastructure is something which is seen more often.

Some weeks ago I had a meeting in the Maastricht University Hospital. Some of the people attending arrived by car, another person and myself arrived by OV-Fiets rental bike from the central railway station. After the meeting we decided to all go to the city center to have a drink and something to eat. I decided to film the ride. Judge for yourself how ‘bad’ the state of the cycling infrastructure of Maastricht really is.

Ride from the Maastricht University Hospital to the center of the city.

We arrived in a restaurant in the city center only 10 minutes after we had left the hospital. We ordered a drink and waited for the others. They had to walk a considerable distance to the parking garage. Pay and then find their way through rush hour traffic. For us the ride was 2.5 kilometers. As usual in the Netherlands, the route for the cyclist is more direct. In fact the distance was twice as much for a car. The main arterial streets in Maastricht are quite congested and they had to wait at a number of traffic lights. Once they finally arrived in the city center they had to go to a parking garage there and walk to the café. We had all anticipated they would arrive well after us cyclists. But nobody would have guessed that they were to arrive 35 minutes later! We had just finished our second drinks… No wonder that many of the Dutch are so keen to cycle everywhere.

Go Vilnius ! (or what future should a growing nation choose ?)

In the last week we hosted four representatives from the city of Vilnius in Lithuania for a study tour of Assen and Groningen.

Lithuania is developing fast. The capital, Vilnius, faces many challenges due to growth. Personal cars as a means of transport have grown in popularity, and this has resulted in several problems, such as a high rate of illegal parking. This was the reason for the much publicized story a few months back where the Mayor of Vilnius drove an armored vehicle over a car:


It was a publicity stunt, of course, but the Mayor being involved in this way demonstrates that increased car usage has caused problems which reach right through society. Vilnius is not alone in this of course. The same problems are seen in very many other cities around the world.

The Vilnius representatives came to Assen and Groningen in order to see how cycling could help. Every journey by bike is a journey which is not taken by motor-vehicle.

On Thursday morning I woke early. I remembered that some months ago, Todd Edelman forwarded me a link to an article about public transport usage across Europe. The Czech authors of that article used it to point out that their country has the highest public transport usage across Europe, a deserved boost to morale for a country with very good public transport. What woke me was remembering that I wrote back at the time to say that it also demonstrated something about cycling. I realised that this could also perhaps be of interest for Vilnius, as well as many other cities facing similar dilemmas.

I couldn't access that particular survey, but these surveys are carried out regularly, with similar results from year to year. In the 2007 survey, Latvia, next door to Lithuania, was shown to have the highest public transport usage in Europe, as shown in the graph below. Eastern European countries dominate the left side of this graph while Western European countries are mostly on the right side of the graph. There is a strong correlation with GDP per capita. As people become richer, they use public transport less:

It's simple to explain this. As nations become more wealthy, their people desire motor vehicles and other luxury items. Once it is possible to afford them they will buy them. This phenomena is not restricted to Europe. It's been observed most dramatically in recent years in China, which has very quickly transformed itself from being notable for its high rate of cycling to being notable for its massive traffic problems.

I thought it interesting to look at where Lithuania and the Netherlands appear on the graphs in the report. To make it obvious, I've highlighted the figures for Lithuania in yellow and those for the Netherlands in orange. I've also highlighted France in red, this being a typical low cycling rate established western European nation.

With these three nations highlighted you see that Lithuania appears amongst other up and coming Eastern European nations. These nations all have higher than average rates of public transport usage. The Netherlands and France, on the other hand, are both on the other side of the graph with relatively low levels of public transport usage. The Dutch have almost the lowest rate of public transport usage in Europe:

However, when we look at the rate of motorized individual transport, the picture changes. You now find that France is with the group of almost all wealthier Western European nations on the left of the graph with a high rate of motor vehicle usage. The Netherlands is in a rather unique position for a Western European nation - amongst Eastern European nations, due to its relatively very low rate of motorized transport. The reason for this is of course the high rate of cycling:

Despite relatively easy affordability of cars and a high car ownership rate, the Netherlands has easily the highest rate of non-motorized transport in Europe. Other Western European nations which have achieved a higher than average rate of cycling, including Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland show the same effects on all three graphs as the Netherlands, but to a less obvious extent. Other established nations in Europe, including the UK, France, Ireland, Austria and Italy, appear on the right side of the graph due to the domination of motor vehicles:

My conclusion: Unless there is another factor which changes what people do, as countries become more wealthy, their people stop using public transport and instead drive cars. The attractiveness of cycling in the Netherlands has lured people away from cars to an extent that public transport has not achieved in any rich nation. This makes a huge difference to overall transport patterns.

A choice must be made

If no action is taken then the likely future for all Eastern European nations, including Lithuania, as well as in developing nations all across the world, lies with cars taking over from public transport. This increase in car ownership and use results in roads which are uncomfortable on which to walk and cycle, walking and cycling risk becoming low status activities, and stopping their decline becomes difficult.

If this happens, it comes at a huge price not only in monetary terms due to the enormous cost of building roads, importing oil and cars, but also in environmental problems, road casualties, congestion, rising obesity and lowered freedom for children.

However, there is a choice. If these nations instead emulate the Dutch approach and retain a high rate of non-motorized travel by making cycling into an attractive alternative to driving then the future can be brighter. Encouraging cycling has many other benefits. These reducing environmental problems, improving the public health, reducing congestion and increasing the happiness of children. However, perhaps the raw financial aspects are most attractive. If 30% instead of 20% of journeys can be non-motorized in the future then this makes a huge difference to the cost of roads and maintenance of roads. There will also be less fuel needed to power those cars. The potential savings are far larger than the cost of providing even the best cycling infrastructure in the world.

The positive choice

Cumulative Current AccountBalance per capita for a range
of countries. High cycling
countries highlighted in orange

The choice of copying the "Dutch" approach has been taken by some of the most successful countries in Europe. In these graphs I also highlight in orange other countries which have taken steps to be similar to the Netherlands and in red other countries which have taken a similar approach to France (including some which are not in Europe but are often taken as examples).

We now see that the most wealthy nations in Europe (those which have the highest positive current account balances per capita) are also mainly those which have adopted positive measures for cycling.

Index of child well-being for a
range of countries. High cycling
countries highlighted in orange

A UNICEF survey to identify the world's happiest children also highlighted the same countries as having the best conditions for children.

Cycling plays a role in both of these other results. The high non-motorized transport rate of the Netherlands directly translates into a reduction in the amount of money which leaves the country to pay for imported oil. It also drastically decreases the cost of road-building and of imports of motor vehicles and parts as well as costing businesses less due to fewer working hours being lose due to traffic congestion and illness. These all have an effect on the Current Account Balance and help the Netherlands to remain in profit year on year.

Cycling also plays a large part in the happiness of Dutch children. They have a very high degree of freedom from a young age as their parents are not so concerned about their safety on the safest streets in the world.

Why make the choice for cars ?
The default position for many nations is to just let things happen. Individuals buy and use more cars, and the state provides for this. It is sometimes thought that high car ownership and usage are synonymous with development.

This is seen as both the path of least resistance, and also of giving people what they want. However, it is actually a very expensive choice by government which leads to individuals having few choices in the future. This policy has been followed by many countries, including all those highlighted in red on the graphs above. Many of them now have extremely high levels of debt.

The alternative choice, of choosing to spend money on building high quality cycling infrastructure and encouraging cycling is both less expensive and better for society. This is the path which results in emulating the success of the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland - rich countries with a high standard of living. Is this not what everyone wants ? Even the most expensive cycling infrastructure in the world is cheap compared with building motorways.

Like many other countries, Lithuania is currently in a position where it needs to make a choice. Right there in the capital city of Vilnius a decision needs to be made about whether to try to accommodate ever increasing numbers of cars, or ultimately to spend less money in providing better conditions for their citizens by encouraging the type of development seen in the Netherlands. The message sent to the world by the Mayor of Vilnius shows that the issues are on the table.

Your future is what you make it.

Update: Why emphasize non-motorized transport ?
All motorized means of transport have similar energy usage per passenger kilometre. Switching from one motorized mode to another can't make a significant difference to overall energy usage. It is only by reducing our use of motorized means of transport that we can significantly reduce our carbon emissions.

Slide from my 2017 presentation on energy efficiency

Also see my blog posts about the effect of transport on the environment and my 2017 presentation about energy efficiency of transport.


The document that I link to is concerned with promoting public transport and therefore doesn't comment at all on the much lower rate of motorized travel in the Netherlands vs. other countries. Instead, improvements are expected to come from funding public transport. The public of all countries tends to support the notion that "Better public transport" would improve the traffic situation. However, in many cases it seems that the expectation is that someone else will use public transport while they'll continue to drive. For this reason, I don't think this is an effective policy. Most short distance public transport use is because people have few other choices, not because sitting on a bus is a positive choice in itself. Cycling has the potential to attract people away from cars in a way that buses cannot because it is a personal mode of transport, not a public mode, and can be used to make any journey at any time without waiting or making detours.

Note also that there is a reason why Cyprus is an outlier in some of the graphs above. This country sadly provides fewer choices for transport than elsewhere. Wikipedia says, "Because Cyprus has no working railway system, various other methods of transportation are needed to ensure the proper delivery of any cargo, be it human or freight. Since the last railway was dismantled in 1952, the only remaining modes of transport are by motorways, by sea, and by air." The result is the highest car ownership rate in the world and while sport cycling remains of interest to a minority, conditions are unattractive for everyday cycling.

Another thing to note is that the huge number of people who park bikes at Dutch railway stations and bus stops are counted in surveys like this one only as public transport users. In any case, the low proportion of public transport usage vs. other modes means this doesn't skew the results much. The margin of error of these surveys is actually quite large, as can be seen by comparing results from one year with the next.