There is robust evidence that walking and cycling are good for you. It is common sense that physical activity is better for us than sitting in a car, but the benefits, according to Public Health England are stark:

  • 42% of women and 34% of men in England are not active enough for good health.
  • Physical inactivity has been estimated to cost the NHS over £450 million a year at the Clinical Commissioning Group level.
  • Walking and cycling improve metabolic health and reduce the risk factors for a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, some cancers, and Type II diabetes, as well as improving mental health and general wellbeing. 
  • There is also evidence that the health benefits of walking and cycling outweigh the potential risk of injury or inhaling pollution. 
  • There are also wider benefits to the population of increased walking or cycling due to less congestion, reduced air pollution and lower noise, the latter two of which are known to be health risk factors.

However, despite the evidence of the benefits of cycling, relatively few people in the UK cycle regularly. The European Cyclists Federation collected data on the modal share of cycling in 28 European countries – the UK came 22nd at 2%. Unsurprisingly the Netherlands was the highest with 27% with Hungary (22%), Sweden (17%), Denmark (15%) and Finland (13%) making up the top 5. Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal were the ones trailing the UK at 1%, whilst there was no data for Croatia. Based on the top 5 and the bottom 5 locations, it’s fairly safe to rule out good weather as being a major factor in encouraging cycling.

So what then, are the reasons that cycling becomes the first choice for short trips in some countries and not in others? I was at a project meeting in Delft recently, with the meeting a couple of miles from the centre. One member of the group from Denmark rented a bike from the hotel for the two days of the meeting. Similarly, at a meeting for the same project in Copenhagen, two people from the Netherlands hired bikes at the hotel for the 4-mile journey to the office. This was not out of necessity as there were good public transport links, particularly in Copenhagen. None of them are competitive cyclists, so why choose it over public transport or a taxi?  The reason is that using a bike for a short distance is the norm; it takes about the same time as public transport and is door-to-door. Why bother going on the bus or train, when you can just cycle?

It also helps that in both locations, the culture is there – hotels offering bikes for rent is normal, both locations have an extensive traffic-segregated cycle and both meeting locations have covered cycle storage areas. They wouldn’t have had to check this, with both countries having a healthy cycling culture, this would be expected. This is what ‘good’ looks like.  

Having also hired a bike from the hotel in Delft and a public bike in Copenhagen for a one-way trip back to the centre, I don’t think there was any point that I was in mixed traffic in either location. The bikes were mainly upright city bikes, with no carbon fibre in sight, nor high vis or lycra (or helmets either, but the merits of wearing helmets is for a different time). It’s just something people do.  

How do we get from where we are and where we might want to be? Cambridge shows that towns in the UK can have high levels of cycling, with the level in Cambridge comparable with the Netherlands. Cambridge has perhaps benefited from a long cycling history and missed out on the more car-centric focused policies of the 1960s and 70s.

There are cases where cities have increased cycling rates significantly, with Seville being a particularly good example, where cycling was increased from virtually nothing to 6% in around 4 years. What prompted this was a pro-environmental mayor, the construction of 182km of dedicated cycle lanes and restrictions on cars in certain parts of the city centre. A public cycle hire scheme also helped increase cycling, but Seville’s implementation was far from perfect; a pro-car mayor undid some of the good work for a period and there has been insufficient safe cycle parking near homes and workspaces – the exception being at the university which is well used by students and staff.

There is no single measure required to increase cycling rates, but rather a suite of measures, which is not helped by the lack of a coordinated plan. Historically, cycle routes have had no multi-year funding or coordinated action, but rather a bidding system for funding (from up to 45 different pots) which pits councils against one another. Whilst road and rail are managed by the UK and/or devolved governments, the national cycle network is managed by a charity, and despite the benefits of walking and cycling, only 2% of the transport budget supports active travel. This is despite the high return on investment for active travel infrastructure of £5.62, double that of roads. The good news is that the new transport minister, Louise Haigh has promised ‘unprecedented’ investment in cycling and walking – what ‘unprecedented’ means in practice has not been clarified, but at least the proposed scheme looks to be joined up and multi-year and that the health benefits of active travel are being considered. The review of infrastructure schemes, including the £16 billion of trunk road projects categorised as low-value may have a bearing on how much funding is eventually available.

Safe and segregated routes have been identified as a significant enabler of cycling. Whilst multi-year funding for cycling infrastructure is essential, delivery should be at the local level where there is an understanding of where people cycle to and from, and as importantly, where cycling could be increased significantly, either due to an existing lack of segregated paths, or cycle routes whose condition is poor. An example of the benefits of this approach is a section of the Trans Pennine Trail in the Peak District which saw usage increase by 700% after the mud path was replaced with a smooth sealed surface in 2012. This had the knock-on benefits of enabling previously seasonal businesses to remain open all year, not to mention enabling disabled cyclists and users of mobility scooters to use them, increasing transport equity. 

The lack of parking provision was mentioned as a failure in Seville’s implementation of a cycling strategy. At the other end of the scale, the city of Utrecht opened the world’s largest bicycle parking area in 2019 with 12,500 parking places over 3 levels. Whilst this would be overkill for the UK, there are a few interesting lessons that could be learned for a smaller-scale solution. The station was developed and is run by the municipality of Utrecht, ProRain and NS (Dutch Rail). Parking is free for the first 24 hours with cyclists checking in and out with their public transport clip card. Parking over this limit incurs a cost and on-site wardens correct parking and remove bicycles that remain unused after 28 days. There is also an on-site service point for repairs, maintenance and accessories. There are also 1,000 public transport bicycles for hire. 

It is notable that the railway companies not only participate in the running of the parking station but also the bike hire. The OV biles have NS branding and are hired using the public transport chip card, with their website specifically talking about the service as a first or last-mile solution. This is part of a wider strategy of reducing car use as around 47% of train passengers arrive at the station on a bike, bike-train travel combines the door-to-door flexibility of the bike, with the speed of train travel. Could a multi-agency approach to the provision of cycle lanes, cycle parking and rail travel be a way to promote modal shift for some journeys?


Perhaps the most challenging aspect in the UK will be to ‘normalise’ cycling as a normal way of travelling short distances. This has not been helped by the former Prime Minister and certain parts of the press fuelling anti-cycling / pro-driving rhetoric creating an unnecessary ‘them and us’ division, which makes even less sense when many cyclists, this author included, also drive. It’s not, or at least shouldn’t be a case of one or the other – some journeys might suit walking, some could be made easily by bike and some might be made by car or other mode, just as is the case in ‘cycling nations’ like the Netherlands and Denmark. Education campaigns focussing on some of the facts would be a start, focussing on the environmental and air pollution benefits might be another, but maybe the most powerful lever in the UK would be on the health benefits and saving the NHS.

As Louise Haigh has pointed out, we are facing both an obesity crisis and a climate emergency. Changing public perception to favour cycling over driving will be a challenge, but with coordinated, long-term investment in safe, segregated cycling infrastructure, alongside integration with public transport, cycling levels in the UK could rise. This could create a positive cycle where the more people take up cycling, the more normal it becomes, encouraging even more people to do the same.

Recent News