JUST, Vol. IV, No. 1, 2016 Trent University

Popularizing Cycling in Europe: Where Did Britain Miss the Turning?

Cherona Chapman

Abstract In recent decades, responses to calls for sustainable transport have been extremely varied, and these spatial distinctions can be seen no clearer than in Europe. Cycling rates across the continent were pretty low in the 1970s, but contemporary conditions have seen the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany emerge as global leaders, whilst the UK has fallen behind. This article investigates how a geographic disparity in European cycling attitudes has arisen, and compares approaches from the continent to identify potential changes that could increase cycling uptake in Britain. Similarities were discovered between European approaches in infrastructure and policy, but the limited spatial implementation and interregional variation of these in Britain has led to isolated cycle-friendly regions. Furthermore, there are significantly more incentive based policies in the global leaders than the UK. These discoveries suggest a more comprehensive infrastructure and enticing set of policies could improve conditions in one of Europe’s former cycling friendly nations. Keywords Transportation — Public Policy — Cycling

Introduction Whilst the Netherlands boasts a current average modal share for cycling of 27% (Wooldridge, 2014), it is important to Transportation generates 20% of global greenhouse gas emis- note that a bicycle phenomenon has not always been present. sions, and thus sustainable transportation methods have be- The relative popularity of the bicycle across Europe was very come widely recognized as a significant step in reducing this different in the 1950s, with rates of cycling in the UK higher output (Buehler and Pucher, 2011). Sustainable transport is than contemporary levels in Germany (Pucher and Buehler, widely defined as any form of transport which is not reliant 2008). In the following decades there was a significant fall on the use of fossil fuels or other threatened natural resources in levels of cycling across the continent, with the increasing (Hull, 2008), and as such involves a range of methods, in- popularity of the car, which soon became the central mode of cluding cycling and walking. Additional movements, such as transport in urban planning (McClintock, 2002). Throughout new urbanism, have supported this through concepts of walk- Europe, buildings were demolished to grant increased inner- ability and cycle-friendly cities, driving a greater demand for city access to the car, whilst significant highways were being sustainable transportation in city developments (Cozens and constructed to improve rapid connections between urban areas Hillier, 2008). This can also be seen through the emergence (Wooldridge, 2014). By the mid-1970s, however, road fatali- of specialized academic journals, such as the International ties had risen dramatically, with annual totals in the Nether- Journal of Sustainable Transportation. lands exceeding 3,000 (Wegman et al., 2012). At the same Cycling often plays a key role in national sustainable trans- time, there were a series of global oil crises, which resulted in portation policies, offering a fuel free solution that is capable rising oil prices and decreasing fuel availability (Wooldridge, of covering significant distances in a reasonable time period 2014). This, combined with growing concerns around climate (Pucher et al., 2010). In addition, it offers further benefits change, saw a considerable shift in public attitudes towards through reducing traffic dangers, lowering congestion and cycling, and the consequent emergence of cycling policies improving individual health (Bassett et al., 2008). Nowhere and infrastructure in both Europe and Australia (Kingham are the benefits of cycling clearer than the Netherlands and and Tranter, 2015). Despite these trends being Europe-wide, Germany, which have seen vast improvements in road safety public attitudes in Britain were reflected poorly in political and cardiovascular health alongside the increased prevalence decision-making around transportation. With an ingrained of bicycling (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003). This paper looks to perception of the bicycle as jeopardous for non-recreational examine cycling conditions in Britain, and identify how they activities, political entities in Britain were largely unwilling to differ from their counterparts on the continent, in order to help invest and promote such a dangerous means of transport. As explain current disparities in the popularity of this form of such, whilst the bicycle featured in policies regarding safety transport across Europe. and use of roadways, there was little cycle-specific legislation Popularizing Cycling in Europe: Where Did Britain Miss the Turning? — 2/6 and transportation planning remained focused around the car diverted rather than cycle paths (Wardlaw, 2014). As a re- (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). Thus, by the turn of the century sult, the dominant proportion of cycle pathways in Britain there was clear polarization in the popularity of cycling across are oncarriageway lanes, which raises significant questions the continent, with levels in the Netherlands and Denmark ten around safety. Not only have separate cycle paths been seen times higher than in the UK (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). to attract greater numbers of cyclists, but they also have a Levels continue to fall in the UK, with the number of trips lower accident rate than onstreet facilities (Lusk et al., 2011). The design of these lanes is also integral to their success, re- per capita decreasing by 25% between 1995 and 2005, despite quiring adequate space to protect users from traffic clipping the increase in cycle policy and infrastructure. It is important to note, however, that these figures are largely representative (Guthrie and Fradd, 2006), and are influential in attitudes to- of on-road cycling (due to limitations in data collection) and wards cycling. For example, the introduction of contraflow thus fail to appreciate significant off-road facilities, such as bicycle facilities on one-way streets can reduce the distance large proportions of the National Cycle Network (Golbuff and for cycling over that of driving for the same journey (Jones, 2012), such as observed with significant popularity in North Aldred, 2012). There have been a range of studies investi- Laine, Brighton (Department for Transport, 2015). Yet, whilst gating successful policies in cycling prolific countries (see Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003; Cervero et al., 2009; Buehler and the introduction of 20 mph speed zones has led to a reduction Pucher, 2011), but the literature has yet to widely address in casualties on British roads, cyclists saw the least impact in questions over which policies can be seen in the less success- incident numbers (falling only 17%), further emphasizing the ful cities, and the reasons for their relative failure. Thus, this role of hard infrastructure in supporting safer cycling (Grundy et al., 2009). paper looks to provide an overview of cycling conditions in Britain and identify the differences from the Dutch, German Road junctions are considered the highest risk environ- and Danish policies that could be contributing to their limited ments for cyclists, and thus such designs can have significant success. impacts on collision and injury rates (Harris et al., 2013). The Netherlands has seen a widespread introduction of the ‘Dutch 1. Britain’s Cycling Infrastructure Junction’- an alternate approach to crossroad layout whose design prioritizes ease and safety for cyclists and pedestrians (Cyclenation, 2014). Occupying the same land area, this ap- Infrastructure lies at the heart of many modern systems, from proach reduces low visibility angles, creating a more inclusive housing to transportation. Comprehensive and high quality environment for all road users, whilst not altering time delays infrastructure is integral to ensure efficient operation and in- at traffic lights (Furth, 2012). Implementation of similar de- tegration with related networks. When it comes to cycling, signs have begun in North America, where cycling trends are this not only includes routes and surfaces for travelling on lower than in Britain (Pucher and Buehler, 2008), and initial (along with associated structures, such as signage and junc- results have seen increasing cyclist safety and volumes (Furth, tion controls), but spaces for storage as well (Wardlaw, 2014). 2012). However, the main approach in Britain remains early- Furthermore, to ensure its integration with public transport as release signals at traffic lights and parallel-signaled crossings part of a wider sustainable transportation network, facilities (Department for Transport, 2015). are also required to accommodate the passage of bicycles on buses, trains and trams (Pucher et al., 2010). As well as appropriate, well-designed and cyclist-friendly infrastructure, continuity of these facilities is important in Since the 1950s there have been significant developments creating a safe and encouraging cycling environment (Hull in both Britain’s on-road and off-road bicycle lane facilities. and O’Holleran, 2014). Studies have found that significant From 1990 to 2010 alone, there was a 200% expansion to the numbers of people would only consider cycling if infrastruc- National Cycle Network, and an additional 12,000 miles of ture was provided along their entire route, with areas lacking cycle lanes were constructed (Grous, 2011). In Cambridge, these facilities perceived as dangerous spaces (Jones, 2012; significant width-expansion of existing paths also took place, Hull and O’Holleran, 2014). Perceptions of safety play a key whilst in Greater Manchester protected on-road lanes were role in attitudes towards cycling, particularly in a gendered introduced (Department for Transport, 2015). dimension (see Pucher and Buehler, 2008). Disjointed cycling The British approach to the provision of bicycle paths, routes can also exaggerate elements of danger through forc- however, differs considerably to the Dutch, promoting reduc- ing cyclists to regularly mount and dismount, and changing tions in speed and traffic volumes ahead of segregated facil- requirements for awareness and attitudes during the journey ities (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). Even in the 2008 amend- (Jones, 2012). ment to the London Transport Network’s Cycle Infrastructure Continuity is a large problem in British cycle routes, Design, they continued to promote the car over the bicycle, largely as a result of a lack of detailed standard practice for requiring changes or relocations to occur to bicycle routes bicycle infrastructure, with the Cycle Infrastructure Guide rather than the traditional carriageway. Many inner-city alter- only presenting generic guidance (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). ations to promote cycling in Holland, however, have resulted In addition, infrastructure designs and layout are the respon- in the restricted access of motorized traffic, with roadways Popularizing Cycling in Europe: Where Did Britain Miss the Turning? — 3/6 sibility of local governments, raising further differences in cyclists the lack of integration with public transport (Golbuff cycling facility provision (Jones, 2012). At the boundaries and Aldred, 2012). Schemes in both Germany and Holland of jurisdictions, this can occur within a city region or along are in place to support multimode transport, offering bicycle key commuter pathways between the source and host areas. racks on buses and carriages on trains (Martens, 2007; Buehler Changes in design and provision can cause confusion not and Pucher, 2011). Integration within Britain, however, has only among cyclists, but also other road users, increasing the seen great fluctuation over time, presenting a discouraging risk of accidents and reducing cyclist confidence (Hull and and confusing environment for cyclists (Golbuff and Aldred, O’Holleran, 2014). In addition, the poor popularity of cycling 2012). The privatised rail network means some operators al- as a means of transport, and largely negative perceptions sur- low bicycles whilst others don’t, and some impose bans only rounding the safety of the bicycle on British roads, means during specific hours (Transport for London (TfL), 2016). trial schemes within jurisdictions are often conservative and Furthermore, these problems can be exaggerated during rather small-scale. One of the most obvious examples can be railway maintenance, when affected train services are often seen in Brighton, where the success of the contraflow lanes replaced by a designated bus during this period. However, has led to initiatives to create an area-wide network, alongside many of these buses do not offer bicycle capacity, whilst oth- an existing scheme to provide continuous cycle lanes on the ers require a bicycle reservation. Online systems for advanced main radial roadway (Lewes Road) (Department for Transport, tickets rarely offer such a reservation service, and thus cyclists 2015). Where trial schemes have seen lower than expected are required to buy tickets on the day of travel – this leads rates of success, however, continuity initiatives have seen less to a greater cost for the cyclist since ‘on-the-day’ fares on attention and funding, creating fragmented facilities within a British railways are typically more expensive than advance town or city region. fares (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). This, combined with the Concerns around safety can also extend to pre- and post- inadequate parking facilities at transport hubs, does not sup- journey storage facilities - a question often left unaddressed port a large commuter cycling community, which typically in a drive for promoting cycling (London Borough of Hack- forms a significant proportion of cyclists in nations with more ney (LBH), 2013). An increased popularity in cycling as a successful cycling policies (Kingham and Tranter, 2015). mode of transport will inevitably lead to greater stresses on To counteract this poor integration, bike-and-ride facilities bicycle parking facilities (Wooldridge, 2014), many of which have often been considered an alternative (Martens, 2007). are already under pressure. Any visitor to Cambridge, one of London’s cycle hire scheme, often referred to as the ‘Boris Britain’s most supportive cycling cities (Hull and O’Holleran, Bike’ (after former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, most 2014), will be struck by the volume of bicycles using infor- recently known for his role in the Brexit campaign), was mal parking structures (such as fences and lampposts) despite launched in 2010 following successful similar schemes in restrictions in place. Approaches to deal with this domina- many other European nations, and introduced docking sta- tion of parked bicycles in the streetscape have focused on tions at regular intervals (including outside popular attractions prohibitions and fines, which are not only difficult to issue for and services) (Transport for London, 2010). Users are offered unregistered bicycles, but offer few appropriate alternatives a £2 day subscription or a £90 annual subscription fee, grant- where existing infrastructure is already saturated (Hull and ing free access to the bicycle network for 30-minute periods O’Holleran, 2014). within this time frame, with journeys longer than 30 minutes Alternatives to on-street parking, despite its obvious ap- charged at a rate of £2 for each subsequent half hour (Visit peal through ease and accessibility, have been long established London, 2016). The scheme has proved successful in London, in the Netherlands, with expansions to facilities as the popula- attracting thousands of users from commuters to tourists, and tion continues to rise (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). These in- Woodcock et al. (2014) suggest there are significant health clude underground parking and converted retail spaces, which benefits from the scheme, albeit dampened by the danger not only offer covered facilities, but also feature greater se- element introduced by London’s inadequate cycling infras- curity, lowering the risk of theft (Wooldridge, 2014). Under- tructure. Yet, whilst bike-and-ride solutions have led to a ground facilities in Britain, however, remain a novelty, with small decrease in car trips, infrastructure barriers and the cost the first such space opened in Manchester in 2012 (Kirby, of subscription charges place limitations on the success and 2013). British programs towards improving parking facilities uptake of these programs (Fishman et al., 2014). Other large still favour an on-the-street approach, proposing covered facil- British cities have also yet to introduce such programs that ities with improved security elements, such as Walthamstow may lead to a modal increase among their commuters, tourists Village’s public space scheme (Department for Transport, and residents. 2015. There is, however, a limited available space on the ground. 2. Britain’s Cycling Policies Transport hubs, particularly at peak commuter times, clearly illustrate the insufficiency of these parking facilities, but also Initial attempts at encouraging cycling in Britain included highlight another problem in Britain’s approach to supporting the implementation of the National Cycling Strategy in 1996, Popularizing Cycling in Europe: Where Did Britain Miss the Turning? — 4/6 outlining 18 generic objectives to increase and diversify cy- of cycling, as those injured struggle to claim support from cling (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). The success of these tar- accidents, and blame in fatal incidents is often allocated to the gets, however, was limited through the reliance on local au- cyclist (who is no longer around to justify their own courses thorities as delivering bodies and the lack of incentives for of action) (Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), 2009). meeting locally-decided targets (Department for Transport, It is not all doom and gloom for British cyclists, how- 2005). More specific policies have emerged in later years to ever. In December 2015, the Department of Transport began tackle particular aspects of cycling infrastructure, diversity work on Britain’s first cycling and walking investment strat- and education, including the ‘Cycle-to-Work’ scheme and the egy (CWIS), with the publication of a long-term vision and ‘Bikeability’ education program (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). timetable for action. Using several consecutive 5-year ac- The ‘Cycle-to-Work’ scheme was introduced at the turn tion plans, the department looks to double British cycling of the century to further encourage cycling among commuters rates, and establish cycling and walking as the norm when (Guthrie, 2010). Employers were able to loan or sell bicycles undertaking short journeys by 2040. The first documentation and the associated equipment to their workers through tax outlining more specific details for the first phase of investment exemptions, with employees saving a third or more through is expected in the summer of 2016 (Department for Transport, this scheme (dependent on VAT status and tax bracket), al- 2015). though this amount has reduced following changes in tax rulings (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). Developing this program, the Cycle-to-Work Guarantee was introduced in 2011, which 3. Conclusion promised to provide secure and accessible parking, on-site Despite falling volumes of cyclists, cycling is not a lost art in shower and repair facilities, and an incentivised reward pro- Britain. Following a peak in the 1950s, there was a Europe- gram for employees enrolled in the scheme (Department for wide fall in the popularity of cycling as the car became the Transport, 2011). Eligibility, however, remains restricted to prevalent form of transportation (McClintock, 2002). With public-sector employees only (Guthrie, 2010). Programs to the oil crises of the 1970s and increasing road fatalities, many target commuters can also be seen across Europe, with such European countries saw widespread public demand for alter- initiatives considered responsible for a 10% rise in cycling native and more sustainable forms of transport (Kingham and in Eindhoven (Holland), whilst Copenhagen’s Bicycle Pol- Tranter, 2015). In Britain, however, government response to icy adopts an entirely commuter-centric focus (Wooldridge, these calls was hesitant due to the dominance of an unsafe 2014). image surrounding cycling, which led to significant delays in With increasing bicycle-orientated development, Britain considered and appropriate policy and planning interventions introduced a national education program in 2007 (known as in the UK (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). ‘Bikeability’), which was complemented further in 2011 with Since the turn of the century, however, infrastructure and the introduction of national standards in cycling training (De- policies to support widespread cycling have become more partment for Transport, 2013). Since cycling rates had halved dominant in Britain, including significant extensions to cycle in Britain in one generation, this education program looked paths and education programs such as ‘Bikeability’ (Golbuff to provide all British schoolchildren with the opportunity to and Aldred, 2012). Within the implementation of these pro- undertake an on-road cycling proficiency course before leav- grams, however, there remain limitations which reduce the ing primary school, as well as offering the program to adults effectiveness of these schemes, namely inconsistency in in- in conjunction with the ‘Cycle-to-Work’ scheme (Golbuff frastructure styles and provision, a lack of integration with and Aldred, 2012). Cycle coordinators from the three lead- public transport and inadequate incentivised schemes. In ing European bicycling countries (the Netherlands, Denmark recent years, initiatives have emerged to improve areal conti- and Germany) identify comprehensive training schemes for nuity, but nationwide action is required to create a significant drivers and cyclists as key policies in creating a safe and in- wider impact. clusive cycling environment, stressing the importance of these programs for children as well as adults (Pucher and Buehler, Suggestions remain that cycling has increased more than 2008). observed by the data (typically gathered from on-road trans- portation systems, and thus not inclusive of off-road tracks However, there is still considerable thought required sur- which form large sections of the National Cycle Network) rounding cycling in Britain in order to ensure users receive as (Golbuff and Aldred, 2012). Nevertheless, growth in cycling much coverage and attention from policy and legislation as popularity among the British remains low, repressed by per- those utilising other modes of transport. For example, where ceptions of cycling as perilous and variations in supportive accidents with motorists do occur, currently British cyclists facilities. The introduction of national standards in infrastruc- must prove that the fault lies with the driver in order to re- ture design, provision and integration with existing transport ceive compensation for the incident, which contrasts with the networks (as envisaged by Britain’s first CWIS), however, strict liability laws dominant in most European countries (Gol- would bring its approach more in line with its European coun- buff and Aldred, 2012). This amplifies a dangerous image terparts that see significant proportions of the population cy- Popularizing Cycling in Europe: Where Did Britain Miss the Turning? — 5/6 cling regularly. Based on the principle of ‘if you build it, they tructure, Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 5559 will come’, which has been observed with cyclists in many GOLBUFF, L. and ALDRED, R. 2012. Cycling Policy in the urban regions (see Garrard et al., 2008; Rissel et al., 2013), UK: A historical and thematic overview, UEL Sustainable these changes could lead to a cycling renaissance in Great Mobilities Research Group (Newham: University of East Britain. London) GROUS, A. 2011. The British Cycling Economy: ‘Gross 4. References Cycling Product’ Report, London School of Economics (London: Salterbaxter) BASSETT, D., PUCHER, J., BUEHLER, R., THOMPSON, GRUNDY, C., STEINBACH, R., EDWARDS, P., GREEN, D. and CROUTER, S. 2008. Walking, cycling, and obesity J., ARMSTRONG, B. and WILKINSON, P. 2009. Effect rates in Europe, North America and Australia, Journal of of 20 mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in Lon- Physical Activity and Health, 5(6), 795814 don, 19862006: controlled interrupted time series analysis, BUEHLER, R. and PUCHER, J. 2011. Sustainable transport British Medical Journal, 339: b4469 in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Cap- GUTHRIE, N. and FRADD S. 2006. The Impact of Onand ital, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, OffCarriageway Cycling Infrastructure on the Saftey and 5(1), 4370 Amenity of Cyclists and Pedestrians: a London exam- CERVERO, R., SARMIENTO, O., JACOBY, E., GOMEZ, L. ple, Association for European Transport (HenleyinArden: and NEIMAN, A. 2009. Influences of built environment Association for European Transport) on walking and cycling: Lessons from Bogota,´ Interna- GUTHRIE, N. 2010. Does Cycle to Work Work? In Cycle tional Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3(4), 203226 Digest Issue 61. (Guildford: Cyclists’ Touring Club) COZENS, P. and HILLIER, D. 2008. The shape of things to come: New Urbanism, the Grid and the CulDeSac, HARRIS, M., O REYNOLDS, C., WINTERS, M., CRIPTON, International Planning Studies, 13(1), 5173 P., SHEN, H., CHIPMAN, M., CUSIMANO, M., BABUL, S., BRUBACHER, CYCLENATION. 2014. Making Space for Cycling, Cam- bridge Cycling Campaign (London: Cyclenation) DE- J., FRIEDMAN, S., HUNTE, G., MONRO, M., VERNICH, L. PARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (DfT). 2005. Delivery and TESCHKE, K. 2013. Comparing the effects of infras- of the National Cycling Strategy: A review $http://ww tructure on bicycling injury at intersections and noninter- w.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/d sections using a casecrossover design, Injury Prevention, eliveryofthenationalcycling5738$ [date ac- 19(5), 303310 cessed: 18 January 2016] HULL, A. 2008. Policy integration: What will it take to DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (DfT). 2011. Cycle to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities?, Work $https://www.gov.uk/government/uplo Transport Policy, 15(2), 94103 ads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil HULL, A. and O’HOLLERAN, C. 2014. Bicycle infrastruc- e/11305/CycletoWorkguidance.pdf$ [date ac- ture: can good design encourage cycling?, Urban, Plan- cessed: 18 January 2016] ning and Transport Research, 2(1), 369406 DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (DfT). 2013. National JONES, J. 2012. Cycling in London Report, Greater London Standard for Cycle Training NSI $https://www.bi Authority (London: Transport for London) keability.org.uk/download/534$ [date accessed: KINGHAM, S. and TRANTER, P. 2015. “Cycling and Sus- 18 January 2016] tainable Transport” in Cycling Futures, ed. Bonham and DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (DfT). 2015. Cycling. Johnson (Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press) 131152 $https://www.gov.uk/government/collecti KIRBY, D. 2013, 11 January. Underground bike park to ons/cycling$ [date accessed: 11 May 2016] open as part of bid to make Manchester the ‘commuter FISHMAN, E., WASHINGTON, S. and HAWORTH, N. 2014. cycling capital of Britain’ [online version] in Manchester Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United Evening News $http://www.manchesterevenin States, Great Britain, and Australia, Transportation Re- gnews.co.uk/news/greatermanchesternews search Part D: Transport and Environment, 31(1), 1320 /undergroundbikeparktoopenaspart801223$ FURTH, P. 2012. “Bicycling Infrastructure for Mass Cycling: [date accessed: 18 January 2016] A Transatlantic Comparison” in City Cycling, ed. Pucher LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY (LBH). 2013. Cycle and Buehler (Massachusetts: MIT Press) 105140 Parking Guide $http://www.hackney.gov.uk/A GARRARD, J., ROSE, G. and LO, S. 2008. Promoting trans- ssets/Documents/Cycleparkingguidance.p portation cycling for women: The role of bicycle infras- df$ [date accessed: 18 January 2016] Popularizing Cycling in Europe: Where Did Britain Miss the Turning? — 6/6

LUSK, A., FURTH, P., MORENCY,P., MIRANDAMORENO, bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study, L., WILLETT, W. and DENNERLEIN, J. 2011. Risk of British Medical Journal, 348: g425 injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the streets, WOOLDRIDGE, C. 2014. 2014 Netherlands Cycling Study Injury Prevention, 17(2), 131135 Tour: Observations and Reflections Report, (Perth: Gov- MARTENS, K. 2007. Promoting bikeandride: The Dutch ernment of Western Australia Department of Transport) experience, Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 41(4), 326338 MCCLINTOCK, H. 2002. “The development of UK cycling policy” in Planning for Cycling: Principles, Practice and Solutions for Urban Planners, ed. McClintock (Cam- bridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.) 1735 PUCHER, J. and DIJKSTRA, L. 2003. Promoting safe walk- ing and cycling to improve public health: lessons from the Netherlands and Germany, American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 15091516 PUCHER, J. and BUEHLER R. 2008. Making cycling ir- resistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Reviews, 28(4), 495528 PUCHER, J., DILL, J. and HANDY, S. 2010. Infrastructure, programs and policies to increase bicycling: An inter- national review, Preventative Medicine, 50(Supplement), S106S125 RISSEL, C., GREAVES, S., WEN, L., CAPON, A., CRANE, M. and STANDEN, C. 2013. Evaluating the transport, health and economic impacts of new urban cycling in- frastructure in Sydney, Australia – protocol paper, BMC Public Health, 13, 963971 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (TfL). 2010. Cycling Revolu- tion: London, (London: Transport for London) TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (TfL). 2016. Bikes on Public Transport h$ttps://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycli ng/cyclinginlondon/bikesonpublictransp ort$ [date accessed: 18 January 2016] TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY (TRL), 2009. Collisions Involving Cyclists on Britain’s Roads: Estab- lishing the Causes [internet] $http://www.dft.gov. uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ ppr445.pdf$ [date accessed: 18 January 2016] VISIT LONDON. 2016. London Cycle Hire Scheme. $htt p://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-infor mation/getting-around-london/london-cyc le-hire-scheme$ [date accessed: 11 May 2016] WARDLAW, M. 2014. History, risk, infrastructure: perspec- tives on bicycling in the Netherlands and the UK, Journal of Transport & Health, 1(4), 243250 WEGMAN, F., ZHANG F. and DIFKSTRA, A. 2012. How to make more cycling good for road safety?, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 44(1), 1929 WOODCOCK, J., TAINIO, M., CHESHIRE, J., O’BRIEN, O. and GOODMAN, A. 2014. Health effects of the London