Go to content
""
Myth #5: Cycling is an exclusive mode of transport.

Reality: Cycling is a socially inclusive mode of transport that promotes mobility justice.
Boy on his way to school in Reykjavik, Iceland. Photo: Yadid Levy / norden.org
In some Nordic cities and regions, efforts to become more cycling friendly are met with opposition by organisations and individuals who see cycling as exclusive—especially to people living with disabilities or who have lower levels of fitness or agility. However, when compared to other forms of mobility, cycling has the potential to offer a high degree of mobility justice due to its affordability and accessibility to people of different ages, genders, and socioeconomic status. From the user’s perspective, purchasing a bicycle is at least 98% cheaper than buying a car in the EU (in 2023), and it does not require high additional costs to store and fuel.
 The bicycle also has fewer barriers with regards to certifications and age requirements. According to statistics from 2023, around three-quarters of households in Finland and Sweden already own a bicycle; in Iceland, Denmark, and Norway, the statistics are slightly less, but still show that a majority of households have a bicycle (68%, 63%, 57% of households, respectively).
When compared to car transport, cycling provides more democratic use of public resources. For example, in Denmark, the average number of passengers per car is about 1.3, making car lanes and large parking lots an inefficient use of space per person.
See Tables 11b and 11c in Christiansen, H. & Baescu, O. (2022). The Danish National Travel Survey: Annual Statistical Report for Denmark for 2021. DTU Orbit. Department of Technology,
 This space could be used for alternative purposes, such as public green space, housing, or better parking and access for sustainable transport modes. Private automobiles and their infrastructure invite unjust uses of public resources, as taxpayers contribute to expensive car infrastructure that only those wealthy enough to afford and maintain a car can use. Research out of Stockholm states that private automobiles, including electric vehicles, are a form of structural violence because they “create social injustice and indirect suffering, resulting from a divided society with the upper class dominating social resources and the lower class having limited access to those resources.”
Hosseini, K. & Stefaneic, A. (2023). A wolf in sheep's clothing: Exposing the structural violence of private electric automobility. Energy Research & Social Science 99, 103052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103052
 This is especially true when private car traffic competes with public transport—for example, tram and bus lanes—on public roads. Alternatively, a city that is built to the human scale, with safe and comfortable options for people to bike and walk, provides the building blocks for a more socially and economically inclusive society. Therefore, policies that unlock cycling and walking opportunities are more likely to be environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable and beneficial in the long run than those which prioritise mobility by private car. 
There are many emerging solutions for meeting the needs and preferences of different groups to cycle, thereby enabling higher degrees of mobility justice (see Box 1). For example, electric bikes (e-bikes) provide all riders with the ability to travel at the same speed efficiently—either alone or with additional cargo. For those who are new to, or less comfortable with, cycling, they offer a smoother transition for taking up this mode of transport. E-bikes can also enable longer commutes, thereby granting people living further from the city centre with higher degrees of accessibility among the city or region. For those commuting on the cycle superhighways of Denmark’s Capital Region, 20% are doing so with an e-bike, while traffic analysts from Oslo report that 39% of all bike trips in Oslo are made with an e-bike. But there is more that can be done to capitalise on these efforts within the Nordic countries.  

Policy/planning implications:

Integrate universal design principles into city planning.
Principles of universal design
 aim to provide equal access, comfort, and safety of public services for all people—irrespective of particularities or ability levels. Integrating universal design principles into planning practices—not only into cycling-specific work—can help shed light on how public space often fails to abide by inclusive guidelines. The principles can help to shape and reshape public infrastructure that meets people’s unique needs.

Include e-bikes in bike-sharing systems.
As of 2022, just under 53% of employed persons in Denmark live within a 10-km distance from their workplaces, and 70% of all employed persons live within a 20-km distance from their workplaces.
 Meanwhile, the City of Stockholm has calculated that nearly 50% of Stockholmers can cycle to their workplace within 30 minutes.
Stockholms stad. (2022). Cykelstaden: En del av framkomlighetsstragin. Accessible at https://cykla.stockholm/siteassets/cykla-i-stockholm/dokument/cykelplan-for-stockholms-stad.pdf
 This shows a huge potential for more commuting by e-bike if accompanied by integrated cycle infrastructure, such as regional cycle superhighways that are well linked to local paths. To enable more inclusive transport options, regional bike-share systems can offer e-bikes and make these available, particularly in outer urban areas, granting people access to utilise them for commuting and leisure purposes into and around the city. Municipalities must work together to enable and maintain comprehensive cycling networks and collaborate when it comes to bike-sharing mobility services for residents within a region or functional urban area. Bike share systems can also operate smoothly through public-private partnerships, and various models have been tested regarding parking zones versus docking stations, pay-as-you-go subscription services, and subsidy schemes to keep costs lower for riders. Which methods work best may vary from city to city depending on the existing mobility context.

Support cycling for children, families, and elderly residents.
Supporting cycling for children is a natural on-ramp to more cycling in the future. Not only can it help to improve their own health and urban mobility, but it may also reduce the number of children who need to be driven to school and other activities, which is a common argument from parents for why they require a car. When evaluated from a social justice perspective, cycling can level the playing field and provide more equal accessibility and mobility for those who cannot or do not want to drive or do not have the means to rent/own a car. One tangible way to do this is to assess the quality of walking, cycling, and public transport networks and bicycle parking facilities in and around schools and elderly care facilities. Building cycling awareness and training within schools is another way for children to learn safe cycling techniques and encourage cycling to school. Additionally, cargo bikes could be introduced into local or regional bike share systems.

Consider subsidy schemes for residents who need customised cycling solutions.
National governments may also consider providing subsidy schemes for people with disabilities for accessing specialised bicycles. In Sweden, residents can claim an allowance for purchasing a bicycle that requires customised adjustments due to a disability. In some cases, residents with certain disabilities may not even be aware of the options that exist and assume that cycling is not an option; therefore, targeted campaigns to build awareness are also important initiatives.   
Box 1. What is mobility justice?
Mobility justice is about reducing harmful consequences of mobility systems to ensure that people can self-determine their movements so they can live meaningful lives without fears or barriers.
Sheller, M. (2018). Theorising mobility justice. Tempo Soc., 30, 2:17-34. https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142763
 For example, a city that offers mobility justice enables an 8-year-old child to safely ride her bicycle to school in an environment that does not expose her to undue air and noise pollution and provides her peers equal access to do the same, regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic status. The theory of mobility justice contextualises mobility behaviour within social, economic, and environmental systems; therefore, it has opportunity for cross-sectoral impact. 
top1.jpg

 Good practice examples:

•  The City of Oslo has integrated universal design principles at a detailed level into their Street Design Manual. The
 manual provides an example of how the city folds equitability into technical requirements to accommodate street users of all kinds to comfortably access urban infrastructure. The design manual provides a list of questions to consider when it comes to universal mobility, such as “which groups of road-users should be prioritised in terms of space and ease of movement?” and “are there users that utilise the street that require particular facilitation.”
 Oslo has also been able to test universal design solutions through pilot projects, where different user groups were engaged to evaluate the combination of, e.g., bus stops with bicycle infrastructure for improving accessibility.


•  In 2018, the City of Reykjavík initiated an ambitious project
 lending residents e-bikes to understand travel behaviour for commuting in the city. After several weeks, those who participated could buy the e-bikes if they found it a good fit. The City followed up with participants through a questionnaire to learn about people’s experience. In the end, the bikes sold out. The project enabled residents to test if cycling with an e-bike was a worthwhile solution for them before investing in one on their own.

•  Beyond the Nordic Region, the Netherlands has excelled by integrating a nation-wide bike share system which also coincides with the state-owned transport company NS (which operates the rail network throughout the country). Riders can use their public transport cards to rent a bicycle (regular or e-bike) at one of more than 280 locations throughout the country. The stations are planned to allow for people to travel to a station, lock the bike, take the train, and then pick up a bike in their new destination.
 As of 2023, the system had 22,500 bikes available, and travellers made 5.9 million trips during that year. Ninety e-bikes were incorporated into the system in 2022. NS gathered data on the trips to learn that people travelled longer distances on e-bikes than regular bikes and rated them more highly than regular bikes, leading the public transport company to roll out more the following year.
""
Bicycle storage for thousand of bikes at
Rotterdam Central Station in the Netherlands. Photo: iStock
Nordregio Policy Brief 2025:1