Insights from academic literature

Cycling as part of everyday routines, such as school travel, can support physical activity and mental health from an early age. Pictured: Young cyclist crossing Cykelslangen in Copenhagen, Denmark. Ricky John Molloy / norden.org

Several studies exploring adolescents in cycling have been made within the Nordic countries. For the purpose of this literature review, we searched for academic articles published since 2015, narrowing the scope to open-access publications from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. After filtering for relevancy, a total of 26 articles were reviewed.

While transport studies often discuss the sustainability impacts of cycling from an environmental perspective, the academic studies on adolescents tend to focus on health-related aspects of cycling. Several articles point out that, globally, four-fifths of adolescents do not get an adequate amount of physical activity (e.g., Bjørnarå et al., 2016; Kongsvold et al., 2025; Malnes et al., 2023; Lindqvist et al., 2019). Despite some studies showing that adolescents in Nordic countries are less overweight compared to European neighbours (te Velde et al., 2017; ), one Finnish study departs from their national statistics showing 69% of boys and 82% of girls between 11 and 17 years old do not meet global physical activity guidelines (Jussila et al., 2023), and a Norwegian study notes that only 34% of Norwegian adolescents meet the sufficient WHO recommendations for physical activity (Malnes et al., 2023). Some studies also note that active school transport—walking and cycling—“seems to have decreased worldwide in recent decades” (Haug et al., 2021, p. 2; Suominen et al., 2025-a). Thus, much of the research explores how active commuting to school can be an efficient and meaningful solution to these concerns (Suominen et al., 2025-a; Lindqvist et al., 2019). Most of the 26 articles research adolescents’ travel behaviour to and from school using the terms “active school transport,” “active commuting to school,” or “active travel”. They commonly include both cycling and walking within the concept of active commuting, with some studies also including non-motorised scooters (Jingili et al., 2023). These studies also explored a range of variables related to active commuting, most often evaluating the relationship between active commuting and other physical activity or physical health factors (e.g., Malnes et al., 2023; Werkneck et al., 2021; Kallio et al., 2016; Ng et al., 2021; te Velde et al., 2017; Jussila et al., 2023; Haug et al., 2021; Bjørnarå et al., 2016).

Box 1. Adolescents: A unique category of cyclist

For the purposes of this literature review, we distinguish adolescents from children or adults by focusing on a narrow age range. The articles reviewed define adolescents using various age ranges, stretching from 6 to 24 years old; however, those with larger age ranges were often segmented into smaller ranges, distinguishing children from adolescents, younger adolescents from older adolescents, or adolescents from young adults. The general age of the articles focused on adolescents between 10 and 19 years old. The variation of age range is significant depending on the research question of each study, with some showing great variations between younger and older adolescents based both on development and changing interests between childhood and early adulthood. Others emphasise the new forms of mobility that become accessible to older adolescents (licenses to drive motorbikes or cars) and the effect of this as it pertains to frequency of cycling between, for example, 13–16-year-olds and 16–19-year-olds.

Much of the literature also responds to safety concerns among adolescents, with researchers looking at crash data, helmet use, and hospitalisations among cyclists and other modes of transport across age groups (Björnstig et al., 2017; Bojesen & Rayce, 2020; Næss et al., 2020; Seitakari et al., 2025; Unkuri et al., 2024). Though numbers have been decreasing, one study highlights how transport remains a “major cause of mortality among adolescents,” in addition to the many non-fatal but serious injuries incurred through traffic collisions (Unkuri et al., 2024, p. 267). A Norwegian study formulates their research in response to the high percentage of serious road injuries related to cycling in Sweden (Næss et al., 2020) and a set of researchers in Denmark base their study on the concern that “adolescents are still over-represented in traffic-related accidents among 0-18 year olds, particularly as moped riders and bicyclists” (Bojesen & Rayce, 2020). One study also responds to the rising increase in e-scooter-related accidents in relation to bicycle injuries in Finland (Seitakari et al., 2025). Aside from analysing crash statistics, one study also takes a qualitative approach by evaluating the effect of traffic safety educational programs on cycling behaviour among adolescents (Bojesen & Rayce, 2020).

Other common themes in the literature were the relationship between active commuting and the built environment (Kaplan et al., 2016; Malnes et al., 2025; Timperio et al., 2025; Jingili et al., 2023; Bjørnarå et al., 2016; Schön et al., 2024) and parental influences on adolescents’ school commuting behaviour (Westman et al., 2017; Lindqvist et al., 2019; Jingili et al., 2023). Several authors also evaluated active commuting across generations (e.g., Suominen et al., 2025-a; 2025-b) or from adolescent to adulthood (Yang et al., 2025). Seasonality was often mentioned in the studies, comparing summer or spring/fall cycling to winter cycling among adolescents (e.g., Kongsvold et al., 2024; Lindqvist et al., 2019). Studies also look at leisure transport related to meaningful places for adolescents to congregate or pass through (Sarjala et al., 2015) or transport to and from sports practice (Laxdal et al., 2022).

Seven key messages emerged from the literature, discussed below.

1. Younger adolescents are more likely to cycle compared to older adolescents

In their 2021 study, Haug et al. collected data on health behaviour in school-aged children, conducted at four-year intervals between 2006 and 2018 in four European countries, including Norway. They found a distinction between 11-year-olds and 13–15-year-olds, with the younger adolescents more likely to use active modes of transport to and from school (Haug et al., 2021). In their Finnish-based study, Jussila and colleagues (2023) found that ninth graders were less likely to use active school transport than eighth graders. And in Norway, one traffic-related study revealed a peak in hospitalised cyclists around 14-15 years old, with fewer cycling-related crashes reported among 16-20 years old. They believed this to be the case because there is less of a cycling culture among the older group (Næss et al., 2020). The idea that younger adolescents are more likely to use active forms of transport is also confirmed by Laxdal et al. (2022), who found that adolescents below eligible driving license ages (for motorbikes and cars) are more likely to walk or cycle to their football training sessions. And in their study among several countries including Denmark, Werneck et al. (2021) reported high potential of active travel to school among older adolescents “given their limited cycling patterns” (Werneck et al., 2021, p. 5).

2. Time and distance influence adolescent travel behaviour

In addition to having greater mobility choice due to car or motorbike licensing, one of the reasons that older adolescents may cycle less may be due to their need to transport further distances. The correlation between age and longer travel distances emerged in several studies.

A study based in Finland found that students in upper grades travelled longer distances compared to lower grades, and those living within 5 km of their schools had, in general, greater prevalence of active transport to school (Kallio et al., 2016, p. 3). Haug et al. (2021) also credited the distinction they found between younger and older adolescents to the fact that “secondary schools are typically bigger school units with increased travel distances for most students,” (p. 10). The main finding among survey respondents in Jingili et al. (2023) is that adolescents may be more likely to use active school transport if they lived closer to school.

Fifty-eight percent of the 13-14-year-olds surveyed in Skellefteå (Sweden) reported that a major barrier to walking or cycling to school was that it takes too much time. Contrary to potential assumptions, the researchers found that things like needing to plan ahead, getting tired or sweaty, or having too much stuff to carry were not barriers to active school transport among this age group. Another study from Sweden (Lindqvist et al., 2019) also contradicted the notion that the weather was a major barrier for adolescents, instead showing that students appreciated the challenge of the cold or snowy weather once they tried it, and felt a sense of accomplishment when they actively commuted to school. A study in Norway found that when students had less than 5 minutes of travel time to school they were more likely to engage in active school travel (Haug et al., 2021), and another Norwegian study determined that cycling was most common for students living between 1.6 and 3.3 km from school (with walking being more dominant for shorter distances and motorised travel more common for longer trips; Malnes et al., 2025). Several Finnish studies also confirm that distance is a consistent correlate of active school transport (see Suominen et al., 2025-a; Timperio et al., 2025), with one reporting that the greatest potential to increase cycling is found in short trips between 0 and 3 km (Suomalainen et al., 2024).

Beyond active commuting to school, one study in Southern Norway evaluated travel behaviour of adolescents to and from football practice (Laxdal et al., 2022; see Table 1). The researchers found that, even though around 67% of surveyed adolescents lived within 4 km of their training sessions, the most common mode of transport was the car. Distance to training sessions increased in relation to age, with younger adolescents (13-14 years old) having an average distance of 3.5 km, while older adolescents (18-19 years old) had an average distance of almost 8 km to practice. The researchers found that 60% of adolescents used a bicycle or e-bicycle for distances less than 2 km, but this percentage dropped to 38% for distances between 2 and 6.9 km, and only 4% chose to cycle if the distances was greater than 7 km.

		N	%	Distance (km)		Mode of transport (%)							Passive/Active (%)
				Mean	Median	Walk	Bike	E-Bike	E-Scooter	Bus	Car	Motorbike	Passive	Active
All		588	100	4.9	3.0	8	29	9	2	3	39	11	55	45
Sex	Boys	398	68	4.9	3.0	9	30	5	2	4	39	11	56	44
Sex	Girls	190	32	5.0	3.0	5	26	16	3	2	37	10	52	48
Age (years)	13-14	140	24	3.5	2.0	8	41	13	4		34		38	62
	15	149	25	4.7	3.0	6	33	9	5	2	45		51	49
	16	118	20	4.1	3.0	8	25	14		4	30	19	53	47
	17	118	20	6.1	3.0	9	18	4	1	7	32	31	70	30
	18-19	63	11	7.9	5.0	10	16		2	3	64	5	74	26
Ethnicity	Native	522	89	4.6	3.0	7	29	10	3	2	39	12	55	45
Ethnicity	Immigrant background	66	11	7.1	3.0	14	29	2	2	14	40	0	56	44
Travel distance	Less than 2 km	150	27	0.8	1.0	23	51	9	1	1	9	6	17	83
	2 to 6.9 km	298	54	3.4	3.0	2	26	12	3	2	42	13	60	40
	7 km or more	102	19	15.0	10.0	1	3	1	2	10	74	10	95	5
Socioeconomic status	Low	275	47	4.8	3.0	10	28	7	2	5	40	9	55	45
Socioeconomic status	High	313	53	5.0	3.0	6	29	11	3	1	38	12	54	46

Table 1. Adolescents in Southern Norway: Distance and mode of transport to football practice. (Source: Laxdal et al., 2022)

		N	%	Distance (km)		Mode of transport (%)							Passive/Active (%)
				Mean	Median	Walk	Bike	E-Bike	E-Scooter	Bus	Car	Motorbike	Passive	Active
All		588	100	4.9	3.0	8	29	9	2	3	39	11	55	45
Sex	Boys	398	68	4.9	3.0	9	30	5	2	4	39	11	56	44
Sex	Girls	190	32	5.0	3.0	5	26	16	3	2	37	10	52	48
Age (years)	13-14	140	24	3.5	2.0	8	41	13	4		34		38	62
	15	149	25	4.7	3.0	6	33	9	5	2	45		51	49
	16	118	20	4.1	3.0	8	25	14		4	30	19	53	47
	17	118	20	6.1	3.0	9	18	4	1	7	32	31	70	30
	18-19	63	11	7.9	5.0	10	16		2	3	64	5	74	26
Ethnicity	Native	522	89	4.6	3.0	7	29	10	3	2	39	12	55	45
Ethnicity	Immigrant background	66	11	7.1	3.0	14	29	2	2	14	40	0	56	44
Travel distance	Less than 2 km	150	27	0.8	1.0	23	51	9	1	1	9	6	17	83
	2 to 6.9 km	298	54	3.4	3.0	2	26	12	3	2	42	13	60	40
	7 km or more	102	19	15.0	10.0	1	3	1	2	10	74	10	95	5
Socioeconomic status	Low	275	47	4.8	3.0	10	28	7	2	5	40	9	55	45
Socioeconomic status	High	313	53	5.0	3.0	6	29	11	3	1	38	12	54	46

The findings confirm a point raised several years earlier by Norwegian-based researchers: “Regarding youth leisure activities, those conducted locally and in sport clubs in the neighbourhood, allowing children and adolescents to walk or bicycle to their activities, would be advantageous” (Bjørnarå et al., 2016, p. 368).

3. The built environment influences adolescent travel behaviour

Time and distance are not the only significant factors. Spatial factors within the built environment influence adolescent travel behaviour, which is an area where planners and policymakers could play a key role. Bjørnarå et al. (2016) note the “importance of building and spatial planning facilitating physical activity in the local community, as a means to increase daily levels of physical activity” (p. 368). Kaplan et al. (2016) found that younger adolescents are more likely to use active modes of travel if the amount and density of car traffic decreased and if conflict points at intersections were reduced. “Street buffer measures are significantly associated with cycling likelihood ... while shorter distances are associated with a higher likelihood of walking” (Kaplan et al., 2016, p. 60). A Southern Norwegian study looking at environmental characteristics in relation to adolescents’ school travel mode found that elements like bus transit lines, streetlights, flatter terrain, and high urban centrality were all linked to increased walking and cycling, particularly for trips over 2 km (Malnes et al., 2025). Furthermore, an international study which featured Odense, Denmark, confirmed that “the provision of environments that support walking and cycling is critical to realise sustained population-wide [health] improvements,” and “distance to school, diversity in land uses, accessibility/walking facilities, and traffic and crime-related safety among those living further from school, were important supportive correlates of active transport to school” (Timperio et al., 2025, p. 19).

Schön et al. (2024) found that active transport to school is linked to something called “route betweenness”—a measure to assess the connectivity of shortest routes as well as the link density among pedestrians and cyclists. The nuance measurement involves not only the length of the route but also the potential to meet other people along the route.

Route betweenness showed significant and positive associations with active transport to school in most adjusted models. For the shortest route to school, route betweenness proxies the number of links that an adolescent theoretically shares with the flow of a city’s population travelling through the network. Route betweenness is also a connectivity measure, as routes have high route betweenness when they pass through or start/end at locations with dense, well-connected networks and high trip generation. (Schön el at., 2024, p. 2157)

The researchers encourage urban planners to consider this measure, particularly “when planning new schools outside central city locations or when evaluating properties of networks around existing schools” (Schön el at., 2024, p. 2159). Schön and colleagues also note a negative relationship between rural areas and active transport among adolescents, which is also noted by Kaplan et al. (2016).

In their Finnish-based study, Sarjala et al. (2016) explore how the physical environment affects physical activity among students at 16 comprehensive schools in the Helsinki region. Their overarching question of the research was: “How do we design a city that encourages people to use their muscles for moving, and how do we avoid making built environments that do the opposite?” (Sarjala et al., 2016, p.87). The study participants—fifth-graders (23%) and eighth-graders (77%)—used a participatory GIS tool where they could indicate meaningful spaces and their qualities (both positive and negative), including if a space was good for “moving around: walking, running, biking, bushwalking” or other such things. With regards to the physical environment, the study considered variables related to transportation systems, land-use patterns, and urban design characteristics. In the end, they found that most of the students (67%) used active transportation to travel to the meaningful places they marked on the map, and they were located in close proximity (more than half within 1 km) to the participants’ home. The meaningful spaces were often in green environments, single-family housing areas, or areas with apartment buildings. The research concluded: “together with the fact that distance from home is the most consistent negative correlate of active transportation of children, it is evident that central environments with mixed land use are less likely to be travelled to on foot or by bicycle than are residential environments where the children mainly live” (Sarjala et al., 2016, p. 99).

4. Active school transport works when it is also a social activity

Sarjala’s Finnish study on meaningful places for adolescents mentioned that many meaningful places are visited with friends. This social aspect of active transport is taken up in several other studies. For example, researchers conducted a study in Umeå, Sweden, among students (12-13 years old) and their parents about active school transport in the winter season to understand perceived self-efficiacy, the "fundamental belief in the individual’s ability to achieve a goal” (Lindqvist et al., 2019, p.2). Through a co-creative methodology involving multiple interventions, the study developed and then tested perceptions and effects of active school transport among the students during the winter season. Undertaking active transport as a school project encouraged togetherness and acted as a major motivator among the classmates (Lindqvist et al., 2019). Walking or cycling with friends was highly valued by the participants to make walking and cycling more fun. A Norwegian study among 14–15-year-olds also found that living near peers was associated with increased walking and cycling to school, particularly among girls (Malnes et al., 2025).

5. The role played by parents is mixed

Adolescents are an interesting group to study due to their age range passing from high dependency on parents for transport to greater agency as they get older. But the variety of studies report a mixed view of parental influence. One study suggests that adolescents perceive parents as gatekeepers to cycling (Lindqvist et al., 2019), while another reports adolescents perceiving that they have full autonomy of their choice to cycle or walk to school (Jingili et al., 2023).

In a study from Värmland (Sweden), researchers sampled parents of school-aged children (10-15 years old) to learn the reasons why parents chose to drive their children to school (Westman et al., 2017). The study showed that “social convenience has a direct relationship with the frequency of car use indicating that the wish to accompany the child and the convenience of car impacts on car choice” (p.1). In this context, social convenience includes “conveniently going that way and accompaniment by a parent/adult” (p. 5). In instances when the child was not allowed to travel independently, parents choose to drive their child with the car, regardless of distance.

However, several studies concluded that there is a symbiotic relationship between adolescent and parent cycling. Lindqvist et al. (2019) involved both parents and their teenage children in their study of active school transport during the winter. They note that parents initially expressed concern for children cycling in the winter conditions, and had reasons to prevent their children from cycling since the school was close by (on average 1.3 km) or presuming it was dangerous to cycle. However, “after the completion of the project, all of the parents of the children who cycled during winter were positive” (p. 7). One parent reported a change in perspective around the safety of cycling, realizing it was just as safe to cycle in the winter as summer, and others noted their own increased use and investment in cycling due to their child’s cycling activity.

There are also some correlations found between parents with high levels of physical activity and the likelihood of their children actively commuting to school, suggesting that promoting physical activity among adults could be a way to encourage more adolescents to use active modes of travel (Suominen et al., 2025-a). And in their study among adolescents in Skellefteå, Jingili et al. (2023) learned that adolescents felt supported by both their parents and the school with regards to active school transport. Most perceived that their parents think they should use active school transport, and 50% said that their parents use active transport frequently themselves. The Finnish study from Suominen et al. (2025-b) evaluated whether “parents’ active commuting to school during their youth was associated with their offspring’s active commuting to school at similar ages” using the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns study data. The findings showed that active commuting to school in the first generation were “directly associated” with active commuting to school in the next. According to the authors, “this intergenerational link could inform public health initiatives to foster sustainable and healthy commuting behaviours that benefit current and future generations,” and “ensuring accessible distances to school remains important” to make such active commutes possible (Suominen et al., 2025-b, p. 745).

6. There is a positive relationship between active transport and health

Due to low levels of physical activity among adolescents, Kongsvold et al. (2024) study how adolescents (as well as adults) can increase health through activities in their daily routines. They note that only 31.5% of adolescents (age 13-19 years old) in their study area of Nord-Trøndelag (Norway) met the minimum WHO recommendations for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and girls performed worse than boys. This trend across genders was reflected in the other age groups as well, and proportions were lower in winter months. The researchers used accelerometers to measure moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, finding an “age-related decrease in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from adolescence to early adulthood and from middle to older adulthood” (p. 4). Their findings point to the significant positive health effects that walking as well as cycling could have for physical activity levels among all age groups, including and especially adolescents.

In a Swedish-based study, students age 13-14 years old reported that walking or cycling to school was a good way to exercise (Jingili et al., 2023). And an international study which included Denmark found that active transport to school is significant for maintaining moderate and vigorous physical activity intensities in adolescents (Werneck et al., 2021). From Finland, Yang et al. (2025) studied the trajectories of adolescents from childhood to midlife. They found that “over half of men and one-third of women continue passive commuting behaviours throughout adulthood” but “childhood active commuting can be a valuable indicator for identifying individuals to maintain active commuting into adulthood, which may lead to physical health outcomes” (Yang et al., 2025, p. 2202; p. 2203).

A Finnish-based study also looked at the potential for active school transport to contribute to physical activity levels among 10-16-year-olds, learning that there is great potential for increasing students’ physical activity “by getting the passive commuters to walk or cycle to school” especially during winter and among students who live between 1 and 5 km from school (Kallio et al., 2016, p. 4). “The students living 1.1-3.0 km from school would increase their daily activity on average by 53 minutes if they were to walk to school and by 24 minutes if they were to use their bikes. The corresponding increases in physical activity for the students living 3.1-5.0 km from school would be on average 107 minutes by walking and 48 minutes by cycling” (Kallio et al., 2016, pp. 4-5).

Furthermore, Bjørnarå et al. (2016) introduce the concept of sustainable physical activity, highlighting the ways that poor health such as obesity is unsustainable and how active transport can contribute as a carbon-friendly means of transport while simultaneously improving levels of physical activity—among children, adolescents, and adults. Haug et al. (2021) have also reviewed the literature and found a “positive relationship between active school transport and levels of physical activity” (p. 1). When it comes to making improvements, Malnes et al. (2023) tested the effects of adding physical education activities during the school week to see if this would increase levels of active school transport. However, the results indicated that “most participants [91%] maintained their travel habits. Only 6% of pupils switched to motorized travel and 3% switched to active travel, with small variations according to season and trip direction. The intervention [of adding 120 minutes per week of physical education/activity] did not seem to influence the likelihood of changing travel mode” (Malnes et al., 2023, p. 1).

Jussila et al. (2023) found some relationship between active school transport and both physical and mental health. They report that “students who did not use active school transport were ... more likely to be ... users of alcohol and snus, consumed breakfast with greater inconsistency, were overweight” among other factors (p. 889). There was also a correlation between those who did not use active transport and those who did not engage in leisure time physical activity. Jussila et al. (2023) also found that walking and cycling for 10-30 minutes per day was associated with the greatest odds of high academic performance. There was a positive correlation between those who engaged with active school transport and competency of concentration in the classroom, reading, writing, and mathematics. The authors thus report: “there is a need to increase the use of active, sustainable transport modes for public health” (p. 889). The mental health aspects were also raised in Lindqvist et al. (2019), with students self-reporting that they felt healthier and had better mood, concentration and alertness after using active transport modes to school, plus the developed friendly attitudes towards the environment.

7. Traffic and other safety remain concerns for adolescents, but this is not an issue exclusive to cycling

Safety is a key point of departure for several studies on adolescents and cycling in the Nordic Region, with research dedicated to comparing crashes across age groups and evaluating factors such as helmet use or comparing cycling fatalities to traffic fatalities from other modes of transport.

In their study of hospitalised cyclists, Næss et al. (2020) considered age as well as other factors like helmet use, type of crash, and whether alcohol was involved. While not limited to studying adolescents, the results showed a peak of hospitalised cyclists around age 14 to 15 years old, which then decreased significantly between ages 16 and 20. “The lower number of victims in the age group 16–19 years is consistent with data from the OAEOC and may be explained by a non-bicyclist culture for this age group in South-East Norway” (p. 5).

Seitakari and colleagues (2025) compare crash statistics between electric scooters and bicycles in Finland. They find some discrepancies between crashes among 16–20-year-olds and 20–25-year-olds in comparison to older age categories. In these younger categories, the number of accidents with patient injuries from e-scooters outnumbers those from bicycles, while the opposite is the case in all other categories.

E-scooter riders were younger, more often intoxicated, and more likely to ride without a helmet when compared to injured bicycle riders. Although there were fewer e-scooter accidents than bicycle accidents, e-scooters had a 3.6 times higher risk of sustaining an injury requiring [emergency department care] when considering the number of trips made. … In addition, a greater proportion of e-scooter accidents occurred during nighttime than bicycle accidents. (Seitakari et al., 2025, p. 5)

In their study of injury data in Umeå, Sweden, Björnstig and colleagues (2017) sought to determine how vehicle-related injuries burden the medical sector. According to 2013 data, they found that cyclists were the most frequently injured (compared to car occupants or motorised two-wheel vehicle riders, and pedestrians) and, of the 1085 injury incidences, more than half were younger than 30, with the highest numbers coming from men in the range of 10-29 years old. The study also highlights Sweden’s bicycle helmet laws, introduced in 2005 for children under 15 to wear a helmet. They suggest that “a bicycle helmet law for all ages would have great potential to reduce human suffering and the burden on hospital beds for bicyclists” (Björnstig et al., 2017, p. 7).

Unkuri and colleagues (2024) evaluated fatal accidents involving adolescents (10 to 24 years old) from bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles. Cyclists made up the fewest of these fatalities (20 of the 147 in the 12-year period from 2008 to 2019). Most of the accidents involved males, and many with vehicles of poor condition. Head injuries were the most common cause of death in all the fatalities (62%). The cause of the accidents among most of the bicycle and moped rider fatalities were due to collisions with another vehicle. Of the 20 bicycle fatalities, 90% were not wearing a helmet, and the two who wore a helmet were not properly attached. Just under half of the accidents took place in an urban context. The article also reports that all the bicycles in the crashes lacked proper lights (though most of the crashes happened in daylight hours). Most of the bicycle and moped rider fatalities were due to collisions with another vehicle (Unkuri et al., 2023).

Traffic safety (from other modes of transport like cars) is also noted as a key criterion for enabling safe active school transport among adolescents (Schön et al., 2024). In their Danish study of 10–15-year-olds in the Capital Region, Kaplan et al. (2016) concludes that “higher car and heavy vehicle traffic densities, as well as higher crash densities, are related negatively to the probability of cycling” (p. 61). In their Swedish-based study, Westman et al. (2017) conclude that, while policies aim to increase safety along roads, initiatives must also address barriers for getting adolescents to cycle outside of safety, such as the convenience for parents to drive their children to school. At the same time, concerns about safety were also raised in research that involved parents’ perceptions or influences on adolescents cycling to school (e.g., Lindqvist et al., 2019), which could be a reason for choosing to drive them.

Responding to the concern of traffic injuries among adolescents, Bojesen & Rayce (2020) evaluated the effects of traffic safety programs among lower secondary school students in Denmark. The study involved implementing a road safety educational program among adolescents (aged 13 to 17 years old) across 57 schools in Denmark. It aimed to “increase knowledge of risk factors, improv[e] attitudes towards risk-taking behaviours related to traffic, [and] promote safe behaviours in traffic” (p. 2). The program was structured around an ambassador—an adult road accident survivor—who shared his or her story, followed by Q&A and reflection exercises among the students. The researchers found that, while the traffic safety program had a “positive effect on the students’ abilities to identify the three most important risk factors in traffic,” there were limited effects on adolescents’ traffic safety behaviour (p. 5). “A small positive effect was found on a single cycle item: helmet use” (p. 7). However, the baseline study indicated that relatively few of the adolescents used a helmet prior to the intervention. Overall, they conclude that “knowledge of risk factors in traffic is a perquisite for change but does not necessarily translate into safer cycling behaviour and seatbelt use in a population of young pre-drivers” (p. 8).

Beyond traffic safety, one international study including Denmark found that crime-related safety was also an important supportive correlate of active school transport (Timperio et al., 2025).