Introduction

Mobility history scholarship makes the point emphatically: as streets were reinterpreted as mainly for cars, cyclists were marginalised by means of legislation, police-control, planning and infrastructure provision, a process that sped up in the post-war period. To the extent that cycling prevailed, cyclists were rendered invisible by dominant actors within city traffic regimes (for example, Emanuel, 2011; 2012; Oldenziel et al, 2016; Männistö-Funk and Myllyntaus, 2018). Notwithstanding new interpretations of cycles as tools of sustainability, and indeed increased policy attention and rising levels of cycling in many city centres in the last few decades, the marginalisation of cyclists remains a reality – as becomes evident in many chapters of this volume. Whereas cycling today often receives growing attention as an important mode of mobility in overall traffic policy documents and in comprehensive urban planning documents, allocation of funds, especially on the regional level, remain aligned with infrastructural plans that cater for automobility and public transit (Emanuel, 2018). Moreover, as Koglin (Chapter 3, this volume) shows, cycling is still marginalised in Sweden's transport planning, often through rationalisations. Cycling does still not sufficiently belong to the dominant mobility paradigm to warrant full inclusion. How do cycling organisations navigate this discrepancy between policy attention and realpolitik? This chapter provides an example from the recent past that reveals the tensions between different factions within cycling advocacy: on the one hand those who seek a true transition, and on the other advocates who are more pragmatic vis-à-vis the dominant paradigm.

Since the 1970s, the cycle has come to serve as a symbol of a more humane and environmentally friendly society, often in contrast to a car-centred one. Cycling organisations usually consider themselves as part of the environmental movement, and the belief in the cycle as an environmentally friendly means of transportation is often a reason for individuals to engage in cycle advocacy (Horton, 2006). An alternative motivation to engage may be a sense of frustration due to perceived imbalances in how our transport systems are shaped to take different road users into consideration (Furness, 2010). These contrasting motivations are not irreconcilable. For example, urban cycle tracks are often highlighted as a means to promote an environmentally friendly mode while also securing cyclists’ rights of access. But at times the perspectives conflict.