Introduction

There are very few subject areas in public policy that can lay claim to as many co-benefits as an increase in cycling. And few embrace as many beneficial social, economic and health outcomes as an increase. The gains that flow from increases in cycling have a proven, positive impact on ten major policy areas (Table 5.1). All these policy areas are characterised by strategies and speeches declaring the commitment of elected politicians and professional groups to improve matters at national, regional or city-region levels. In the vast majority of cases, deeds do not follow words, and policies that deter cycling are given a higher priority than those policies that would result in increases. This is the case in the majority of UK city and regional councils who pursue policies that increase the quantity of motorised traffic and do very little to implement the list of 17 pro-cycling initiatives identified by Pucher and Buehler (2012a: 350).

One of the 17 items on this list is ‘Combine incentives for cyclists with disincentives for car use’ and this is very rarely pursued as part of a package of measures to increase levels of cycling. In the case of climate change, cycling has the capacity to improve matters on a global scale. Cycling as a policy issue is characterised by a vast amount of evidence and data in support of its ability to deliver public policy objectives and a remarkable paucity of real change ‘on the ground’. There are, of course, examples of excellent outcomes that exploit this ability, and Copenhagen is frequently mentioned in the literature (Koglin, 2013; Koglin and Rye, 2014; Koglin, 2015a; Koglin, 2015b). Every year, international cycling conferences add to this list of best practice, and the scientific literature on the benefits of cycling grows at a faster rate than in many other public policy areas (World Health Organization (WHO), 2018). The uniqueness of cycling lies in the enormous gap between what we know about its exceptional ability to deliver desirable outcomes and the very low level of acceptance, development, funding and delivery on the ground in the vast majority of administrations globally. This gap points to a fundamental ideological and cultural problem.