Transport Reviews

ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20

Cycling as transport

Elliot Fishman

To cite this article: Elliot Fishman (2016) Cycling as transport, Transport Reviews, 36:1, 1-8, DOI:
10.1080/01441647.2015.1114271
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1114271

Published online: 18 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18179

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 50 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20
TRANSPORT REVIEWS, 2016
VOL. 36, NO. 1, 1–8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1114271

INTRODUCTION

Cycling as transport
ELLIOT FISHMAN
Institute for Sensible Transport, Melbourne, Australia

Urban cycling is clearly a topic of immense interest to the transport research community,
and this Special Issue captures key themes amongst the rapidly growing body of research.
Several well-cited papers have already been published in Transport Reviews (e.g. Fishman,
Washington, & Haworth, 2013; Heinen, van Wee, & Maat, 2009; Pucher & Buehler, 2008),
and this set of papers builds on that foundation. This growing demand for knowledge
on urban transport cycling is a reflection of the realisation of the limitations of auto-
mobile-dependent transport planning, in terms of congestion, parking problems,
reduced levels of amenity and liveability, air pollution, resource depletion, climate
change and road traffic injury (Hickman & Banister, 2014). Indeed Peak Car, a phenomenon
that was comprehensively captured in a recent Special Issue of this journal (Goodwin &
Van Dender, 2013), can be seen at least in part as a consequence of a shift away from
the prime position the car has held in society since the end of the Second World War.
The growing interest in transport cycling from the research community is matched by
the increasing interest shown by city governments in beginning the process of making
their urban environments more bicycle friendly. The early adopter cities, such as Amster-
dam and Copenhagen, are enjoying the benefits of their efforts, with some 40% of trips
now being completed by bike (Pucher, Dill et al., 2010). The Netherlands deserves
special mention given that it is the entire country, not just one city, that records such
strong levels of cycling (Fishman, Böcker, & Helbich, 2015; Harms, Bertolini, & Brömmel-
stroet, 2014). There is a lot the world can learn from the Dutch experience.
The Dutch and Danish achievements provide a window into a possible future for other
cities that are now beginning to appreciate the benefits of making cycling ‘irresistible’, as
Pucher and Buehler call it (2008). The launch of Velib’s 20,000 bikes as part of Europe’s
largest bike share programme in the French capital in 2007 and the preceding enhance-
ment to the bicycle infrastructure network acted as a catalyst for many of the 850 cities
that have established a bike share programme. Cities without a strong history in transport
cycling (e.g. London, New York City, Barcelona, and Chicago) have all recently begun to lay
the foundations for a transport system that better accommodates people who choose to
cycle.
Based on findings from data collected in Berlin and London, the New Urban Mobility
study (Hoffmann, Kandt, Smith, & Graff, 2015) has found that transport departments con-
sistently overestimate car use. This is caused by a combination of changing attitudes,
demographics, and emerging technology that are helping urban populations lower
their dependence on the private car. The crucial point is that these changes and the

CONTACT Elliot Fishman info@sensibletransport.org.au

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
2 E. FISHMAN

growing interest in cycling (e.g. see Pucher & Buehler, 2012) is not actually about cycling,
but it is about what cycling brings to cities. A greater proportion of the globe’s population
now reside in cities, and this level is forecast to reach 70% by 2050 (World Health Organ-
ization, 2010). The new urban age, combined with a growing awareness of liveability, has
led to an emerging recalibration of city life. Interaction brought people to live in cities
several thousand years ago and the bicycle has found itself as a very useful tool to facilitate
this most basic of human needs. The bicycle, it appears, is now increasingly recognised as
offering a functional vehicle for making the short- to medium-length trips that characterise
much of city travel.
The positive shift towards greater levels of urban cycling must of course be qualified by
the stagnant or even declining levels of cycling in developing countries, such as China.
Some cities in developed countries have also begun to record flat or even declining
rates of cycling. Australia for instance, which had a goal to double cycling between
2011 and 2016, has actually seen declining number of people choosing to cycle (Aust-
roads, 2015). Despite representing less than 1% of kilometres travelled in Australia,
cycling-related crashes comprise 15% of all road hospitalisations (Bureau of Infrastructure
Transport and Regional Economics, 2015). Such statistics only help to reinforce the number
one barrier to more people cycling, namely their concerns over safety (Fishman, Washing-
ton, & Haworth, 2012; Gardner, 2002; Horton, Rosen, & Cox, 2007).
This Special Issue brings together reviews of recent research within the burgeoning
topic of cycling. A prominent theme within this collection of review articles is the
crucial importance bicycle infrastructure plays in both determining the degree to which
people choose to cycle, and subsequent levels of safety. Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator
at the Portland Office of Transportation, has classified four types of transportation cyclists.
The ‘Strong and Fearless’ constitute less than 1% of the population. These are people who
will cycle regardless of the quality of infrastructure. Sydney (Australia) is a good example,
where the bike mode share is 0.8% (Pucher, Graves et al., 2010). The ‘Enthused and Con-
fident’ make up some 7% of the population in Geller’s model and although they can ride in
mixed traffic, prefer separated facilities. The largest proportion of the population are the
‘Interested but Concerned’, making up 60% of the community. This is the group that
require enhanced bicycle infrastructure before they will feel comfortable making trips
by bicycle. Most programmes seeking to boost levels of cycling need to be focused on
this 60%. The final category are known as ‘No Way No How’ (33%), with little prospect
of attracting this group to cycle. Whilst these categories were developed specifically for
Portland, it is reasonable to assume that other populations have similar profiles, and
many other cities have adopted this segmented approach when designing cycling policy.
In the first paper, Buehler and Dill (2016) identify research on bicycle infrastructure and
the impact it has had on cycling, and how research has developed from analysing individ-
ual treatments through to an examination of the impact of entire networks on cycling par-
ticipation. A key theme from this review is the preference for separated bicycle facilities
and an aversion for cycling on roads with motorised traffic (e.g. see Garrard, Rose, & Lo,
2008; Heinen, van Wee, & Maat, 2010). This stated preference was supported by revealed
preference data from Vancouver, where it was found that cyclists divert from their most
direct route to ride on traffic-calmed streets (Winters & Teschke, 2010). Whilst the
number of studies on the influence of bicycle infrastructure on cycling has grown
rapidly since 2010, the authors identify the need for further research using a statistically
 TRANSPORT REVIEWS 3

representative sample of both cyclists and the general population, with an oversampling
of cyclists because riding remains a minority mode of transport in so many cities and
countries. Many of the available studies reviewed came from cities with incomplete
bicycle networks, and there is a need for more research from the cities with mature bicy-
cling networks (e.g. the Netherlands). Another research gap relates to the relative lack of
longitudinal research, as most is cross sectional. This would help determine the causal links
between cycling levels and bike networks. As individual bicycle infrastructure links are
developed, there will be an increasing need to measure the network effect of a connected
system of bicycle routes. As the authors identify, it may well be the case that the “effect of
the network is greater than the sum of its parts” (Buehler & Dill, 2016, p. 15).
It is well established that in countries and cities with low rates of transport cycling, those
that do participate occupy a very narrow demographic — typically young males (Pucher &
Buehler, 2011; Pucher, Greaves et al., 2010). Countries with high levels of cycling, such as
the Netherlands, have a much greater gender balance, to the extent that in the Nether-
lands, mode share for cycling is in fact slightly higher for women than men (Fishman
et al., 2015). A pertinent question therefore is whether growth in cycling participation
leads to a wider demographic of people riding. This is the question three of the UK’s
most prolific cycling researchers (Aldred, Woodcock, & Goodman, 2016) have sought to
answer in the second paper. The authors used English and Welsh Census data from
2001 and 2011 and found no increase in female cycling within the regions that had
recorded a general increase in bicycle riding. A differential threshold effect may
apply — where the point at which females feel safe cycling is different to men, potentially
requiring greater separation from motor vehicles. These different infrastructure prefer-
ences need to be addressed within the policy and planning frameworks in order to
address the current gender inequity that is apparent, not just in the UK but also in
North America, Australia, and elsewhere. It appears that it may be necessary to create
specifically targeted policies and infrastructure to appeal to specific groups currently
under-represented in cycling participation and this is one of the key conclusions raised
in this paper.
An increasing body of evidence has emerged showing the negative health impact of
sedentary lifestyles (e.g. diabetes, hypertension), which has been shown to be amplified
by car use (Warren et al., 2010). Studies on the economic impact of cycling consistently
find health as having the largest economic benefit (e.g. see Fishman, Ker, Garrard, &
Litman, 2011; Mulley, Tyson, McCue, Rissel, & Munro, 2013; Transport and Main Roads,
2011). Götschi, Garrard, and Giles-Corti (2016) bring together the diverse literature that
exists on the health issues associated with cycling. The authors found that population
levels of physical activity are falling well short of World Health Organisation recommended
levels, and cycling for transport provides sufficient metabolic intensity to protect against
sedentary lifestyle disease. Götschi et al. argued, “integrating cycling into daily routines
provides a promising approach to increase physical activity, given the many people
spend 30 minutes and more commuting daily, yet struggle to find the extra half-hour
to exercise” (2016, p. 2). The authors note that a dose–response relationship is evident,
meaning that there are diminishing returns for additional minutes of physical activity. A
key finding is that the greatest health benefit occurs when inactive people become
active through cycling. This remains a challenge from a policy perspective.
4 E. FISHMAN

In this paper, the health benefits of cycling were found to outweigh the negative
impacts from crashes (e.g. see de Hartog, Boogaard, Nijland, & Hoek, 2010). However,
the safety risks associated with cycling “play a greater role for the individual, as they
affect crash victims immediately and deter potential cyclists from riding” (Götschi et al.,
2016, p. 19). This issue provides a common theme throughout all the articles, and
Götschi et al. (2016, p. 19) identify the Netherlands and Denmark as the safest countries
in which to cycle, with five times less fatalities per 100 million kilometres cycled than
US cyclists, citing research by Pucher and Buehler (2012). This is consistent with the find-
ings in Buehler and Dill (2016), where riding on separated bicycle paths reduced crash
probability almost tenfold (see also Teschke et al., 2012). The authors conclude by
making the point that the best approach to maximising the population health rewards
offered by cycling is to make it safe and convenient, and this is a central theme threaded
through all these papers.
The idea for this Special Issue was conceived whilst working in the Netherlands, in an
office that overlooked an incredibly busy bicycle path. A surprisingly large proportion of
these cyclists were riding electric-assist bicycles (e-bikes). Originating in Japan in the
early 1980s (Rose, 2012), the Netherlands now has the highest proportion of e-bike
sales per capita of any country in Europe, accounting for one in six bicycle sales. In the
fourth paper, Fishman and Cherry (2016) capture pertinent themes that have emerged
in the last decade of research on e-bikes. The article documents consumption patterns
in different parts of the world, which reveal that China is the world leader in e-bike use,
though they typically resemble a ‘scooter’, with either non-existent or non-functional
pedals. The major motivating factor for e-bike use is the ability to maintain speed with
less effort. Importantly, e-bike use has been found to provide the necessary levels of phys-
ical activity to protect against sedentary lifestyle disease, although the intensity is found to
be less than a conventional bike. Interestingly, some studies have found that e-bike users
ride more than they would have otherwise, potentially providing additional benefit, not
just in terms of physical activity, but also in terms of transport system efficiency, provided
that they are used as a replacement for motor vehicle trips. As battery and motor technol-
ogy continue to improve, it is likely e-bike sales and use will continue their sharp rise.
Another rapidly growing sub-topic within research on transport cycling is bike share,
which now represents a very active area of empirical research. This is perhaps no surprise,
given that there are now over 850 cities with bike share programmes, up from just a
handful in the late 1990s. The next paper (Fishman, 2016) provides a synthesis of the litera-
ture published in the last two years and builds on his earlier review (Fishman et al., 2013). The
rapid growth in bike share can be explained by the confluence of the need to refocus urban
transport policy towards sustainable transport, coupled with increasing availability and
affordability of the technology that underpins modern bike share programmes. Conven-
ience is the key motivating factor explaining bike share membership, which encompasses
the distance between home and work and the closest docking station (where bicycles are
picked up and returned), as well as the ease with which people can spontaneously use
the system. Although it appears that the majority of cities with bike share programmes
are satisfied with their level of use, there are lessons learnt from cities with underperforming
bike share programmes. Melbourne and Brisbane (Australia) have amongst the lowest levels
of use (between 0.3 and 1 trip per day, per bike), due to a combination of deterrent factors
which include mandatory helmet legislation, poor bicycle infrastructure, and, in the case of
 TRANSPORT REVIEWS 5

Melbourne, a very small number of bicycles relative to the size of the city (e.g. see Fishman,
Washington, Haworth, & Mazzei, 2014). The growth in the number of cities establishing bike
share shows little sign of abatement, and many of these new systems are likely to employ
innovative technology, including in-built, solar-powered Global Positioning System (GPS),
Near Field Communication and electric motors. Many of these features will enhance the con-
venience with which people can use bike share, which is likely to boost usage rates. In the
near future, it is expected that public transport smartcard integration and access via
tapping one’s mobile phone will become the standard method by which people access
bike share.
Continuing the theme addressing hot topics within transport cycling research, Romanil-
los, Zaltz Austwick, Ettema, and De Kruijf (2016) review the techniques and research out-
comes made available through the automated collection of ‘Big Data’ associated with
cycling. Relative to other forms of vehicular transport, cycling has remained largely
deficient in routine data collection. GPS data, live point data, and journey data now
present important opportunities for researchers to gather information on the route selec-
tion, speed, and volumes of cyclists, helping to fill the data gap that has existed on the
journeys made by bicycle. The ubiquity of the smartphone, in combination with commer-
cially developed Apps (e.g. Strava), enables individuals to collect data on their ride history,
which can be aggregated into population datasets (e.g. Strava Metro), for use by govern-
ment transport planners. These data can be used to identify route preferences, helping to
inform the future development of a city’s cycle network. As identified by the authors, the
key limitation of commercially available data of this type is that individual journey data are
not available, due to privacy concerns. Modern bike share systems automatically record
when a bike leaves and returns to a docking station, and this has been used to provide
useful insights into usage patterns (e.g. see O’Brien, Cheshire, & Batty, 2014). The appli-
cation of Big Data for bicycle planning is still very much in its infancy, but is likely to
provide agencies with a very important source of information from which to make evi-
dence-based decisions regarding the development of bicycle infrastructure networks. It
is important to recognise whilst Big Data clearly offers great knowledge-building potential,
the veracity of the data (possible biases, noise, or abnormality in the data) presents
ongoing difficulties to the users of these data. Additionally, we may know little about
why a population exhibits certain travel patterns, and this supports one of the conclusions
of Romanillos et al. (2016), namely that we need to know more about the socio-demo-
graphics, attitudes, and motivation for travel behaviour. Much of these contextual data
cannot be gleaned from a very large spreadsheet and instead rely on additional data col-
lection techniques. When used in combination, it is likely that these data will provide
important insights for both the research community and transport practitioners.
As previously stated, no country matches the Netherlands, either in the proportion of
the population who cycle, or in cycling safety (Schepers, Twisk, Fishman, Fyhri, &
Jensen, in press). It is commonly said that the Dutch are ‘blind to cycling’; meaning that
it is such an ordinary activity, undertaken by such a broad section of the community
(13% of trips by those 75 years and over are by bike),1 that it has simply not warranted
much attention, until recently. In typical Dutch fashion, they spent the last 40–50
years quietly building what is unarguably the most extensive bicycle infrastructure
network in the world. Thankfully, a growing body of Dutch researchers and practitioners
are beginning to tell what amounts to one of the most successful stories in sustainable
6 E. FISHMAN

transport planning, namely the bicycle friendly transition of the Netherlands. Harms, Ber-
tolini, and Brömmelstroet (2016) document the policy interventions responsible for high
levels of Dutch cycling. The authors use data from Statistics Netherlands, as well as the
Dutch Cyclists’ Union, in combination with the results of a survey of local policy-makers.
The findings from this analysis suggest that some of the most important factors leading
to successful bicycle participation outcomes include setting measurable and verifiable
goals and implementing the policy interventions proposed in strategic plans. Several
other interlinked factors were also found to impact on cycling success, including the will-
ingness to apply experimental measures, innovative bicycle infrastructure, and decreasing
the attractiveness of car use (Harms et al., 2016). As cities around the world struggle to
manage the competing demands on finite road space, this latter point is especially perti-
nent. It suggests that a reallocation of road space may be necessary in order to overcome
the perceived and real safety concerns that hold back would be bicycle riders in countries
with low cycling levels. This is a recurring theme amongst all the papers.
The number of cycling conferences held in the UK, Australia, and North America seems to
have increased dramatically over recent years. The final contribution is a Comment piece
from the former Chairman of Cycling England, Phillip Darnton OBE, who takes aim at the
phenomenon of cycling conferences. Ironically, I met Phillip at a cycling conference, in
which he delivered the Keynote address titled Are cycling conferences a waste of time?
(Darnton, 2013). Obviously the organisers did no’t think so … but he raised an interesting
and seldom asked question: Why do cycling advocates talk to themselves? Darnton argues
that rather than preaching to the converted, a transition needs to occur in which it no
longer becomes “about cycling” … it’s about a sense of Place” (Darnton, 2016). Moving
the discussion beyond ‘cycling’ appears particularly plausible given that for most countries
and cities, the bicycle remains a marginal mode of transport, carrying a very small minority
of all trips. This Special Issue contributes to transport research and policy development and
has gone some way to show that it is not ‘about cycling’, but it is about sustainable, pro-
ductive, and prosperous cities.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Note
1. According to the Dutch National Travel Survey (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014).

References
Aldred, R., Woodcock, J., & Goodman, A. (2016). Does more cycling mean more diversity in cycling?
Transport Reviews, 1–17. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1014451
Austroads. (2015). National cycling participation survey. Sydney: Austroads.
Buehler, R., & Dill, J. (2016). Bikeway networks: A review of effects on cycling. Transport Reviews, 1–19.
doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1069908
Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics. (2015). Australian cycling safety:
Casualties, crash types and participation levels. Australian Government.
 TRANSPORT REVIEWS 7

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Research travel in Netherlands (OViN). Central Bureau of Statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/verkeer-vervoer/methoden/dataverzameling/
korte-onderzoeksbeschrijvingen/ovin-beschrijving-art.htm
Darnton, P. (2013). Are cycling conferences a waste of time? Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Cycle
Congress, Gold Coast.
Darnton, P. (2016). Why do cyclists just talk to themselves? Transport Reviews.
Fishman, E. (2016). Bikeshare: A review of recent literature. Transport Reviews, 1–22. doi:10.1080/
01441647.2015.1033036
Fishman, E., Böcker, L., & Helbich, M. (2015). Adult active transport in the Netherlands: An analysis of
its contribution to physical activity requirements. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121871. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0121871
Fishman, E., & Cherry, C. (2016). E-bikes in the mainstream: Reviewing a decade of research. Transport
Reviews, 1–20. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1069907
Fishman, E., Ker, I., Garrard, J., & Litman, T. (2011). Cost and health benefit of active transport in
Queensland. Produced for Queensland Government. Brisbane.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Understanding the fear of bicycle riding in
Australia. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 23(3), 19–27.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2013). Bike share: A synthesis of the literature. Transport
Reviews, 33(2), 148–165. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.775612
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., & Mazzei, A. (2014). Barriers to bikesharing: An analysis from
Melbourne and Brisbane. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 325–337.
Gardner, G. (2002). The trends that are shaping our future. New York, NY: W.W Norton.
Garrard, J., Rose, G., & Lo, S. K. (2008). Promoting transportation cycling for women: The role of bicycle
infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 55–59.
Goodwin, P., & Van Dender, K. (2013). ‘Peak car’ — themes and issues. Transport Reviews, 33(3), 243–
254. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.804133
Götschi, T., Garrard, J., & Giles-Corti, B. (2016). Cycling as a part of daily life: A review of health per-
spectives. Transport Reviews, 1–27. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1057877
Harms, L., Bertolini, L., & te Brömmelstroet, M. te. (2014). Spatial and social variations in cycling pat-
terns in a mature cycling country exploring differences and trends. Journal of Transport and Health,
1(4), 232–242. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2014.09.012
Harms, L., Bertolini, L., & Brömmelstroet, M. te. (2016). Performance of municipal cycling policies in
medium-sized cities in the Netherlands since 2000. Transport Reviews, 1–29. doi:10.1080/
01441647.2015.1059380
de Hartog, J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., & Hoek, G. (2010). Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh
the risks? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109–1116. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901747
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2009). Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature.
Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96. doi:10.1080/01441640903187001
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature.
Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96. doi:10.1080/01441640903187001
Hickman, R., & Banister, D. (2014). Transport, climate change and the city. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hoffmann, C., Kandt, J., Smith, D., & Graff, A. (2015). Toward new urban mobility: The case of London
and Berlin. London: London School of Economics and the Innovation Centre for Mobility and
Societal Change (InnoZ) GmbH. Retrieved from https://files.lsecities.net/files/2015/09/New-
Urban-Mobility-London-and-Berlin.pdf
Horton, D., Rosen, P., & Cox, P. (2007). Cycling and society. Farnham: Ashgate.
Mulley, C., Tyson, R., McCue, P., Rissel, C., & Munro, C. (2013). Valuing active travel: Including the
health benefits of sustainable transport in transportation appraisal frameworks. Research in
Transportation Business and Management, 7, 27–34.
O’Brien, O., Cheshire, J., & Batty, M. (2014). Mining bicycle sharing data for generating insights into
sustainable transport systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 262–273. doi:10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2013.06.007
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark
and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28(4), 495–528.
8 E. FISHMAN

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2011, April). Analysis of bicycling trends and policies in large North American
cities: Lessons for New York. Retrieved from http://www.utrc2.org/research/assets/176/Analysis-
Bike-Final1.pdf
Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An
international review. Preventive Medicine, 50(Suppl. 1), S106–S125.
Pucher, J., Greaves, S., & Garrard, J. (2010). Cycling down under: A comparative analysis of bicycling
trends and policies in Sydney and Melbourne. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 332–345.
Pucher, J. E., & Buehler, R. E. (2012). City cycling. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Romanillos, G., Zaltz Austwick, M., Ettema, D., & De Kruijf, J. (2016). Big data and cycling. Transport
Reviews, 1–20. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1084067
Rose, G. (2012). E-bikes and urban transportation: Emerging issues and unresolved questions.
Transportation, 39(1), 81–96.
Schepers, P., Twisk, D., Fishman, E., Fyhri, A., & Jensen, A. (in press). The Dutch road to a high level of
cycling safety. Safety Science.
Teschke, K., Harris, M. A., Reynolds, C. C. O., Winters, M., Babul, S., Chipman, M., … Cripton, P. A. (2012).
Route infrastructure and the risk of injuries to bicyclists: A case-crossover study. American Journal
of Public Health, 102(12), 2336–2343. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762
Transport and Main Roads. (2011). Benefits of the inclusion of active transport in infrastructure projects.
Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Warren, T. Y., Barry, V., Hooker, S. P., Sui, X., Church, T. S., & Blair, S. N. (2010). Sedentary behaviors
increase risk of cardiovascular disease mortality in men. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 42(5), 879–885.
Winters, M., & Teschke, K. (2010). Route preferences among adults in the near market for bicycling:
Findings of the cycling in cities study. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(1), 40–47.
World Health Organization. (2010). Urbanization and health (Vol. 88). Geneva: World Health
Organization.