Out of Its Lane? Ontario Court Creates Constitutional Right to a Bike Lane - "In Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., the Superior Court of Justice struck down a provision of the Highway Traffic Act providing for the removal of bike lanes on Yonge St., University Ave., and Bloor St. between the Bloor Viaduct and Resurrection Road in Etobicoke (the “Provision”) under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Schabas remarked that “[f]or some, the connection between bicycle lanes and the Charter may be surprising.” It should be. Cycle Toronto represents the most recent and dramatic expansion of section 7’s guarantee beyond the realm of the administration of justice or an individual’s autonomy to make decisions of fundamental personal importance. In enacting the Provision to amend the Highway Traffic Act, the state was not taking action to deprive individuals of the right to life, liberty or security of the person in the context of the criminal law or any analogous situation. Indeed, the case had nothing to do with any individual’s interaction with even the broadest conception of the justice system or its administration, being the state’s conduct in the course of enforcing and securing compliance with the law. The government was changing state-owned infrastructure to remove bike lanes on provincial roads in Toronto... In the seminal Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act reference in 1985, the Supreme Court held that the Legal Rights must be interpreted together and that the provisions in sections 8-14 address “specific deprivations of the ‘right’ to life, liberty and security of the person in breach of the principles of fundamental justice, and as such, violations of s. 7.” They “are designed to protect, in a specific manner and setting, the right to life, liberty and security of the person set forth in s. 7.” The Supreme Court recently emphasized the importance of reading the Legal Rights contextually in Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc. Justice Abella noted that section 7, together with the other Legal Rights in sections 8-14, are “essential elements of a system for the administration of justice which is founded upon a belief in the dignity and worth of the human person”, a purpose of which is to “maintain the repute and integrity of our system of justice.” In New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), Chief Justice Lamer, writing for six of the nine members of the Court, confirmed that “the restrictions on liberty and security of the person that section 7 is concerned with are those that occur as a result of an individual’s interaction with the justice system and its administration.”... In Cycle Toronto, the Court did not meaningfully engage with whether the proposed change to bike lanes engaged the interests that section 7 was designed to protect. The Court asserted briefly that section 7 is not limited to an individual’s interactions with the administration of justice, relying primarily on the majority decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Drover v. Canada. In Drover, Miller J.A. wrote a forceful dissent that section 7, as a matter of principle and precedent, is limited to the administration of justice, endorsing the “dominant strand” of jurisprudence as binding. The Court’s recognition of a constitutional right to bike lanes is perhaps the starkest example of the expansion of the section 7 guarantee... Even cases that have suggested that section 7 may extend beyond the administration of justice have been clear that section 7 is fundamentally a negative right: it protects against state deprivations of life, liberty and security of the person. As the majority of the Supreme Court held in Gosselin, section 7 does not place a “positive obligation on the state to ensure that each person enjoys life, liberty or security of the person.”... The Court’s decision suggests that governments may be constitutionally fettered from making policy changes to Ontario roads based on a Legal Right designed to protect from state-imposed deprivations of life, liberty and security of the person. The problem with this reasoning is that it divorces section 7 from its context and potentially opens the door for judicial review of a wide array of policy changes by governments, including changes to state-owned infrastructure. Under section 7, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the law and the deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person. The test is sensitive to the context of the particular case. While the impugned law need not be the only or dominant cause, there must be a real, as opposed to speculative, link between the state action and the deprivation. While section 7 protects a sphere of personal autonomy regarding decisions of fundamental personal importance that go to the core of individual dignity, not all personal choices are constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court has observed that a society that extended constitutional protection to personal choices such as smoking marihuana, having an “obsessive interest” in golf, or gambling, “would be ungovernable.” One would have thought the same could be said about extending constitutional protection to the choice to ride a bike down Bloor Street... By treating a change in provincial highways as a deprivation under section 7, the Court seems to have blurred the line between state-imposed harm and the mere loss of government benefits — an area that, until now, has been excluded from the purview of section 7. Justice Schabas held that the evidence “clearly establishes” that removing the bike lanes would make roads less safe, increasing the risk of collisions, injuries, and deaths for cyclists and other road users. But the Court’s evaluation of the evidence was far from searching... The Court claimed that its decision did not recognize a positive right or baseline of government infrastructure. But striking down the removal of bike lanes on provincial roads seems equivalent to constitutionalizing the right to a bike lane. The Court’s decision that the removal of bike lanes was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice suggests a heavy onus on government to justify policy changes to state-owned infrastructure"
The wacky Charter rights Canadian courts keep finding (like a right to bike lanes) : r/Ontario_Sub - "What is even the point of having elected governments when we have courts anyways?"
The wacky Charter rights Canadian courts keep finding: First Reading - "This seems to be happening a lot — a Canadian judge finding a heretofore undiscovered right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most of these decisions are happening thanks to Section 7 of the Charter, which enshrines the right to “life, liberty and security of the person.” Ever since it was added in 1982, Section 7 has long done some of the heaviest lifting in the Canadian constitution. It’s why Canada has no abortion law, it’s why Canada has the world’s most unrestricted assisted suicide regime, and it’s a big part of the reason that safe injection sites are now ubiquitous across Canadian cities. But in just the last few years, judges across Canada have looked at the phrase “security of the person” and determined that it also confers a right for everything from bike lanes to tent encampments to doing drugs in playgrounds. Below, a cursory summary of some of the more out-there Section 7 decisions...
The charter right to prescribe puberty blockers to children
The charter right to do drugs in playgrounds
The charter right to fill public parks with tent encampments
The charter right for pedophiles to loiter around playgrounds"
Opinion: Chief Justice Richard Wagner forgets that criticizing judges is part of democracy - "It would be a mistake to equate judicial independence with judicial immunity from criticism, and the rule of law with rule by judges. Such a view is untenable, particularly if one accepts that judges, like all public officials, are fallible human beings whose decisions are never above reproach. Nor is this view compatible with the place of judicial action within Canada’s constitution. Indeed, the legitimacy of judicial review has traditionally been supported in Canada and elsewhere by the contention that judges are able to offer compelling reasons in support of their decisions. Crucially, those reasons have never been held to be beyond criticism. Even the judgments of our highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, have been subject to trenchant critique for as long as this country has had legal scholars and commentators. Judicial power is official power, and its exercise must be subject to public scrutiny — as is the case with the decisions of elected officials. If legal commentators are permitted to scrutinize the reasoning of judges, then it is entirely legitimate for elected officials to do so, as well. After all, the rule of law mandates that each branch of the state remains within its allocated bounds. Where a court exceeds its proper constitutional role, or is in danger of doing so, then elected officials have a right, and a constitutional duty, to contest these uses of official power. Consider the case that provoked Premier Ford’s comments, which involved a court challenge to his government’s decision to remove bike lanes in some Toronto neighbourhoods. Whether or not their removal was appropriate, it is hard to conceive of bike lanes as a “fundamental right” contemplated by the framers of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At best, the question is one of urban planning: a dispute over transit infrastructure, about which reasonable people can disagree. It is entirely consistent with Canada’s constitutional order that these questions of policy should be left to the politically accountable government of Ontario. In discharging its unique constitutional role in our democracy, Queen’s Park is entitled to assert its priorities over those of cycling advocates. Unfortunately, none of these considerations prevented Justice Paul Schabas of the Superior Court of Ontario from issuing a preliminary injunction, effectively stopping the government from implementing its priorities. In so doing, Justice Schabas summarily dismissed the elected branches’ constitutional function, asserting that “the government does not have a monopoly on the public interest.” Instead, the learned judge contended, it was for the court to exercise its own judgment as to which public interests the government could and could not pursue. Next, consider the numerous cases in which Canadian courts have struck down mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional, or departed significantly from public sentiment in sentencing criminal offenders. In one emblematic case, the Supreme Court of Canada declared a six-month mandatory minimum for child luring to be “cruel and unusual punishment” contrary to the Charter, claiming that it would “shock the conscience of an informed public.” More recently, the Provincial Court of British Columbia has been criticized for a decision to impose no jail time upon an offender who possessed what the court characterized as a “relatively modest” collection of child pornography. In these circumstances, it is entirely unsurprising that officials and informed citizens should raise questions about the intelligent exercise of judicial power. A constitutional democracy that prizes our courts as forums of reason cannot have it both ways. It cannot profess public confidence in the judiciary, while insisting that judicial decisions be shielded from public criticism. Central to judicial responsibility is the task of offering reasoned justifications for one’s decisions. Those reasons are an invitation to the public to examine and critically appraise the cogency of a judge’s decision-making."
Labour council spends £3.8m on 197m bicycle lane in Plymouth, Devon - "A Labour council has been criticised for spending £3.8m on a bicycle lane that is less than 200m long. The 197m-long route in Plymstock, a suburb of Plymouth in Devon, has been branded a “waste of money” by residents who are demanding the approximately £20,000-per-metre scheme be scrapped. Neighbours said they were suffering from health problems because of the stress caused by the project, which has forced motorists to take a 10-minute diversion after a main road was closed to traffic for the works. It is scheduled to remain shut until April next year. Plymouth city council plans to bore through a disused railway tunnel to create the lane, which will link two existing bicycle routes. However, critics have branded the scheme a “vanity project” and predict it will not be widely used. An average of only 11 cyclists a day use the current route, according to data disclosed by the council under Freedom of Information laws. Mike Selby, 73, said: “You can genuinely count on one hand the number of cyclists. It’s ridiculous... Bill Hayes, 69, said the environmental benefits produced by the cycle lane would be outweighed by the additional fuel motorists would use as a result of the diversion. “I drive along the road two or three times a day, and I hardly ever see a cyclist,” the film location manager said... Residents estimate that it will cut cyclists’ journey times by just one minute and eight seconds – the time it takes to walk with a bicycle between the two existing routes... Andy Lugger, the leader of the Conservative opposition at the council, said: “It’s a vanity project, as far as I can tell. There’s hundreds of things we need to spend money on. The roads are atrocious. Whether it’s government funding or not, it’s taxpayers’ money.” Residents are particularly aggrieved by the 14-month closure of Colesdown Hill and say the council only gave them three weeks’ notice before it shut on Feb 9. The closure forces car drivers to take a 2.5-mile diversion, which takes 10 minutes. The drive between the two points previously took just 60 seconds. Contractors working on the project have also not been seen working on evenings or weekends, which residents claim will extend the project’s length... Eve Squance, 68, said it now took her five times as long to deliver home-cooked meals to her unwell 93-year-old mother... The council said the project was necessary because one of the current cycle paths ends in steps, which are not accessible to people with disabilities."
The cope is that once this is completed, the number of cyclists using it will explode. Of course, given the cost of the project is even more expensive than the most expensive highway construction project in Europe, cyclist advocates just impute an infinite benefit to cycling
No wonder the UK has so many "disabled" people, since they are apparently capable of cycling
The spandex warrior bikers in High Park are insufferable : r/toRANTo - "All these wannabe Tour de France clowns are a menace to society. I don't recall High Park becoming these people's personal velodrome being part of the plan when vehicle traffic was reduced and closed. These idiots will dart through crosswalks and yell at the very people who they're supposed to yield to for getting in their way. If you're casually biking either alone or with someone they'll huff and puff and ring their bells to let you know that they're "losing speed". Honestly, I wish there was a way these losers could be ticketed to deter this kind of behavior. I know that towards the beginning there were police officers handing out tickets to these bikers for speeding and ignoring stop signs, but it feels like the city has given up at this point."
Record number of cyclists riding illegally on motorways - "A record number of cyclists have been reported for riding illegally on motorways, official figures show. More than 1,000 people were spotted travelling on a pedal cycle on Britain’s fastest road networks, triggering an emergency response, in 2024. That year, 1,037 cyclists were reported for breaking the law, nearly double the 556 logged in 2022. Between 2020 and 2024, a total of 3,228 people were recorded riding a bike on UK motorways despite the Highway Code stating that “motorways must not be used by cyclists”."
When one gets hit by a car, it will the driver's fault, of course
Meme - Discerning Cyclist: "Cyclists with car skeletons show how much space vehicles take up."
Richard Harteman: "Meanwhile the cars are demonstrating how much faster they move."
Wyo DP: "Reason 29870 people loathe cyclists"
Stephane Jdb: "Yes, this is how much Space cyclists occupy in the street, because traffic rules require 1.5m clearance when overtaking them."
Pete Davis: "This is a ridiculous example. It's the same space we give cyclists to keep them safe now. So they take up just as much space as a car unless you made them all ride three abreast and two rows close together. Only see this in bike races not commuting. Posts like this just stirs up dislike from motorists"
Coaches boycott floating bus stop over safety fears - "A £4m floating bus stop built to encourage cycling has been boycotted by coaches over safety fears. Shropshire county council ripped out two carriageways near Shrewsbury railway station to create a single lane for cars and a segregated bicycle lane in what it described as a “once in a generation opportunity” to promote walking and cycling. But within weeks of its launch in October, Arriva Midlands revealed that a safety review of the bus stop meant its drivers would “no longer call at this stop”. The Telegraph has established that the bus company boycott followed several “near misses” between cyclists and pedestrians and bus passengers. Residents and businesses have also complained that the stop has caused gridlock on the medieval town’s one-way gyratory. Floating bus stops, also known as “bus stop boarders” – where passengers have to cross a cycle lane to board or disembark the bus – have proven highly controversial amid claims vulnerable people, including the disabled and visually impaired, are forced to “run the gauntlet” of those cyclists who refuse to stop at zebra crossings. Council documents reveal how the Shrewsbury stop was meant to promote “active travel”, but led to “regular reports of long queues”, businesses complaining that customers had “missed appointments” and 999 emergency response vehicles being stranded in traffic. It also emerged that the design does not meet national standards because it is narrower than the Department for Transport guidelines... Andrew Hooper, 37, who owns the Tap and Can bar and restaurant near the station, brewed a special “Panic at the Bus Stop” beer to mark the chaos the town has endured. “It’s an utterly insane bus stop which has caused havoc and posed a safety risk to people,” he said, adding how his special beer sold out within five days."
Dog walker accused of pushing speeding cyclist in canal gives HIS side of the story - but who do you think was in the right? - "A dog walker accused of pushing a cyclist into a canal after arguing she should have slowed down as she approached on a narrow path has protested his innocence. Footage filmed from Klaudia Mitura's bicycle showed her travelling alongside the Ashton Canal in Greater Manchester as she came across a couple walking their dog. The 34-year-old machine operator, who lives in Manchester but is originally from Poland, put on her brakes in front of the pair as one shouted at her to 'slow down'. Mother-of-two Ms Mitura then pointed out the walkers had a dog, but the man responded: 'Yeah but you're on a f**king bike' - before calling her 'a f**king idiot'. He then appeared to push the cyclist, who cannot swim, into the water – which prompted immediate panic because she was still strapped to her bike pedals. Now, the dog walker from Dukinfield, who has asked to remain anonymous, has claimed he did not push Ms Mitura and that she clipped him with her handlebar. The man told the Manchester Evening News he was walking with his girlfriend, who is 26 weeks pregnant, when the cyclist approached them 'at a ridiculous speed'. He added: 'I thought she was going to hit my missus and my dog. I thought my family was in danger. She's carried on to ride towards me. Then she's clipped me with the handlebars and she's gone into the canal. I didn't push her.' Ms Mitura claimed she thought she would 'drown' as she struggled to emerge from the cold water, but found a rock tall enough to stand on to remain above the surface. She only made it out of the canal when a passerby saw her struggling and hauled her out, before helping her call the police after her phone became damaged in the water. Ms Mitura said she thought she might die and claimed that the couple did not look back to check if she was OK after pushing her in. But the man denied abandoning her and claimed she did not seem to want his help. He said: 'After it happened, I turned around. I said to her 'are you okay?' She told me to f**k off. She was stood up. She wasn't stood on a rock. The canal was waist high. 'She was totally in the wrong. I'm just a normal working guy like anybody else but at the moment I'm just being slandered.'"
Immoral and irrational cyclists? Exploring the practice of cycling on the pavement - "Cycling on the pavement is commonly seen in urban environments despite often being prohibited. This study explores this practice by analysing cycling on pavements in the wider socio-technical context in which it occurs. Using data from two field studies and one questionnaire study, as well as applying a Social Practice Theory (SPT) based analytical approach, the study explores the frequency of cycling on the pavement. The results show that riding on the pavement is common among cyclists. Three main configurations of meaning, material and competence constitutes this practice which is summarised as follows: avoiding the space of the car, increasing smoothness of the ride and unclear infrastructure design. Cycling on the pavement can be regarded as a way of managing safety and risk, seeking more efficient and comfortable paths of travel, as well as the outcome of perceiving the infrastructure as ambiguous. Overall, the study argues that cycling on the pavement is a consequence of skewed power relations between different modes of transport, as well as policies, urban planning and infrastructure not harmonising with demands for safe and smooth travel by cyclists."
Cyclists are more important than pedestrians
Cyclist's demand for right of way in crowded MBS draws netizens' ire - "From the start of the 30-second clip that has gone viral on various platforms, he seems flustered, waving to the people in front of him and saying in Mandarin: "Don't blame me if I hit you." He then wobbles ahead on a bicycle that appears to be too small for him but is forced to come to a halt after about a metre, shouting in Mandarin that people around him are blocking his path. Switching to English, he unleashes a remarkable tirade: "I said excuse already, I asked you all, OK, please don't block the road OK, sorry, I'm sorry please don't block the road, OK?" While the baffled crowd walks past him, he reverts to Mandarin, insisting that whoever had incurred his wrath was "talking rubbish", before appearing to cycle off as the video ends."
Letters: Ontario hospital's killing of puppies and dogs 'distressing' - "As a young man growing up in Toronto during the ’40s and ’50s, I can tell you riding a bike was wholesome and regulated. One had to know and follow the rules of the road in order to get a licence, which most of us attached to the spokes in our front wheel. We rode the streets, not the sidewalks. We obeyed stop signs and traffic lights on main roads but, yes, on side streets we may have slowed down to ensure no traffic then barrelled through. But any transgression, if seen, was serious and you paid a price. What I see today is outrageous. Bike lanes are being used not just by cyclists but by those riding scooters and motorcycles as well. On Yonge Street it’s rare to see users obey stop signs and traffic lights; sidewalks are the alternative to stopping when convenient. And the speeds they operate at are outrageous. These lanes have created a user class that is overly confident and self conscious of their importance. Toronto has a big problem. Bicycles and scooters need licensing and they have to be regulated. We have had too many injuries and there are surely more to come."
Michael Taube: Of course Ontario's activist judiciary would invent a right to bike lanes - "Removing bike lanes is … unconstitutional ? I know it sounds completely insane. Yet, that’s exactly what the Ontario Superior Court ruled on Wednesday with respect to Premier Doug Ford’s plan to remove bike lanes on three busy Toronto intersections — Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue — to improve the flow of traffic and reduce congestion. The advocacy group Cycle Toronto set out last December to prevent the lanes from being removed"
Given that bike lanes actually make cyclists less safe, given this precedent, we should remove all bike lanes. But of course facts are no obstacle to pushing the left wing agenda
Red light running behavior of bicyclists in urban area: Effects of bicycle type and bicycle group size - "Studies have attempted the trends of red light running rate of bicyclists. Results of empirical surveys indicated that average red light running rate of bicyclists could range from 18% to 99% (Fraboni et al., 2018, Guo et al., 2014, Wu et al., 2012, Yan et al., 2015, Zhang and Wu, 2013). An online survey in Australia indicated that 37% of bicyclists surveyed had the experience of red light running violation (Johnson et al., 2013). An Irish survey even indicated that 88% of bicyclists surveyed had committed traffic violations (Lawson et al., 2013). The red light running rate of bicyclist was 97–99% at intersections with bicycle-specific traffic signals, and 17–21% at those with no bicycle-specific traffic signal respectively, according to a video observational survey in Dublin (Richardson and Caulfield, 2015). In China, the red light running rate of two-wheelers, including bicycles, e-bikes and scooters, varied remarkably across cities. Particularly, red light running rate was 18–25% in Nanjing City, 19% in Changsha City and 56% in Beijing City respectively (Wu et al., 2012, Guo et al., 2014, Yan et al., 2015)."
Study Finds Cyclists Are Better People Than Drivers
Orientation towards the common good in cities: The role of individual urban mobility behavior
All this shows is that cyclists claim to be/think they are good people. But of course, they endanger pedestrians by cycling on the pavement and run red lights far more often than cars
Editorial: A sensible compromise on Archer Avenue - "Bike activists in this city have, to our minds, successfully enhanced the lot of cyclists in Chicago and are fully entitled to keep pushing for more reasonable improvements. But in recent months, they have turned more to demonizing anyone who dares to oppose their views as members of the “right-leaning political class” or in the debate for personal gain. They’ve delved into people’s backgrounds in an attempt to demolish the arguments of those deemed “car-centric.” They’ve gone after journalists and outlets they consider insufficiently sympathetic to even the extremist edges of their cause. And they’ve tried to minimize or neutralize what is substantial opposition to these changes in Brighton Park, where thousands of ordinary Chicagoans are just trying to go about their lives and would rather see these improvements on the streets where they live and their children play than on Archer itself... Some bike activists have taken a page out of the airline playbook: If you want to sell premium economy, you have to make economy seats worse. If driving is made difficult enough, this thinking goes, more people will abandon their cars."
A.J. Manaseer on X - "“If driving is made difficult enough, this thinking goes, more people will abandon their cars.” Today’s bike lane movement is driven by irrational car hatred more than rider safety. It is led by fringe ideological zealots and must be completely dismantled."
Alberta to bring in law to rip out bike lanes and stop new ones - "Spring is in the air. Time to look at all the near-empty bike lanes and wonder where have all the cyclists gone. You were told it was coming. Told more than once. I know how many of you feel about the explosion of bike lanes in the two big cities. Well, you have been heard. Not by out-of-touch city councils in Calgary and Edmonton who believe your voice is worth squat compared to the noise of the squeaky wheels of a small group of cycling activists wanting to have their personal agendas met. But your voice has carried to the corridors of provincial power in Edmonton... For future bike lane plans if a local government wants to take away driving or parking lanes they would have to provide details on the impacts of the bike lane on traffic, including on nearby roads, the impact on businesses, the expected number of bike users. In short, cities will have to justify setting up yet another bike lane... It is expected the law would look at such things as the negative impacts on vehicle traffic, the number of cyclists using the bike lanes throughout the year, whether the number of bike lane users has grown, the effect of the bike lane on businesses, feedback from the community. In other words, once again, the province is doing the due diligence the cities should have set up a decade ago when the first separated bike lanes got the green light... He has asked Calgary and Edmonton to cough up the facts and figures behind their existing bike lanes and their future plans. He thinks decisions on bike lanes should be based on cold, hard facts and not emotional arguments or the idea of bike lanes for the sake of bike lanes. In Calgary, the city promised all kinds of cyclists would come out and use the bike lanes. At last report the numbers city hall expected have not turned out though they may be on the very popular pathways. Dreeshen says the Alberta government’s southern Alberta HQ at the McDougall Centre has a bike lane right outside. “I’ve never seen a cyclist there in all my years in government.”... How does the man figure the bike lane craze got started? “I think you had some virtue-signalling cycling zealots that did bend the ears of municipalities. We have to make sure municipalities aren’t listening to virtue-signalling zealots.” But is Dreeshen ready for the social-media sliming, the drive-by smears on X? The transportation minister places his bet with the silent majority. “I think Albertans will be on the side of this government in finally bringing common sense to bike lanes.”"
Left wingers hate cost-benefit analysis or justifying pushing the left wing agenda, so of course they're upset. And they were lying that this would ban new bike lanes - maybe because at some level they know that bike lanes cannot be justified based on rational arguments, only feelz, so effectively it would indeed ban new bike lanes
Young Danes are cycling less, and Denmark is worried about what comes next - "Young Danes cycling less has become a growing public health concern in Denmark, after new figures showed a marked decline in the share of teenagers and young adults using bicycles for school or work between 2020 and 2025. The data come from the population survey Danmark i Bevægelse (Denmark in Motion), carried out by the University of Southern Denmark (Syddansk Universitet, SDU) and supported by the Nordea Foundation. According to the figures reported by DR, the share of 15- to 19-year-olds who cycle at least three days a week has fallen by 16 percent since 2020. Among 20- to 29-year-olds, the decline is 11 percent. The trend is notable in a country where the bicycle has long been part of everyday mobility. Denmark’s cycling culture is often presented internationally as a model of active transport, urban design and low-carbon mobility. The new figures suggest that this image is under pressure among younger generations... Danish households have more cars than before, making car use more available to teenagers and young adults. In many families, convenience now often wins in the morning. According to Krag, young people who choose not to cycle often mention practical obstacles such as sweating, the need to wear a helmet or the feeling that cycling has become more complicated than being driven. Structural changes may also play a role. In several areas, schools and educational institutions have been merged, leaving some students with longer commutes. Longer distances can make cycling less attractive, especially when weather, time pressure or safety concerns are added to the decision... one reason is that parents’ perception of safety has changed: routes that previous generations considered acceptable may now be viewed as unsafe."
Time to step up the war on the car to force people to cycle. If there's anything left wingers hate, it's convenience
