The politics of velomobility: Analysis of the vote to include cycling in the Swiss Constitution

Abstract

In 2018, Swiss citizens voted for fostering cycling to be included in the Swiss Constitution. This national vote and a post-vote survey among a representative sample of citizens bring insight into the varying propensity to support cycling among the population. The main explanatory factor is participants’ current cycling practices: cyclists were much more likely to vote positively, as they are more aware of the lack of infrastructure. Non-cyclists were more reluctant, perhaps because they do not wish to challenge the dominant system of automobility. The second most important factor is a right–left political gradient. People on the left were more likely to vote positively and to agree with the arguments for the inclusion of cycling in the Constitution (safety, reduction of congestion, environmental and health benefits), while people on the right were more likely to agree with counterarguments (cycling network already excellent, federalism, unfair to foster cycling). Support for the vote did not vary significantly between social classes, ages or residential contexts. Women, who cycle less than men, voted more in favor and were more concerned about safety, which may be interpreted as a latent demand to cycle. A desire to “catch up” was also observed on the regional level: cantons with a low modal share of cycling were characterized by a higher acceptance rate.

Keywords:

• Cycling
• politics
• public policy
• transport policy
• vote

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments as well as Anke Tresch and her team for the discussion before the survey.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 The work on automobility highlights the need to grasp the complexity and multidimensionality of the car, to look beyond the car as a simple artefact and to analyse its social, political and cultural aspects (e.g. Böhm et al., 2006; Urry, 2004; Walks 2015b). In line with that work, velomobility refers to the socio-technical elements which make up and influence the practice of cycling (infrastructures, policies, images, social norms, legal framework, industry, etc.) (Rérat, 2021b).

2 A fourth, anecdotal, group includes cyclists themselves in contexts where infrastructures are poorly designed (the case of an infrastructure designed for leisure cyclists and criticized by utility cyclist in Brazil is mentioned).

3 An additional suggestion is that infrastructures could be implemented in gentrifying neighbourhoods with existing demand and popular support, to minimise opposition (Krizek et al., 2009).

4 An expression of this trend is the strong overrepresentation of left-wing voters in car-free housing developments (Baehler & Rérat, 2020).

5 Acronyms are given in both German and French.

6 Switzerland, alongside Germany and Austria, is a member of the ‘Germanic family’ in planning (Newman & Thornley, 1996). It is characterized by a hierarchical planning system with a clear division of tasks and responsibilities between the national, regional and local levels (subsidiarity). The federal government gives guidelines, but has hardly any powers to force the regions to follow them, while the regional level is the most powerful.

7 Women were also underrepresented among rare utility cyclists and frequent leisure cyclists. No gender differences were found among frequent utility cyclists and rare leisure cyclists.

8 The number of interviewees is lower than in the other models as some of them agreed to give their opinion on the arguments of the campaign but not their vote.

9 In a survey among bike commuters (Rérat, 2021a), 33% of commuters from Italian-speaking Switzerland said that they feel unsafe on their home–work trip (14% for Switzerland). On the cantonal level, there is a strong correlation between the share of commuters feeling unsafe and the acceptance rate (r = 0.58; p < .01).