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

Figures & data

Table 1. Presentation of the parties represented in the federal government.

Name (German/French acronyms)	Political ideology	Vote % in the National Council (2019)	Position in relation to the initiative	Position in relation to the counterproposal
Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC)	Right-wing (populist), national conservatism, economic liberalism	25.6%)	No	No
Social Democratic Party (SPS/PSS)	Social democracy, center-left to left-wing	16.4%	Yes	Yes
FDP. The Liberals (FDP/PLR)	Right-wing to center-right, classical to conservative liberalism	15.1%)	No	Yes
The Center (former known as Christian Democratic Party; CVP/PDC)	Christian democracy (center to Center-right)	11.4%	No	Yes

Table 2. Article 88 in the Constitution in its former version, the initiative and the counterproposal.

Former article in the Constitution	Drift article (initiative)	Accepted article (counterproposal)
Art. 88: Footpaths and hiking trails	Arc. 88: Footpaths, hiking trails and cycle paths	Arc. 88: Footpaths, hiking trails and cycle paths
^1The Confederation shall lay down principles with regard to the network of footpaths and hiking trails.	^1The Confederation shall lay down principles with regard to the network of footpaths, hiking trails and cycle oaths devoted to everyday trips and leisure trios.	^1The Confederation shall lay clown principles with regard to the network of footpaths, hiking trails and cycle paths.
^2It may support and coordinate cantonal measures to construct and maintain such networks.	^2It supports and coordinates, in the respect of the powers of the cantons measures by the cantons and third parties to construct and maintain safe and attractive networks and to provide information about them.	^2It may support and coordinate measures by the cantons and third parties to construct and maintain such networks and to provide information about them. In doing so, it shall respect the powers of the cantons.
^3It shall take account of the network of footpaths and hiking trails in the fulfillment of its duties and shall replace paths and trails that it has to close.	^3It shall take account of these networks in the fulfillment of its duties. It shall replace footpaths and hiking trails and cycle paths it has to close.	^3It shall take account of these networks in the fulfillment of its duties It shall replace footpaths and hiking trails and cycle paths it has to close.

Table 3. Characteristics of the sample of interviewees who took part in the vote (n = 846; the total may vary due to non-responses).

Variables	Modalities	Number	“No” vote	“Yes” vote
Cycling practice (N = 844)	Frequent use/utility	295	14%	86%
	Rare use/utility	37	32%	67%
	Frequent use/leisure	122	21%	79%
	Rare use/leisure	117	26%	74%
	None	273	41%	59%
Gender (N = 846)	Men	458	30%	70%
	Women (ref.)	388	22%	78%
Age (N = 846)	18–29 (ref.)	76	22%	78%
	30–39	77	16%	84%
	40–49	114	13%	87%
	50–59	191	24%	76%
	60–69	148	29%	71%
	70+	240	38%	62%
Income (household) (N = 737)	First quartile (poorest; ref.)	146	35%	65%
	Second quartile	159	26%	74%
	Third quartile	234	28%	72%
	Fourth quartile (richest)	198	18%	82%
Education (N = 845)	Compulsory school (ref.)	53	24%	76%
	Vocational secondary	330	34%	66%
	General secondary/higher professional training	183	22%	78%
	Tertiary	279	21%	79%
Political values (0–10) (N = 822)	Far left (0–2)	86	18%	92%
	Left (3, 4)	196	13%	87%
	Center (5) (ref.)	257	29%	71%
	Right (6, 7)	197	30%	70%
	Far right (8–10)	86	57%	43%
Residential context (N = 843)	Cities	215	24%	76%
	Towns and suburbs (ref.)	453	27%	73%
	Rural areas	175	27%	73%
Linguistic region (N = 840)	German-speaking (ref.)	616	29%	71%
	French-speaking	185	17%	83%
	Italian-speaking	39	26%	74%

Table 4. Logistic regressions on the propensity to vote ‘yes’ (all interviewees who took part in the vote; N = 711⁸).

		“Yes” vote
		Exp(B)	Sig.
Cycling practice	Frequent use/utility	4.176	***
	Rare use/utility	1.715	ns
	Frequent use/leisure	4.111	***
	Rare use/leisure	3.073	***
	None (ref.)
Gender	Men	0.564	***
	Women (ref.)
Age	18–29 (ref.)
	30–39	1.936	ns
	40–49	3.262	**
	50–59	1.255	ns
	60–69	1.460	ns
	70+	1.285	ns
Income (household)	First quartile (poorest; ref.)
	Second quartile	1.490	ns
	Third quartile	1.147	ns
	Fourth quartile (richest)	1.737	*
Education	Compulsory school (ref.)
	Vocational secondary	0.746	ns
	General secondary/higher professional training	1.244	ns
	Tertiary	0.987	ns
Political values	Far left	3.017	**
	Left	2.561	***
	Center (ref.)
	Right	0.831	ns
	Far right	0.331	***
Residential context	Cities	1.353	ns
	Towns and suburbs (ref.)
	Rural areas	0.804	ns
Linguistic region	German-speaking (ref.)
	French-speaking	2.633	***
	Italian-speaking	1.502	ns
Constant		0.731	ns

N = 711. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.188; Nagelkerke = 0.277; model sig. < 0.01.

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Figure 1. Acceptance to the vote and cycling modal share (Source: FORS, 2020; OFS & ARE, 2017).

Table 5. Agreement with arguments in favor of cycling in the Constitution (all interviewees who took part in the vote).

	All (N = 846)			Supporters (N = 646)			Opponents (N = 200)
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know
It is necessary to do more for the safety of cyclists	82%	17%	1%	91%	8%	0%	57%	41%	2%
It is necessary to increase the fostering of cycling in order to reduce peaks in road traffic and to relieve public transport	74%	24%	2%	85%	14%	1%	46%	51%	3%
Cycling is ecological and good for health. It is therefore necessary to develop cycle paths	86%	12%	1%	96%	3%	1%	59%	38%	3%

Table 6. Logistic regressions on the arguments in favor of the counterproposal (all interviewees who took part in the vote).

		Safety (N = 758)		Relief of congestion (N = 754)		Environment and health (N = 750)
		Exp(B)	Sig.	Exp(B)	Sig.	Exp(B)	Sig.
Cycling practice	Frequent use/utility	2.270	***	2.689	***	2.497	***
	Rare use/utility	1.836	ns	0.531	ns	1.615	ns
	Frequent use/leisure	1.930	**	1.449	ns	1.204	ns
	Rare use/leisure	1.590	*	0.926	ns	1.305	ns
	None (ref.)
Gender	Men	0.705	**	0.743	*	0.885	ns
	Women (ref.)
Age	18–29 (ref.)
	30–39	0.873	ns	1.460	ns	4.026	***
	40–49	1.293	ns	1.178	ns	2.614	**
	50–59	0.976	ns	1.104	ns	2.650	***
	60–69	1.942	*	0.840	ns	2.365	**
	70+	1.233	ns	0.617	ns	1.545	ns
Income (household)	First quartile (poorest; ref.)
	Second quartile	0.973	ns	1.016	ns	1.051	ns
	Third quartile	1.146	ns	1.007	ns	0.984	ns
	Fourth quartile (richest)	0.843	ns	1.519	ns	0.995	ns
Education	Compulsory school (ref.)
	Vocational secondary	1.191	ns	0.756	ns	1.673	ns
	General secondary/higher professional training	1.374	ns	0.611	ns	2.466	**
	Tertiary	1.302	ns	0.699	ns	1.772	ns
Political values	Far left	2.175	**	3.462	***	2.840	***
	Left	0.968	ns	1.916	***	1.771	**
	Center (ref.)
	Right	0.656	*	0.819	ns	0.755	ns
	Far right	0.302	***	0.562	ns	0.299	***
Residential context	Cities	1.166	ns	1.179	ns	1.010	ns
	Towns and suburbs (ref.)
	Rural areas	1.185	ns	1.522	*	1.434	ns
Linguistic region	German-speaking (ref.)
	French-speaking	1.386	ns	1.056	ns	1.181	ns
	Italian-speaking	2.224	**	1.379	ns	1.352	ns
Constant		0.521	ns	0.481	ns	0.253	***

N = 758. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.096; Nagelkerke = 0.128; model sig. < 0.1.

N = 754. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.159; Nagelkerke = 0.215; model sig. < 0.01.

N = 750. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.152; Nagelkerke = 0.207; model sig. < 0.01.

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 7. Arguments of the supporters (coded answers to an open question; Tresch et al., 2018).

	% of the 1015 answers given by the 646 supporters
Development and fostering of cycling	40%
Regular use of cycling	15%
Development of the cycle network	13%
Other (importance; support not only to the car)	13%
Environmental issues	20%
Environmentally friendly mobility	15%
Other (fluidity of traffic, climate)	5%
Road safety	14%
Constitutional considerations (role of the Confederation, etc.)	8%
Generality	5%
Recommendations from political parties	4%
Other reasons (e.g. health, tourism)	6%
Don’t know	3%
Total	100%

Table 8. Agreement with arguments against cycling in the Constitution (all interviewees who took part in the vote).

	All (N = 846)			Supporters (N = 646)			Opponents (N = 200)
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know
The Swiss cycle path network is already excellent. There is no need for a constitutional article	36%	61%	3%	21%	77%	2%	77%	17%	6%
Cycle paths fall within the remit of municipalities and cantons. The Confederation should not get involved	46%	51%	3%	34%	62%	4%	78%	21%	1%
It is unfair to give more space to cycling to the detriment of other transport modes	28%	69%	3%	20%	77%	3%	50%	46%	3%

Table 9. Logistic regressions on the arguments against the vote (all interviewees who took part in the vote).

		Lack of need (N = 736)		Federalism (N = 739)		Unfairness (N = 741)
		Exp(B)	Sig.	Exp(B)	Sig.	Exp(B)	Sig.
Cycling practice	Frequent use/utility	0.495	**	0.570	**	0.487	**
	Rare use/utility	0.521	ns	0.244	*	0.390	ns
	Frequent use/leisure	0.563	ns	0.689	ns	0.725	ns
	Rare use/leisure	0.571	ns	0.768	ns	0.622	ns
	None (ref.)
Gender	Women (ref.)
	Men	0.815	ns	1.104	ns	1.374	ns
Age	18–29 (ref.)
	30–39	1.066	ns	1.679	ns	0.307	*
	40–49	0.840	ns	0.905	ns	0.337	ns
	50–59	1.350	ns	2.958	*	0.453	*
	60–69	1.198	ns	2.214	ns	0.298	**
	70+	2.070	ns	4.110	**	0.449	*
Income (household)	First quartile (poorest; ref.)
	Second quartile	0.613	ns	1.267	ns	0.758	ns
	Third quartile	1.135	ns	1.164	ns	0.789	ns
	Fourth quartile (richest)	0.885	ns	1.134	ns	0.642	ns
Education	Compulsory school (ref.)
	Vocational secondary	1.971	ns	1.145	ns	3.553	ns
	General secondary/higher professional training	2.102	ns	1.388	ns	4.521	*
	Tertiary	1.346	ns	1.000	ns	2.404	ns
Political values	Far left	0.170	***	0.288	***	0.000	ns
	Left	0.208	***	0.232	***	0.608	ns
	Center (ref.)
	Right	0.868	ns	0.877	ns	0.950	ns
	Far right	1.848	*	2.380	***	1.957	*
Residential context	Cities	1.206	ns	0.989	ns	1.329	ns
	Towns and suburbs (ref.)
	Rural areas	1.200	ns	1.004	ns	1.903	**
Linguistic region	German-speaking (ref.)
	French-speaking	0.286	***	0.410	***	0.795	ns
	Italian-speaking	0.353	*	0.560	ns	0.719	ns
Constant		0.271		0.199	ns	0.157	*

N = 739. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.146; Nagelkerke agelkerkeseudo R2: Cox &.

N = 739. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.169; Nagelkerke = 0.255; model sig. < 0.01.

N = 741. Pseudo R2: Cox & Snell = 0.082; Nagelkerke = 0.160; model sig. < 0.05.

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 10. Arguments of the opponents (coded answers to an open question; Tresch et al. 2018).

	% of 233 answers given by 200 opponents
Critique of developing and promoting cycling	36%
Discomfort with/dislike of cyclists	25%
Sufficient infrastructure/inefficient development	10%
Constitutional considerations	31%
Responsibility of the cantons (and not of the federal state)	15%
No place in the Constitution	16%
Financial reasons	10%
Generality	6%
Other reasons	3%
Recommendations from political parties	4%
Confusion	3%
Don’t know	6%
Total	100%

FORS. (2020). VOTO studies: Standardized post-vote surveys, 2016–2020 [Dataset]. FORS. forsbase.unil.ch.

 Google Scholar

OFS & ARE. (2017). Comportement de la population en matière de transports: Résultats de microrecensement mobilité et transports 2015 (Office fédéral de la statistique et Office fédéral du développement territorial). OFS.

 Google Scholar

Tresch, A., Bernhard, L., Lauener, L., & Scaperrotta, L. (2018). Enquête VOTO relative à la votation populaire fédérale du 23 septembre 2018. FORS/ZDA/LINK.

 Google Scholar