The rise of the e-bike: Towards an extension of the practice of cycling?

Figures & data

Figure 1. The dimensions of (e-)velomobility (source: author; images taken from pixabay.com)

Table 1. Profile of the participants

Variable	Modality	% of conventional cyclists	% of e-bikers	Statistical test (chi square)
Sex	Male	59.2%	50.6%	p < .001
	Female	40.8%	49.4%
Age	Under 25	4.4%	1.5%	p < .001
	25–39	38.2%	22.5%
	40–54	43.5%	58.4%
	More than 55	13.9%	17.5%
Kind of household	Person living alone	16.3%	10.5%	p < .001
	One-parent family	4.0%	3.6%
	Childless couple	27.0%	26.9%
	Couple with child(ren)	43.9%	55.5%
	Living with parents	2.7%	1.2%
	Flat-share	6.1%	2.1%
Level of monthly income	Less than 3,000 francs	4.1%	5.5%	p < .05
	3,000–6,000 francs	35.2%	35.1%
	6,000–9,000 francs	43.9%	41.9%
	More than 9,000 francs	16.8%	17.5%

Table 2. Frequency of use of the bike

Variable	Modality	% of conventional cyclists	% of e-bikers	Statistical test (chi square)
To do the shopping	Never	17.9%	17.4%	p < .001
	From time to time	34.5%	43.7%
	Frequently	22.3%	22.1%
	Most of the time	25.4%	16.7%
To get to leisure activities	Never	12.8%	15.1%	p < .001
	From time to time	35.2%	45.1%
	Frequently	28.9%	26.9%
	Most of the time	23.1%	12.9%
As a sport or leisure activity	Never	8.9%	11.9%	p < .001
	From time to time	27.8%	33.9%
	Frequently	28.6%	31.8%
	Most of the time	34.6%	22.4%
To get to work	Never^11	1.3%	1.0%	p < .001
	From time to time	18.9%	18.5%
	Frequently	20.4%	26.7%
	Most of the time	59.5%	53.8%

Table 3. Frequency of use of modes of transport other than the bike to commute

Variable	Modality	% of conventional cyclists	% of e-bikers	Statistical test (chi square)
Car (driver or passenger)	Never	49.9%	30.6%	p < .001
	From time to time	31.8%	39.0%
	Frequently	10.5%	18.6%
	Most of the time	7.8%	11.8%
Public transport	Never	27.7%	33.8%	p < .001
	From time to time	40.0%	46.7%
	Frequently	13.9%	12.4%
	Most of the time	18.4%	7.2%
Two-wheeled motor vehicle	Never	90.5%	87.4%	p < .001
	From time to time	6.2%	9.0%
	Frequently	2.3%	2.5%
	Most of the time	0.9%	1.1%
Walking	Never	52.8%	66.1%	p < .001
	From time to time	28.8%	21.8%
	Frequently	12.1%	8.8%
	Most of the time	6.3%	3.3%

Table 4. Characteristics of commuting trips

Variable	Modality	% of conventional cyclists	% of e-bikers	Statistical test (chi square)
Duration (both ways)	Less than 30 minutes	48.0%	33.0%	p < .001
	30–60 minutes	32.5%	39.4%
	More than 60 minutes	19.5%	27.5%
Seasonality	Only during warm months	23.0%	26.5%	p < .001
	All year round but more during warm months	33.2%	43.5%
	The same all year round	43.8%	30.0%
Commuting trip^12	From home to work	87.5%	94.7%	p < .001
	From home to a public transport stop	12.7%	6.4%	p < .001
	From a public transport stop to work	5.0%	2.0%	p < .001
	Taking the bike onto public transport	2.6%	2.1%	n.s.

Table 5. Access to modes of transport

Variable	Modality	% of conventional cyclists	% of e-bikers	Statistical test (chi square)
National pass	No	82.1%	90.0%	p < .001
	Yes	17.9%	10.0%
Regional pass	No	87.2%	90.9%	p < .001
	Yes	12.8%	9.1%
Motorised two-wheeler	No	86.9%	83.5%	p < .001
	Yes	13.1%	16.5%
Car	No	22.4%	8.8%	p < .001
	Yes, on demand	28.0%	27.6%
	Yes, always	49.6%	63.6%
Driving licence	No	5.2%	2.4%	p < .001
	Yes	94.8%	97.6%

Table 6. Extent to which cyclists feel at ease

Variable	% of conventional cyclists feeling slightly/very at ease	% of e-bikers feeling slightly/very at ease	Difference
When riding on a cycle path (separated from traffic)	95.7%	95.2%	−0.5
When riding in a 30 km/h zone or in a residential neighbourhood	89.7%	85.6%	−4.1
When riding on a road with a 50 km/h speed limit and a cycle lane	81.8%	79.1%	−2.7
When riding on a road with an 80 km/h speed limit with a cycle lane	39.1%	40.9%	1.8
When riding on a road with a 50 km/h speed limit without a cycle lane	24.1%	20.7%	−3.5
When riding on a road with an 80 km/h speed limit without a cycle lane	5.7%	4.9%	−0.8
When riding through a roundabout	41.1%	38.5%	−2.5
When riding up a slope requiring physical effort	75.3%	65.0%	−10.3
When estimating the duration of a new route	62.3%	57.6%	−4.7
When performing minor repairs (e.g. puncture)	51.2%	38.5%	−12.6

Table 7. Motivations for cycling to work

Variable	% of conventional cyclists who slightly/strongly agree	% of e-bikers who slightly/strongly agree	Difference
To do exercise	97.9%	97.7%	−0.2
Pleasure (fresh air, landscape, etc.)	88.0%	92.6%	4.7
Flexibility, freedom	90.0%	89.1%	−0.9
Respect for the environment	88.7%	88.1%	−0.6
To take my mind off things, to switch off from work	79.7%	85.0%	5.3
Money saving	53.0%	53.8%	0.8
Time saving	61.1%	53.5%	−7.6
Positive image of the bike in my social or professional circle	41.5%	41.7%	0.2
Social activism	38.0%	35.5%	−2.5
No other satisfactory transportation mode for the trip	23.4%	25.3%	1.8

Table 8. Barriers to cycling to work

Variable	% of conventional cyclists who slightly/strongly agree	% of e-bikers who slightly/strongly agree	Difference
Weather conditions	52.3%	54.2%	1.9
Carriage of packages and goods	47.3%	46.8%	−0.5
Other activities before/after work	39.1%	41.0%	2.0
Risk of accident, lack of safety	35.7%	39.9%	4.2
Risk of theft or vandalism of the bicycle	26.6%	25.4%	−1.2
Exposure to air pollution	23.2%	23.7%	0.5
Accompanying child(ren)	20.9%	22.6%	1.7
Other modes of transport more adequate	22.9%	22.1%	−0.8
Waste of time	19.2%	19.0%	−0.2
Unwilling to sweat or get messy hair	20.1%	18.8%	−1.4
Unsuitable clothes	18.4%	18.0%	−0.4
Too much physical effort required (hills, long distances)	15.4%	15.0%	−0.4
Negative image of the bicycle in my entourage	1.1%	1.5%	0.4

Table 9. Place of residence

Variable	Modality	% of conventional cyclists	% of e-bikers	Statistical test (chi square)
Place of residence	Urban	42.9%	23.1%	p < .001
	Suburban	43.3%	53.2%
	Rural	13.8%	23.7%

Table 10. Experience of commuting by bike

Variable	% of conventional cyclists who say no	% of e-bikers who say no	Difference	Statistical test (chi square)
Crossroads are designed to consider cyclists	70.5%	73.4%	2.9	p < .01
I find few dangerous zones/crossroads	38.2%	40.0%	1.7	n.s.
I feel respected by other road users	31.1%	36.0%	4.9	p < .001
I find enough cycle ways/paths	22.9%	20.2%	−2.7	p < .01
I feel safe on the trip	13.5%	16.1%	2.6	p < .01