Abstract
Categorizing cyclists according to their trip purpose drives public investments in cycling infrastructure, yet it dismisses important considerations and leads to unintended consequences. To better encourage cycling, we argue the narrowly defined “bike-to-work” categorization for cycling warrants rethinking because it ignores (1) trip purposes other than “bike-to-work”; (2) the travel behavior and needs of women cyclists; (3) the travel behavior and needs of “invisible cyclists”; and (4) leisure as a possible solution to increase participation and representation in cycling. This research reflection introduces these issues to demonstrate the deficiencies and negative externalities of the neoliberal turn in leisure provision. We aim to encourage planning departments, parks and recreation departments, other local decision-makers, and scholars to recognize the diversity of cycling travel behavior and work to improve the equity of participation and investment in cycling.
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 Statistics Canada’s more recent time use survey data categorizes cycling for commuting under “active transportation to and from an activity” combining walking and cycling and asks respondents to select the “usual” way to get to work. For recreational cycling, the data is categorized within “active leisure”, and combines cycling with multiple other activities such as walking, gambling, and birdwatching (Statistics Canada, Citation2019). On a national level, including the census data collection, at this time, there is no information on cycling trips. The only data set to capture this participation on a smaller scale is the CCHS data and municipal data collection if they have allotted the budget and time.