Cycling politics: imagining sustainable cycling futures in Sweden

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to analyse the ways in which cycling politics, established bicycle advocates and “new” forms of net-based activism in Sweden imagine and shape future cycling. The study engages with policy analysis, cultural imaginaries, cycling citizenship, power and urban planning in order to analyse expressions of contemporary cycling politics in Sweden, with a particular focus on the national strategy for increased and safer cycling, launched in 2017. This strategy, including how advocacy responded to the strategy, and topics raised in online blogs, reflects core differences in top-down/bottom-up views on cycling as contested practice: from more pragmatic, policy- and solution-oriented approaches to making everyday cycling experiences political. The analyses address both established and alternative ways of influencing mobility transitions and seek to address the alternative imaginings for everyday cycling that their approaches and strategies suggest. This includes analysing their role in shaping or changing cycling in the future and what these cases may tell us about the sustainability of cycling itself at both local and national levels. It is argued that, while well-established organizations already enjoy a position of access to planners and policy-makers, it remains important to find ways of including the perspectives of emergent, on-line-based initiatives and blogs, which also formulate critical perspectives on everyday cycling.

KEYWORDS:

• Activism
• bicycling
• cycling
• advocacy
• cycling futures
• Sweden

1. Introduction

The political ambition to meet the pressing concerns of environmental problems, unsustainable mobilities and inequalities in relation to transport is a major challenge in many countries worldwide – including Sweden (Pooley 2013). Cycling is often argued to be one of the answers to the problem of unsustainable automobility, often tightly interrelated with the increase in importance of environmental and public health issues (Näringsdepartementet 2017). According to Transport Analysis, the government agency charged with providing policy advice for decision-makers in the sphere of transport policy, the popularity of cycling is not increasing in Sweden  (Trafikanalys 2015). With local exceptions, the popularity of cycling is still at the same levels as it was in the 1990s: less than 10 percent of all trips are made by bike (Trafikanalys 2015; Pooley 2013).

During the last couple of years, a number of important steps towards meeting this challenge have been taken in Sweden. The most recent initiative is the National cycling strategy, launched in 2017, with the aim of increasing cycling and making it safer. Empirically, this study focuses on the above strategy and related initiatives to change existing mobility trends and promote cycling as an alternative to motorized urban transport, and draws on material from three sources: 1) The National strategy for increased and safer cycling, 2) Swedish Cycling advocacy responses and initiatives, and 3) online blogs that promote cycling. Although these three cases, and their connected organizations, are very different in terms of levels of organizing, strategies and visions, they all form part of the political and cultural landscape of cycling politics in Sweden (and internationally) to promote transitions towards more sustainable mobility (for example, by making cities more cycling friendly). The main questions the article seeks to answer are: What alternative imaginings for everyday cycling are presented in the cases studied below? What is envisioned as changing, by whom and how? These questions include comparing so-called top-down and bottom-up approaches to cycling politics, and their (different) views and roles in shaping sustainable cycling futures.

While cycling politics encompasses complex interactions between top-down and bottom-up processes of governance, such relations can be multi-faceted, complex and indeed contested. Action to improve conditions for cyclists may look very different depending on the forms and strategies that cycling activism and advocacy are taking (Aldred 2012; Furness 2010; Vivanco 2013). While more traditional cycling advocacy organizations may work to influence formal policy-shaping bodies at transnational or national levels, other activism is performed through grassroots organizations that initiate regular public events such as using bicycles to claim their right to road space. Yet another important category is online blogs and Facebook groups that take the perspective of emphasizing cyclists’ perspectives and rights but do not perform hands-on activism.¹ Studying cycling blogs, policy and advocates is important for envisioning more sustainable futures, where cycling politics may facilitate the very lenses through which the present situation of cycling in specific contexts can be studied (Isaksson 2014; Furness 2014, 318).

In the present article, the perspectives on cycling politics include state and non-state governance approaches, including top-down, hybrid, and bottom-up advocacy organizations and bottom-up groups, such as blogs and online groups with a particular focus on cycling issues. Hence, the paper investigates cycling governance at different levels, including different ways of representing what cycling can be about and how to enact mobility transitions. More particularly, I will focus on the cycling futures imaginary, as the discursive formations, images and narratives that cultures use to articulate themselves (Dawson 1994; Åsberg 2005), and how this imaginary follows both conventional and unconventional ways of understanding mobility transitions, the dominance of the motor car, and what cycling futures may entail. By cycling futures, I refer to an open concept with different meanings and ways of negotiating the dominance of motorized traffic (Isaksson 2014).

Against this background, the first part of the article focuses on state and policy initiatives to boost cycling, while the second part outlines bike advocacy organizations and initiatives, and the third part focuses on online-based (activist) initiatives that formulate critical perspectives on everyday cycling. In the comparative reflections and discussion, I reflect upon the different approaches and dynamics of these three levels and discuss the implications of the material for imagining sustainable cycling futures.

2. Theorizing sustainable cycling futures

In this section, I will contextualize the study in relation to contemporary cycling politics more broadly, and activism and struggles for change in particular, mirroring top-down as well as bottom-up, state and non-state approaches to foster more sustainable cycling futures, politics and citizenship.

In discussing cycling politics in general and policy interventions in particular, I draw on Bacchi’s (2009) approach to studying problem representations, which includes asking how, what and who is made a problem and a solution when imagining how sustainable cycling futures can be achieved and what they can be about. This approach makes it possible to discuss explicit or implicit ideas about problems, actors, responsibility and possible solutions that follow such assumptions and ideas. This means that, guided by my research questions, I perform a close reading of the material studied here, specifically to look for tensions and conflicts tied to the position of the cyclist in an attempt to analyse how sustainable cycling futures are imagined within top-down and bottom-up approaches. Bacchi (2009) argues that every suggested solution to a problem has built into it a particular representation of what the problem is, and it is these representations, and their implications, that I will discuss. Such ways of representing the problem may open up space for alternative ways of thinking about cycling, including demands for sustainable planning and politics (Isaksson 2014). As previous studies have shown, cycling activism and advocacy may open up opportunities for thinking in ways that do not take motorized mobility as the role model for future mobility solutions (Carlsson 2002; Mapes 2009; Furness 2010; Isaksson 2014; Cox 2015; Longhurst 2015).

Vivanco (2013, 111) notes that there is a difference between advocates (i.e. those who work to enact a “type of social and political reform”) and activists (i.e. those who agitate for “the promotion of radical change”); they may also work in different political arenas and realms of social action. Apart from working in different arenas and at different levels, activists may have different views on the political dimension of their activism, such as whether they should be working with or in opposition to formal policy-shaping bodies (Vivanco 2013, 103). Cycling activism as a social movement and arena for cultural politics, understood as an inclusive concept based on the idea that the cultural and political are interlinked, includes a broad spectrum of activities and organizational forms (Vivanco 2013, 103). Following from this, there are many different forms of activism and many different strategies to increase the popularity of cycling and make it safer and, thus, different degrees of politicization, including different ways of relating to the authorities as part of the problem and/or part of the solution (Balkmar and Summerton 2017). The significance of the internet should be emphasized here; namely, how the internet facilitates the maintaining of dispersed networks for shaping collective identities and solidarity amongst cyclists (Balkmar and Summerton 2017), while also making it possible to bypass traditional media and institutions (Carty 2015).

In addition, while cycling activism is related to promoting “radical change”, cycling citizenship is a concept that is related to activism – but is less “radical” in its associations (Aldred 2010). This concept emphasizes how cycling as an embodied practice may “affect perceptions of the self in relation to natural and social environments” (Aldred 2010, 35). Cycling citizenship is not political in a traditional, institutionalized way; instead, the concept refers to the ways in which cyclists may be focused on “the creation of safer, less polluted, friendlier localities” (Aldred 2010, 35). In my view, both activism and cycling citizenship are concepts that focus on the importance of questioning the naturalized and normalized character of discursive formations of social and political relations that legitimize some forms of mobility and marginalize others (cf. Böhm et al. 2006; Furness 2010). Furthermore, as Lugo argues, in struggles to make cyclists less marginalized as road users, it is not only distinctions relating to whether you are a driver or a cyclist that are important, but issues around race or class also matter (Lugo 2016, 184). As suggested by Steinbach et al (2011), the position of the cyclist can be thought of as an entire social identity bound up with class, ethnicity and gender, including how these dimensions matter in terms of whether one becomes a cyclist or not.

The kinds of cycling politics, political activities and performance of cycling citizenship that I focus on here illustrate the ways in which different modes of transport, traffic spaces and mobilities are circumvented by power (Böhm et al. 2006; Furness 2010). Furness (2010) argues that cycling politics can be a tool through which alternative mobility futures are negotiated, especially with regard to shifting perspectives on how street space should be utilized and by whom (Furness 2010, 83). This concept is relevant to the discussion of how the different initiatives view (or do not view) cycling as a conflictual practice. Conflicts over urban space relate strongly to the ways in which traditional urban planning and traffic engineering have prioritized the car rather than cycling (cf. Koglin and Rye 2014). Previous research has shown how traffic planning in Sweden has been, and still is, shaped to a large extent by a legacy in which urban planners and traffic engineers have prioritized the motor car at the expense of cycling (Emanuel 2012; Koglin 2013). In conclusion, transforming urban mobility patterns refers to struggles over the distribution of power and resources in public space and is therefore political (Koglin 2013).

3. Material and method

Cycling politics encompasses representations of what cycling is and what it can become. One way of understanding the cultural production of meaning around cycling reflected in the material at hand is to study the significance of the imagined. According to Graham Dawson (1994, 49), the imaginary can be used as an analytical tool similar to discourse, since both share an emphasis on the production of meaning in a given context. In his work on masculinity in the context of war, Dawson has identified systems of discursive themes, motifs and narratives that he calls cultural imaginaries (Dawson 1994, 48). The imaginary is a concept that is not fixed; instead, there is room for sometimes-contested ways of representing problems, facts and knowledge claims. Below, I refer to the cycling future imaginary; in this way, I seek to map out the contours of a more-or-less shared – yet debated – discursive landscape depicting how sustainable cycling futures can be achieved and what they can be about. The cycling future imaginary produces different representations of mobility transitions and the role of cycling in sustainable transport futures. Hence, it is used to map out and analyse different representations and aspirations associated with cycling, within which certain assumptions, problems and solutions seem more reasonable and natural than others.

Empirically, I will focus on three initiatives in contemporary cycling politics, encompassing different levels and strategies that break with, or preserve, existing mobility paradigms. As mentioned above, these range from policy writings and NGO advocacy organizations to grassroots online blogs. These initiatives and responses reflect divergent goals, strategies and modes of organizing, but are nevertheless all a part of shaping the sustainable cycling futures imaginary studied here. These initiatives are:

1. The National strategy for increased and safer cycling

2. Swedish Cycling advocacy responses

3. Online blogs and initiatives to promote sustainable and safe cycling.

These initiatives have been selected on the basis of their contrasting ways of approaching and imagining cycling futures from state, advocacy and activist/cycling citizenship approaches.

Currently, there are a large number of organizations that, in one way or another, are active in promoting cycling in Sweden. The most knowledgeable are Promoting Cycling Sweden (Cykelfrämjandet) and Cycling Sweden (Svensk Cycling) (both names translated into English by author). The latter is a lobby organisation that also works towards increasing cycling, and will be the main focus here. There is also the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (Naturskyddsföreningen), the largest environmental organization in Sweden, which also engages in cycling advocacy. Cycling Sweden hosts the leading cycling organizations in Sweden which, apart from Promoting Cycling Sweden and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, also includes the Bicycle Business (Cykelbranschen, translation by author), Swedish Cycling Federation (Svenska cykelförbundet) and Vätternrundan (“The world’s largest recreational bike ride”).² When asked to describe the Swedish cycling advocacy and activism scene, Lars, the current president of both Promoting Cycling Sweden and Cycling Sweden, responded:

Cycling Sweden has a bigger and more important role, I would say, it’s only us (Promoting Cycling Sweden) and Cycling Sweden and to some extent the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and their cycling group that gets invited to the Swedish Transport Administration’s stuff. I would say that the role is rather … that role is not so public, that you take part in seminars or that we are perhaps the only one, or one part out of three that pursues things that way.

With its focus on reform, Promoting Cycling Sweden can be described as an advocacy organization oriented towards working in collaboration with and in support of the political structures to develop and support cycling-friendly politics (Balkmar and Summerton 2017). Cycling Sweden is an umbrella organisation that support and co-finance surveys and reports to support cycling and to exert political influence. This is different from initiatives that have been created specifically as forums for oppositional street politics (Vivanco 2013, 111), such as, for example, grassroots organizations that initiate public events such as using bicycles to take over road space (i.e. Critical Mass) or by placing white-painted bikes at sites of cyclist fatalities (i.e. the Ghost Bikes movement). This is different yet again from purely online initiatives, such as cycling blogs.

The material for this paper comes from policy reports, research reports, media output and web pages. Choosing the policy documents was straightforward; the strategy studied here is the latest policy strategy on how to boost cycling in Sweden, for the first time with a national scope. When it comes to advocacy organizations, I have focused on their responses to the strategy, including their own cycling manifestos and initiatives to boost cycling (Cycling Sweden 2018). With regards to online bloggers I have chosen those I believe is the most influential in Sweden and whose names come up in interviews with cycling advocates (Balkmar and Summerton 2017). In particular a group of online bloggers who seek to promote cycling grounded in real-life cycling experiences and with a critical perspective on the current mobility paradigm and related politics.

4. Case descriptions and analysis

During the 1990s, there was a change in views on the dominant position that the private car enjoyed in infrastructure and planning in Sweden (Spolander 2014, 9). The potential of the bicycle for urban mobility was revitalized and has been described to match well with cities’ ambitions to boost the qualities of their urban centres (Spolander 2014, 9). Spolander (2014, 14, 15) notes that Swedish cycling politics since the early 2000s can be described as being driven by a consensus on the importance of cycling infrastructure, as the major precondition for increasing the popularity of cycling. Ever since the beginning of the 2000s, Swedish transport politics has, among other tasks, aimed at improving conditions for cycling, especially in urban areas. In at least five of the most recent transport politics resolutions, it is stated that the most important measure to increase the popularity of cycling is to improve infrastructure for cyclists, especially in terms of well-designed and properly maintained cycle paths. In addition, a number of strategies and action programmes have been issued by government bodies such as municipalities and the Swedish Transport Administration (Spolander 2014).

The overall national aim of Swedish transport policy is to ensure efficient transport that is sustainable over the long term for businesses and citizens all over the country (see gov. bill Prop 2008/09:93). This target consists of two parts, the functional target and the considerations target. The functional target seeks to create accessibility in terms of function, design and usability. This includes responding equally to women’s and men’s transport needs and to the improvement of children’s opportunities to use the transport system by themselves in a safe way, and that the preconditions for choosing public transport, walking and cycling as means of transport should improve. The second part, the considerations target, focuses on improved road safety, health and environmental performance. The considerations target states that no one should be seriously injured or killed in Swedish traffic (i.e. the road traffic safety project Vision Zero), which implies that the design, function and utilization of the transport system need to be adapted accordingly (Prop 2008/09:93).

4.1. The national cycling strategy

In the most recent initiative, the national cycling strategy, the explicit aim is to increase the prevalence of cycling and make it safer; this strategy reflects the government’s ambition for cycling and should aid the involved stakeholders to take “their responsibility” to meet this goal (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 3). The strategy functions as a platform for joint work, including following up and developing this task, with the overall aim of raising the status of cycling in general. The strategy builds on “broad and close dialogue” with municipalities, NGOs, governmental bodies and other stakeholders in order to meet the goal of transport solutions that are sustainable over the long term in areas including public transport, walking and cycling. Following the national aims referred to above, the strategy encompasses five prioritized areas: 1) emphasizing the role of cycling in community planning (plan for more cycling-friendly societies to increase cycling uptake); 2) focusing on different categories of cyclists (children, new groups of cyclists, immigrants, commuters, tourists), including educating and informing children about cycling regulations in school, and using the bicycle as a tool for integration into Swedish society; 3) creating functional infrastructure; 4) ensuring bicycle safety, 5) pursuing research and innovation (Näringsdepartementet 2017).

Many improvements designed to prioritize cycling have followed from the national cycling strategy so far: e.g. a new law clarifying that, even if there is a bike lane available, cyclists over 15 years old are allowed to use general traffic lanes with a speed limit of up to 50 km/h. As was the case with the previous law, if appropriate given the destination, cyclists are still allowed to use traffic lanes with higher speed limits. The strategy also investigated the possibility of cyclists being allowed to turn right at a red light; the implementation of more bike boxes (advanced stop lines); the building of cycling-adapted streets where cycling is the norm and cars may only be used on cyclists’ terms; and reducing the speed of motorized traffic in cities. Even though functional and user-friendly infrastructure constitutes a significant factor to boost cycling, so-called “soft measures” are also emphasized as an important tool to get more people cycling:

Another way to influence the choice of travel mode is to use soft measures such as information and communication about the benefits of cycling. Good society information and consumer information may be important for road-users to make informed choices, both with regards to means of travel and equipment. (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 19, translation by author)

Cycling is primarily regarded here as an individual choice, whereby the current negative trend in cycling uptake is explained with reference to infrastructure as well as a lack of information on the benefits of cycling. More information emphasizing that cycling is “good for health” and that more people “should use a cycle helmet” is said to be needed. Categories of people singled out as potential (future) cyclists are children and young people, along with asylum seekers and other foreign-born residents. However, “ambitions for increased cycling should be followed by measures to make cycling safer” (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 19). The fact that cycling is not considered an option by many road users is framed as a problem with making cycling attractive enough; thus, one of the greatest challenges identified is how to improve safety:

Cyclists belong to the group with the largest proportion of seriously injured road-users. Cycling should contribute to increased quality of life and sustainable social development, so one of the greatest challenges for increased cycling is to improve the level of safety for cyclists. (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 7, translation by author)

As noted, cycling safety remains one of the main challenges to increased and safe cycling; in fact, 45 percent of the 4,900 people seriously injured in Swedish traffic each year are cyclists (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 12). Usually, these injuries are sustained in single accidents, mainly due to poor road conditions, issues that can be prevented by improved maintenance. The suggested solution is to develop infrastructure that takes the needs of cyclists as its point of departure and cyclists should always – where at all possible – be separated from motor traffic.

In this representation of cycling futures, despite an emphasis on the importance of safe, cycle-friendly infrastructure to get more people to ride bikes, cycling continues to be considered an individual choice, and it is up to policy-makers to inform potential users of the benefits of cycling. On the one hand, the strategy suggests several important measures to support increased and safer cycling; on the other, apart from discussing the need to adapt the transport system in more sustainable ways, the strategy is formulated without challenging the current car-dominated system in any substantial way. This is somewhat surprising, since in The Cycling Safety Strategy 2014–2020³ (Trafikverket 2014) it is explicitly noted that “cyclists have been frequently forced to adapt themselves to a road transport system that is basically not adapted to their requirements” (Trafikverket 2014, 6). In the national cycling strategy, it is primarily cyclists themselves who are required to do things to enhance their own safety: namely, to “increase helmet use”, to “better follow the rules of traffic”, or to take “responsibility to insure themselves” (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 23). Such formulations position cyclists as less aware of their own safety and their obligation to follow traffic regulations compared to the implicit norm, the motorist, and thereby reproduce discourses about cyclists as displaying poor road behaviour and lack of knowledge about the rules of the road (Christmas et al. 2010; Aldred 2013; Balkmar 2018).

We also learn that since (the most) serious cycling injuries involve “motor vehicles”, there is a need to make speed adjustments to allow cyclists to feel “safe in traffic” and that it “matters greatly for cyclists’ safety how cars are being designed” (Näringsdepartementet 2017, 23). The actual drivers, including their responsibility for other road users’ safety and drivers’ role in contributing to more sustainable cycling futures, are not explicitly addressed. The shift in focus is striking here: while the category of cyclists should be informed of their obligations to follow traffic rules and asked to change their behaviour to care for their own safety, no information campaigns addressed to drivers are suggested. Instead, responsibility for cyclists’ safety is left with the car industry. It is the car industry that is expected to solve the problem of cyclist/motorist collisions through developing safer future cars (i.e. active safety systems, detectors and automatic brakes).

5. Advocacy responses

In its response to the national bicycle strategy, Cycling Sweden emphasizes the importance not only of “talking strategy”, but also of following up strategies and goals with “concrete decisions” (Elm et al. 2017). The strategy aims to contribute to a sustainable society with a high quality of life throughout the country. Amounts of up to an extra 100 million SEK (10 million Euros) have been allocated to achieve this. Since the state has a key role in making it possible for municipalities to improve cycling infrastructures, by changing regulations and forms of finance, according to Cycling Sweden, the plan contains very few concrete actions:

What we lack is a goal for this political will. What is it that the government wants to achieve? A reasonable ambition we think is to double the proportion of cyclists over a specific period of time – let’s say by the year 2025. Half of all car trips are under 5 km, so this is certainly not unreasonable. (Elm et al. 2017, translation by author)

Even though initiatives to improve cycling in cities have been undertaken (such as advanced stop lines, reduced speed for cars, the freedom for cyclists to choose to cycle among motor vehicles), the outcome of the strategy is still described as a “great disappointment” (Elm et al. 2017). Even though the strategy emphasizes the benefits of cycling and maps out what is needed in order to increase cycling levels, Cycling Sweden sees this as nothing but “lip service”. The important next step has not been taken – namely “how to increase cycling and who should be given the task to make sure it happens”.

The most important tool is of course resources. In addition to the 100 million SEK put in by the Government in 2016–2017 and already decided-upon agreements regarding the urban environment, no notification is given on how enough resources should be earmarked to succeed in increasing cycling levels. (Elm et al. 2017, translation by author)

This quote needs to be read against a study published by The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation that is often referred to, in which the government’s cycling politics is criticized, and which states that cycling infrastructure initiatives are severely underfunded (Spolander 2014). Out of the 522 billion SEK (51 billion Euros) budgeted for infrastructure between 2013 and 2025, less than one percent was allocated to cycling. Even less may actually end up financing future cycling projects, since the re-allocation of funds may reduce the actual amount assigned to cycling infrastructure even further. According to this report, most transport-related funds are allocated to improving, maintaining and updating current car-related infrastructure (Spolander 2014).

A related response to the bicycle strategy is Cycling Sweden’s Political Manifesto 2018 for increased cycling, in which the organization lays out its view on what measures are needed to encourage a more cycle-friendly society:

• Resources (without any real funding no improvements will take place: earmark funds for cycling);

• Space (more space for cycling will contribute to cleaner, more attractive and safer cities);

• Accessibility (cyclists needs to be ranked higher in the traffic system);

• Traffic safety (better cycling infrastructure and reduced speed for motor traffic).

In this manifesto, potential spaces for increased cycling are highlighted as particularly important; for example, restricting motor traffic around schools. The importance of prioritizing cyclists in the traffic hierarchy is also emphasized; for example, at intersections and with regard to current regulations, and there is also a demand for more funds for the police to monitor car drivers’ blood-alcohol levels, cell-phone use and speeding. It has even been suggested that Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) be implemented, to prevent motorists from speeding and to make it illegal to pass cyclists with less than a 150 cm margin. According to the manifesto, only a clear-cut cycling perspective can truly support sustainable cycling futures; namely, a vision that moves beyond traffic-safety measures.

Recently, a number of well-known Swedish cycling organizations – Cycling Sweden, Promoting Cycling Sweden, the Swedish cycling business, and Swedish bicycle haulage organizations – introduced a new active transport advocacy campaign called Moving Beyond Zero. This initiative is administered by the Swedish Traffic Safety Council for Active and Sustainable Mobility.⁴ The aim is to re-think Swedish road safety priorities and to “move Vision Zero into the future” (https://movingbeyondzero.com/moving-beyond-vision-zero/). In doing so, they emphasize the need to include active mobility as a strategy to improve people’s quality of life. What they suggest is to re-calibrate the Swedish policy, Vision Zero, from an intervention mainly geared towards car drivers’ safety, to a vision that emphasizes the importance of active movement.

Moving Beyond Zero is a Swedish initiative to make new strides within the field of traffic safety and active mobility. The platform is supported by the global community for Active Mobility. It is our ambition that the initiative will, with your help, make an impact around the world. (https://movingbeyondzero.com/about-us/)

As this quote indicates, Moving Beyond Zero is part of an imagined “global community” for Active Mobility, with the potential to become the next Swedish export within the fields of active mobility and traffic safety. On its website, the advocacy campaign administrator organisation explains that the current traffic hierarchy needs to be turned upside down: in its version, on top of this triangle are pedestrians, second come cyclists, third is public transport and at the bottom, cars (http://trafiksakerhetsradet.se/). According to the website, this initiative is necessary in order to improve safety for unprotected road users and increase the proportion of sustainable transport. It is implicit, but never explicit, that motorists are privileged in the current political landscape. Instead, the problem, and the solution to the problem, can be formulated like this:

If a road safety intervention has a detrimental effect on the comfort and attractiveness of cycling, or if it increases the perception of risk, the intervention should not be acceptable within the Safe Systems/Vision Zero conception of road safety. (https://movingbeyondzero.com/the-safe-systems-approach/)

In this quote, a pro-cycling perspective is suggested as the guiding principle for road safety interventions – if it hinders cycling, it should not be implemented. What this means is not further elaborated upon, however. Instead, how cycling contributes to improved public health is spelled out:

Even if a road safety intervention prevented 100% of all fatalities, it would still be ineffective as a public health measure if it reduced the number of cyclists by even a small amount. (https://movingbeyondzero.com/the-safe-systems-approach/)

As this quote indicates, safety and public health measures go hand in hand according to this initiative. By emphasizing how cycling contributes to public health, the Move beyond Zero campaign wants to change the perspective by making cycling more attractive to potential riders and through increased public health benefits.

In this representation of cycling futures, traffic safety and public health issues are placed at the centre of attention. What sticks out in these campaigns is how the established cycling advocacy organizations seek to become the voice of sustainable modes of transport. On the Swedish Traffic Safety Council for Active and Sustainable Mobility website it is stated that, even though motorized traffic poses the greatest risk to cyclists and pedestrians, the current debate portrays a “disproportionately large focus on confrontations between cyclists and pedestrians” (http://trafiksakerhetsradet.se/press/, translated by author). Therefore, they argue, there is a need for an organization that, “taking its point of departure from relevant knowledge and facts, and in a credible way, speaks for active and sustainable modes of transport” (http://trafiksakerhetsradet.se/press/, translation by author). One could assume that, from an advocacy perspective, there are voices that speak for cyclists and pedestrians in ways that are deemed less credible – perhaps extreme in some respects – and are thus considered less relevant.

6. Online cycling citizenship

Online bloggers are another group of activists who, grounded in real-life cycling experiences, are actively seeking to promote sustainable cycling. Recurring themes revolve around issues such as safety, traffic interactions, infrastructure, media coverage of cycling, negative attitudes towards cyclists, car-free lifestyles, etc.

One of the Swedish cycling bloggers who focus on cycling politics is Krister Isaksson,⁵ a traffic planner and cycling expert, blogging for Sweden’s largest bicycle magazine. Isaksson regularly posts about cycle planning, infrastructure and cycling-related policy, often with reference to his own cycling experiences in Stockholm. In one of his posts, commenting on the national cycling strategy, he notes that we already know what has to be done to get more people to ride bikes: namely, to separate cyclists and pedestrians, and build cycling-friendly infrastructure that is broad and accessible. Despite these insights, he argues, the focus is much more often directed towards changing people’s attitudes.

Changing people’s attitudes is more or less a waste of money and lost time. It is all about the fact that what we are trying to sell, what we are seeking to increase, needs to have a fundamental and expected quality – namely to meet basic requirements. Fun, colourful campaigns do not do that. But they are considerably cheaper than building and changing the transport system. Not so many conflicts either, there is no need to fight for something, or even prioritize. Then we can continue to pretend we are actually doing something; if people don’t understand, it’s their fault, kind of, sort of … (Isaksson 2017a, translated by author)

This quote is in line with the advocacy organizations outlined above, except that, in this quote, he makes cycling infrastructure a question of trustworthiness; non-cyclists are positioned as making a rational and informed choice, they do not cycle because the basic requirements are failing them. Furthermore, this quote indicates a need to engage in conflicts and the necessity to fight for cyclists’ rights and explicitly prioritize cycling above motoring. In his blog, he often shifts the perspective beyond the existing mobility paradigm to make his point:

Think, with car traffic we do exactly the opposite. We say it would be good if we drove fewer cars. And we build more and more roads. For billions, many billions. Over and over again … (Isaksson 2017a, translated by author)

In his blog, cycling is explicitly discussed in the context of the reproduction of mass motoring as the norm, mirroring “the power structures in the transport sector” (Isaksson 2016, translated by author).

In other cycling blogs, politics can be discussed in terms of modal conflicts and lack of cycle-friendly infrastructure (Cyklistbloggen.se). On Facebook cycling groups and in blog comments, it is common to read about motorists’ violent acts against cyclists while in traffic – including ways of avoiding and negotiating such violence (Balkmar 2018). In a recent post at Cyklistbloggen, Christian Gillinger and Jeroen Wolfers, two Stockholm-based cyclists who wish that “cycling should feel as safe and on equal terms with all other modes of transport” (https://www.cyklistbloggen.se/om-cyklistbloggen/), write about drivers’ road rage and their urge to teach cyclists a lesson (Cyklistbloggen 2018):

The feeling of having the right to something – in this case a free route ahead – is so strong it wins over the feeling that others around you are living people. Parents, siblings, friends. (https://www.cyklistbloggen.se/nar-fordonet-blir-ett-vapen/, translated by author)

Apart from taking its point of departure from everyday cycling experiences, this blog invites commentators to share their own experiences and ways of dealing with these problems.

Yet other blogs discuss cycling safety by taking an explicit systems approach to cyclists’ lack of safety. The Cycleville blog is hosted by Henrik Rådmark, a cyclist based in Stockholm since 2010, who writes on cycling and transportation with no particular aim other than “because I can and wants to” (http://www.cycleville.se/om-mig/). In several posts, he takes the example of lorry drivers’ blind spots to critique the normalization of cyclists’ lack of safety. In the posts, readers are urged to critically consider how it can be legal to drive despite the evident risks that “the system” pose to cyclists. He notes that, even though bicycle advocates would prefer to emphasize the positive aspects of cycling, he feels obliged to discuss how cyclists are killed on Swedish roads while riding their bikes (Cycleville.se 2017), (http://www.cycleville.se/2017/05/course-city-biking-hazardous/).

The way the system is set up today could get you killed just because you are riding a bike. So, when you get up on that ride of yours – and you should of course – make sure you make it. Because for now, no one else will. (http://www.cycleville.se/2017/05/course-city-biking-hazardous/)

In this quote, “the system” is constructed as potentially lethal to cyclists, a system that prioritizes motorized mobilities in planning and practice (cf. Koglin 2013; Koglin and Rye 2014), which in turn means that cyclists are left to take care of their own safety.

Blog posts like these exemplify how cyclists may situate their vulnerability and sense of unbelonging in dominant transport hierarchies, including how their laws and infrastructure are made to benefit cars and drivers (Nixon 2014, 100). They exemplify attempts to shift perspective on how street space should be utilized and by whom and, by doing so, position cycling as a conflictual practice (Furness 2010). As concerned citizens, their blog posts address current urban realities in ways that are different from those of most mainstream accounts (Batterbury 2003; Spinney 2010; Balkmar and Summerton 2017). Rather than avoiding or toning town a focus on conflicts and vulnerabilities, by explicitly emphasizing the need to critically consider the human cost of car-based automobility, their own cycling experiences make up the very standpoint from which these cyclists form their critique and hopes for a different society.

In this representation of cycling futures, cyclists themselves discuss and practise cycling in ways that can not only be linked to traffic safety, intermodal conflicts and a “political critique of motorization” (Aldred 2010, 35). More unconventionally, this representation also moves “beyond” a focus on the motor-car and intermodal conflicts, to centre on what life without a car might entail. Blogs like “Liv utan bil⁶” (Life without a car) or Facebook-based networks such as “Cykla med lastcykel⁷” (Ride cargo bikes, with more than 3,000 members) attract thousands of people, who participate in constructing a different, car-free life. These expressions of cycling citizenship are sites for potential cargo cyclists to learn, pose questions, and get advice on cargo biking. In the long run, networks like these exemplify nodes that play a part in establishing a cargo-bike culture in countries where these forms of velomobility used to be rare. It is not uncommon for online groups to arrange face-to-face meetings where cargo bikers can get together and offer potential users an opportunity to try their bikes. By practising their cycling citizenship, bloggers contribute to their local communities “from outside” the motor-car by imagining, and indeed also by practising, what is needed in order to shape safer and more cycling-friendly cycling futures (Aldred 2010, 35).

7. Comparative reflections and conclusions

In this section, I will reflect upon the three cases, which all seek to change existing mobility trends and what implications they may entail in terms of alternative imaginings for everyday cycling futures in Sweden.

According to the consultant firm Trivector and its report The bicycle and the cyclist, surrounding world and future (Trivector 2014), there are two possible scenarios for Swedish cycling in 20 to 30 years’ time. The first scenario builds on politics ’as usual‘, which would mean that the popularity of cycling would not increase in Sweden given the current politics and trends. The second scenario describes a more proactive cycling politics, including instruments and interventions that would make it easier for municipalities to increase cycling, while also restraining car traffic. Interventions that provide benefits for cycling at the expense of cars are identified as the most powerful interventions (Trivector 2014, i). While there is agreement on the benefits of cycling, the three cases studied illustrate how difficult it is to overcome the current problems, especially with regard to the position of the motor-car, and how to imagine a different (urban) mobility paradigm based primarily on non-motorized transport.

The concept of the cycling future imaginary has proven useful for mapping out the vast array of cycling futures represented in the material studied here. The cycling future imaginary demonstrates the relevance of studying the imaginary as a way of mapping out conventional and non-conventional representations of what it is perceived as being possible to change and achieve with regard to future cycling. The national strategy looks at first like a promising initiative to boost cycling beyond politics ’as usual‘, especially with its intentions of providing tools for municipalities and other key stakeholders to increase cycling. However, the strategy fails to move beyond the existing mobility paradigm or to explicitly call for interventions to restrict car driving. In this strategy, it is more likely to be cyclists who are urged to change rather than car-drivers. This in turn echoes the point made by Isaksson (2014) in previous studies; namely, how transport policy may be less able to “break with the existing mobility paradigm in any fundamental sense” due to path dependencies in policy and planning that “restrain the potential for radical change” (Isaksson 2014, 115).

Here, Cycling Sweden’s call for clear political leadership in order to achieve political goals on more sustainable cycling futures emphasizes the need to secure funds and planning practice with the mandate to actually challenge car-normative infrastructures by giving more space to bicycles (cf. Scholten Lindkvist et al. 2018, 4). By launching its initiative, Moving Beyond Zero, Cycling Sweden (together with other Swedish cycling organisations) also broadens the picture by emphasizing the benefits of cycling for public health and, by doing so, potentially mobilizes the political energy that is required to enact the necessary transformations to make a different future possible. As argued by Batterbury (2003), it is more likely that the promotion of cycling will succeed through active cooperation with relevant state and local authorities than by radical opposition. This is perhaps especially true in the context of Sweden, where social corporatism has historically allowed interest groups and social movement organizations influence in formal policy-making (even though it does not guarantee influence or power). However, by claiming to be the (only) organization that speaks in a relevant way (i.e. based on “relevant knowledge and facts”) for active and sustainable modes of transport, the organization (and indeed the legacy of social corporatism in Sweden) might potentially marginalize other important voices as less credible; for example, online bloggers and activists.

With regards to the theme of this special issue on sustainable cycling futures, there is potential in the way that blogs visualize a more radical vision, and how online cycling citizenship is performed to influence mobility transitions (Balkmar and Summerton 2017). While Cycling Sweden focuses primarily on policy-makers, politicians and the media to promote cycling, blogs are more critical of the extent to which mainstream media can accurately represent a cyclists’ perspective (Balkmar and Summerton 2017). Instead, these online spaces reach out to cyclists themselves to define their own situation, and use the forums to co-think alternative ways of practising sustainable mobility (including communicating with local authorities on bike-related issues). Compared to the Cycling Strategy and Cycling Sweden’s emphasis on the benefits of cycling, the blogs seem more able to articulate critical views of injustices in everyday cycling and car-dominant mobility systems. Here, cycling is not only promoted in terms of its contribution to health, time, cost-efficiency and the environment, but the bicycle also becomes a way of imagining alternative ways of living and, as in the cargo-bike blogs, in the longer run, imagining a different society beyond the car (Isaksson 2014, 126).

What is lacking is representations that draw upon what a more socially just and equal cycling future would be likely to entail and require. It should be noted that the National Cycling Strategy does address the importance of prioritizing groups such as children and young people, and people with immigrant backgrounds, as categories with potential for increased cycling uptake. This is indeed promising, especially for noting that not all cyclists are the same and that some bodies may be excluded from the current transport politics. However, issues related to inclusion and exclusion based on gender, race, ethnicity, class and their intersections, remain largely unaddressed in the context of Swedish cycling politics as far as the data studied here is concerned. While the focus here has been on the Swedish context, there are representations of cycling futures beyond Sweden that integrate these important perspectives in ways that can be learned from. As US activist group the untokening.org argues, there is a great risk in mobility advocacy that draws only upon the experiences of the most privileged, since marginalized group experiences also need to be addressed in order to achieve sustainable cycling futures. In Bicycle Justice and Urban Transformation (Golub et al. 2016), the contributors engage with questions around how to conceptualize and illustrate equitable cycling advocacy, policy and planning, including how to operationalize cycling justice and the “right to mobility” in practice. If future cycling politics are to succeed in enabling safe and increased cycling “for all”, a necessary next step is to focus beyond access to mobility, safety and personal risk as key challenges, it is also of importance to situate lived experiences of bicycling in the context of social inequalities related to gender, class and race (Golub et al. 2016, 5; Balkmar 2019). In addition, as Batterbury and Vandermeersch (2016) argue, sustainable cycling politics cannot be left with the official “experts” alone; such futures need to be built around different cycling experiences and communities, including those currently “invisible” to planners and policy-makers.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors Katerina, Dennis and Cosmin

for their careful and considered comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. By hands-on activism, I am referring to previous studies (Balkmar and Summerton 2017) where hands-on was defined by bicycle activists as “doings of things, which is different from discussing and talking”. Examples of this could be installing “ghost bikes” at the scene of a collision, protesting in the streets, doing street-level activism such as blocking traffic, or by physically improving cycle paths by removing blockages or repairing and re-painting them (Balkmar and Summerton 2017; Furness 2010).

2. http://svenskcykling.se/om-oss/.

3. The Cycling Safety Strategy 2014–2020 is a joint strategy formulated by researchers, cycling experts, cycling organizations, municipalities, insurance companies and the Swedish traffic organization.

4. http://trafiksakerhetsradet.se/.

5. Website: www.bicycling.se.

6. https://www.livutanbil.se/.

7. https://www.facebook.com/groups/cyklamedlastcykel/.