Urban Cycling as an Indicator of Socio-Economic Innovation and Sustainable Transport

The analysis of the socio-economic aspects of cycling in urban transport involves numerous studies describing the motivations for using the bicycle in daily commuting. This research trend contains a number of publications presenting the results of studies referring to the behaviour of bicycle path users as depending on socio-demographic features, but also on the activity of social movements and non-governmental organisations focusing on improving the quality of bicycle transport in cities and shaping cities’ cycling policies.

On their introduction, bicycles were seen as recreational gear for the better-off part of society. Only after a certain period did the working class make them into a means of transport used to commute to work (Rodrigue et al. 2013). Nowadays, there is an ample body of research on the social perception of the bicycle as a means of transport, especially in daily commuting. One of the directions of study in this trend deals with factors that persuade residents to use the bicycle in urban transport. In the conducted research it was determined that the state of the cycling infrastructure has a far-reaching impact on the choice of the bicycle as a means of commuting to work (Gatersleben, Appleton 2007). Of particular importance is the manner in which bicycle paths are organised – they ought to be constructionally separated from pedestrian traffic (Wardman et al. 2007), especially in central parts of cities (Heesch et al. 2015). The increased number of bicycle paths separated from other road users stimulates the use of the bicycle (Dill 2009). The existence of a network of bicycle paths in the urban transport infrastructure is a factor encouraging residents to use the bicycle as a means of transport (Buehler, Pucher 2012; Frondel, Vance 2017) and to undertake physical activity (Parker et al. 2013). However, for bicycle users it is more important that the paths lead to specific destinations than that they cover a lengthy distance (Gonzalo-Orden et al. 2014). Residents also reflect upon the availability of well-organised parking spaces where bicycles can be safely left after travelling a certain distance when considering using the bicycle as a means of transport (Martens 2007).

Another direction involves analysing the perception of cycling infrastructure and decisions to use the bicycle for commuting in the context of socio-demographic features of city residents and the perception of safety (Piatkowski, Marshall 2015). Authors of studies in this field point to the fact that roads which guarantee a high level of safety encourage residents to use bicycles (Van Holle et al. 2014). The results of the said studies conducted among the lower-income population and national and ethnic minorities on the basis of wealth and the model of spending free time clearly specify the preferences of those groups and highlight the need to invest in this type of infrastructure in areas they inhabit (Lusk et al. 2017), also in order to improve road safety in those districts (Sallis et al. 2013). Lastly, not without merit is the issue of fuel price that can also urge inhabitants to choose the bicycle as a means of transport much cheaper to operate in urban areas (Frondel, Vance 2017; Stephenson et al. 2018).

A significant role in the broadly-understood promotion of cycling is played by non-governmental organisations focusing on cyclists’ problems in the city, which constitutes another direction of study in this trend. Apart from their basic activity, associations are starting to formulate the urban cycling policy in a more formalised manner, e.g. by leading to the creation of special posts of “cycling officers” (Spinney 2010) or by including their representatives in planning groups preparing solutions for cyclists in a given city (Aichinger, Reinbacher 2010). As exemplified around the world, organisations of this kind may also be successfully co-responsible for the operation of bicycle-sharing systems (Nakamura, Abe 2014). Therefore, new elements of cycling infrastructure should not be introduced without consulting its future users. The controversial project of a bicycle lane in the Brazilian city of Curitiba, heavily criticised by cyclists, expressly indicated the need to subject the process of designing bicycle paths to civic cooperation (Duarte et al. 2014).

As in the matter of cycling safety, the benefits of daily bicycle use should become an element of the ecological education of city-dwellers. Another direction of study opens in this context: the construction of cities’ cycling policies. Authorities should encourage using the bicycle as a daily means of transport by applying a number of tools regulated in strategic documents, i.e. cycling policies of individual cities (Pucher et al. 2010). However, they should take into account local preconditions (Aldred, Jungnickel 2014). The introduced cycling policies promoting the development of bicycle transport should primarily attempt to decrease car use in daily commuting (Hatfield, Boufous 2016).

Cycling is a challenge for the safety of urban transport. In accordance with road traffic regulations in effect in numerous countries, cyclists have the same rights and obligations in traffic as other road users. As a result of insufficiently developed transport infrastructure ensuring the safety of all road users, cyclists very often find themselves in a situation where they have to share the same road with pedestrians or motor vehicles which are often large and reach much higher velocities. The issues of cyclists’ safety in road traffic are one of the trends in the research on cycling in urban transport. This encompasses research on cyclists’ interactions with other road users, studies describing the relationship between the state of infrastructure and cyclist behaviour and the number of accidents, and those tackling the motivations and effectiveness of safety measures in road traffic.

The first direction of study analysed in a vast array of publications refers to cyclists’ interactions with other road users in the context of different infrastructural solutions, most often in relation to potential conflict situations (Silvano et al. 2016; Stipancic et al. 2016; Apasnore et al. 2017; Pokorny et al. 2018) and those resulting in accidents (Pokorny et al. 2017; Lopez et al. 2017). Research also covers the relationship between factors contributing to cyclists’ collisions with vehicles and the severity of their injuries (Kim et al. 2007). It is estimated that a large-scale ‘social switch’ from a car to a bicycle in everyday transport may drastically increase the number of accidents and injured cyclists (Nilsson et al. 2017). The best way to limit or eliminate conflicts is to delineate limited speed zones and increase the number of bicycle paths. Such solutions are extremely beneficial to cycling safety (Schepers et al. 2017). According to the published research results (Kondo et al. 2018), when bicycle paths are constructed, especially in dangerous spots, it significantly reduces the number of road accidents and the risk of their occurrence (Pulugurtha, Thakur 2015). Cyclists are exposed to the highest risk on roads where traffic is intensive and speeds reached by drivers of other vehicles are very high. Therefore, it is important that such places receive separate cycling infrastructure in the first place (Rossetti et al. 2018). One of the crucial elements in analysing accidents involving cyclists is the search for their causes. These include: the manner of driving, especially speed, but also the state and organisation of the road infrastructure (Bíl et al. 2010), including its lighting which guarantees sufficient visibility to all traffic participants (Chen, Shen 2016). Research indicates that the speed of participating vehicles and insufficient road lighting are among the main reasons of fatal accidents (Kim et al. 2007).

A different direction of study refers to the relationship between safety and the state of cycling infrastructure and cyclists’ behaviour. The published research results indicate that the bicycle path’s technical state also affects the behaviour of its users and their propensity to take greater risk (Vansteenkiste et al. 2014; Vansteenkiste et al. 2017). Studies in this scope also covered the impact of the width of bicycle paths on the level of cycling safety. It was shown that broader paths are conducive to the development of hazards by allowing users to try more risky manoeuvres (Xu et al. 2016). What is also analysed here is publications regarding the impact of cyclists’ behaviour on safety. Numerous papers demonstrate that cyclists are more cautious and reduce speed on paths shared with pedestrians; on paths delimited only for bicycles they travel at higher speeds, while observing the same level of safety (Boufous et al. 2018). Conflict between cyclists and other road users may therefore result from the organisation of infrastructure and occur depending on road width, designated direction of traffic (Methorst et al. 2017), as well as whether space is shared with pedestrians (van der Horst et al. 2014).

Together with the state and organisation of cycling infrastructure, the methods used to prevent accidents are also a pivotal factor for maintaining cycling safety. They constitute the last direction in the research trend concerned with safety (Fig. 1). A broad range of scientific papers deals with the issue of motivation and dependencies related to cyclists’ use of helmets. The conducted research indicates that one’s need for ensuring safety results primarily from education at home (Zavareh et al. 2018), but also from their education level (Porter et al. 2016), as factors affecting the decision to use that form of protection. The analysis of the published studies also indicates that cyclists without helmets have a greater tendency to engage in hazardous situations in traffic than helmet users (Bambach et al. 2013). As shown in the research, helmet use is also more characteristic of people using bicycles for sports and recreational purposes than of those who cycle daily at short distances (Popa et al. 2016), which again confirms the need for education in this scope. Legal regulations play a significant role in the promotion of helmets as elements of improving cyclist safety: such rules have real power to lead to increased use of this form of protection among cyclists (Kraemer 2016). Helmets may also be found in certain bicycle-sharing systems, which often results precisely from cycling regulations in force in a given region. However, research carried out in areas where systems boast such extended offer indicates that helmet use is higher among cyclists using their private bicycles (Zanotto, Winters 2017). It also compares the share of bicycle-sharing system users and private bicycle users in the number of road accidents: accident risk levels are lower for residents using shared bicycles (Fishman, Schepers 2016).

Literature studies show that cycling safety issues are of key importance and result from many factors, both infrastructural and related to the mentality and perception of safety in traffic. Therefore, the research on cyclists’ safety should cover their behaviour, the state of infrastructure, the methods of implementing city policies for the expansion of cycling infrastructure, as well as actions promoting safe cycling and educating cyclists in this respect.

One of the new, innovative elements of the cycling infrastructure is the bicycle-sharing system which is introduced in a growing number of cities each year. This is also reflected in research on the functioning of the bicycle in urban transport. Such a system operates on simple principles whereby bicycles are rented in self-service in different parts of the urban space, often with the help of special docking stations equipped with a customer service terminal (Midgley 2009; Shaheen et al. 2010). The intended use of shared bicycles is usually directed at offering bicycles for rent for short periods and distances. The administrators of bicycle-sharing systems reach that objective through adequately profiling the price list: a limited time of free rental encourages the quick return of the bicycle (Fishman et al. 2013; Ricci 2015). Thus, the system allows for a constant turnover of bicycles between stations and enables more users to access them.

The trend referring to the bicycle-sharing system includes studies discussing the benefits resulting from the introduction of the system in cities. They indicate that those advantages may be considered from many viewpoints, such as the economic, social or environmental. The literature query proves that economic benefits provided by the bicycle-sharing system are primarily related to the reduction of travel time, especially in large agglomerations (Bullock et al. 2017). The public bicycle, due to zero emissions and its shared nature, is perceived as one of sustainable means of urban transport (Zhang et al. 2015). Some rental companies, through liaison with other urban means of transport (e.g. buses, trams, light rail), considerably improve transport efficiency (Yang et al. 2018), chiefly in central parts of cities (Levy et al. 2017). Bicycle-sharing systems also contribute to the reduction of transport congestion (Hamilton, Wichman 2018) owing to their implementation into the urban multi-modal transport system (Wang, Zhou 2017). Research confirms that during the shut-down of a part of a municipal public transport network the use of the public bicycle increases (Saberi et al. 2018), which clearly shows that it may be a real alternative for the traditional forms of collective transport. Published research results prove that the very fact of placing bicycle rental stations in urban space may have a positive impact on the decision to commute to work daily using that means of transport (Cole-Hunter et al. 2015).

Another important aspect of interest to researchers is the rebalancing problem understood as external interference in the system’s automated functioning model. The issue of rebalancing is a further direction of study regarding the bicycle-sharing system. The said matter is important for the system’s functioning because both an empty and full docking station limits the use of this means of transport, which is coupled with rising user discouragement with the system. The problem of the shortage of bicycles and station congestion is also considered in the context of how such situations are perceived by users and how they affect the subsequent use of the system. The solution most frequently proposed by scholars is to develop an algorithm that would calculate the most time- and cost-effective system for redistributing bicycles between stations (Schuijbroek et al. 2017) depending on the number of operator’s vehicles and the daily number of interventions (Bulhões et al. 2018). As shown in numerous examples, the problem may also be solved by analysing collected data regarding the scale of bicycle use in individual stations (Caggiani et al. 2018), as well as by decreasing the rental costs for users who return bicycles at less popular stations (Fricker, Gast 2016; Haider et al. 2018). A different solution may consist in implementing a system based on booking spots for returning bicycles rented in the system (Kaspi et al. 2014, 2016); such change would drastically reduce the system’s unpredictability stemming from a lack of information about the station which is the user’s destination. It would also allow users to more precisely determine the availability of bicycles and free space for their return at the station.

A different direction of study focuses on the factors determining the functioning of the bicycle system. There are numerous determinants which dictate whether a bicycle-sharing system succeeds or fails. Weather is a pivotal factor in determining the system’s functioning: due to a number of elements, e.g. rainfall (Zhao et al. 2018) or uncomfortable air temperature, it may have an adverse impact on the number of bicycle rentals (Kim 2018). The popularity of public bicycles and the length of their use are also influenced by the number of available connections with other forms of urban transport (McBain, Caulfield 2017). It is also crucial to develop the network in order to provide access to bicycles to a growing number of users; however, not all scholars share this view (De Chardon et al. 2017), indicating a lack of relationship between the popularity of the bicycle system and the number of stations.

Researchers’ attention is also directed at the method of funding the system, which constitutes another direction of study within this trend. In most cases, local governments are responsible for the introduction and maintenance of public bicycles in cities. The words ‘municipal’ or ‘public’ included in the names of systems (in Poland) refer to the main source of funding by indicating who is responsible for the system. Another method is to co-finance the systems through advertising companies, which helps the city reach a lower cost of servicing the system in return for an opportunity to earn on advertising space. Advertising companies Jcdecaux and Clear Channel as well as Barclays have played a pivotal role in the development of bicycle-sharing systems in Europe – motivated by profit they have substantially popularised this form of transport (Parkes et al. 2013). Shared bicycles and bicycle stations are attractive for advertisements: the stations are visible and numerous in the city space, and the constantly moving bicycles allow the advertisement to reach a wide range of customers (Schoner et al. 2012). In this case, however, it is worth bearing in mind the potential risk of a decrease in the quality of bicycle rental service for the benefit of the advertising function (DeMaio 2009). Alongside the total income from bicycle rentals and the inflows from advertisements and local government subsidies, the sponsoring model is one of the sources of funding bicycle-sharing systems (Midgley 2011). It constitutes a significant subsidy for the development of the urban bicycle system and at the same time it encourages customers and stakeholders of the sponsor to switch from a car to a bicycle (Cohen, Kietzmann 2014). The said model takes many forms: it may consist in supporting the whole system of particular stations (Parkes et al. 2013).

It is worth noting that bicycle systems are being established in a growing number of cities, becoming a new alternative for the traditional forms of public transport, i.e. bus, tram, rail and others. Each subsequent generation of the bicycle-sharing system creates new possibilities and provides new challenges for researchers. The literature study conducted by the author allowed for an indication of several directions of study related to the bicycle-sharing system (Fig. 1), each of which provides opportunities to conduct more in-depth research. In the light of the intensive development of bicycle transport, one may assert that the immediate future will see a rise of new, additional directions of study important for the representatives of geographic, social, technical and economic sciences.