Cycling Research Board Annual Meeting

Poland has high levels of bicycle ownership — according to GUS data (2021) around 79% of households own at least one bicycle and up to 80% of adults report cycling occasionally, and in recent surveys, around 89 % of respondents report owning a bike, suggesting that material capacity for cycling is widespread in Poland [1,2]. Yet everyday cycling remains marginal within urban mobility systems.
This paradox raises a critical question: how can cycling be materially present yet politically and culturally subordinate — and what forms of unused potential does this condition conceal?

In Wroclaw — a city that around a decade ago was considered one of Poland’s leaders in cycling infrastructure development, but has since lost this pioneering position — visible investments coexist with persistent structural imbalances. Although the city recently reappeared relatively high in the Copenhagenize Index ranking (Copenhagenize Design Company) [3], such external recognition does not fully capture the more complex local reality. It does not necessarily reflect concerns raised by NGOs and cycling advocates, the depth of political debate, or the degree of alignment between strategic commitments and their implementation [4–7]. While Wroclaw provides the primary lens of analysis, the patterns observed here resonate with broader dynamics present across many Polish cities and, potentially, other Central and Eastern European contexts — contexts where significant material capacity for cycling exists, yet remains only partially activated. Recent mobility data from Wroclaw illustrate this imbalance clearly: motorised mobility accounts for nearly 40% of daily trips (39.8%) and increased by 26% between 2018 and 2024, while bicycle mobility represents less than 5% (4.7%) and declined by around 2% over the same period, alongside negative dynamics in public transport use — despite the construction of new cycling corridors and tram–bus routes during these years [5–7].

Cycling is widely framed, by both citizens and decision-makers, as leisure rather than legitimate everyday transport. This perception becomes particularly visible on weekends, when cycling infrastructure — especially along recreational corridors such as riverside routes — is intensively used by families and leisure riders. At the same time, many residents transport bicycles by car to regional cycling paths, national parks, or mountainous areas, reinforcing associations of cycling with nature and recreation rather than daily mobility. National surveys also reflect that recreational riding through parks and non-street environments dominates cycling practices, with over half of respondents identifying leisure as their primary motivation [1]. The typology of commonly used bicycles further suggests predominantly recreational use (the national survey indicates 1/3 cyclists using mountain bikes) [1]. Seasonality deepens this pattern: limited winter maintenance of cycling infrastructure and a significant decrease in winter cycling volumes reflect a perception of cycling as a fair-weather activity rather than a year-round transport mode. Nationwide data confirm that most cyclists ride primarily in warmer months, reinforcing the perception of cycling as a seasonal activity [1].

I propose the concept of “infrastructural hypocrisy” to describe the tension between symbolic endorsement of cycling and the material reproduction of automobility. Rather than evaluating progress primarily through the implementation of planned investments or the number of kilometres of cycling paths constructed, this approach seeks to capture the problem in a more complex and systemic way. It shifts attention from quantitative expansion to qualitative, relational, and institutional dimensions of how cycling is embedded — or marginalised — within urban space, and how this marginalisation constrains its transformative potential.

This imbalance becomes visible in:

• the accessibility and spread of car parking compared to bicycle parking (for example, often producing everyday situations in which finding a legal parking space for a bicycle in the city centre is more difficult than parking a car);
• the quantity, typology, quality, and standards-compliance [8] of cycling infrastructure within both street design and new housing, commercial, and cultural developments;
• the factual priorities and compromises embedded in street design decisions;
• the continuity, usability, and maintenance prioritisation of cycling networks, including winter service standards;
• the absence of systemic integration despite strategic declarations;
• the educational gap reflected in the marginal treatment of cycling as a mobility mode and cycling infrastructure planning within urban planning curricula;
• etc.

Importantly, the typology and quality of implemented solutions — including their compliance (or in some cases lack thereof) with existing standards and recommendations — often unconsciously reveal deeper priorities. They reflect prevailing perceptions of cycling not as a full-fledged and equal transport mode, but as marginal or recreational, and of cyclists as secondary users of public space. In one study, nearly 59 % of cyclists assessed local infrastructure quality as poor or very poor, suggesting a qualitative gap beyond mere kilometres of paths [1].

Rather than interpreting these patterns as a simple implementation deficit, this contribution invites discussion of infrastructural hypocrisy as a structural condition shaping mobility transitions in post-socialist contexts, where the material foundations for change may already exist but remain politically and culturally underutilised.

The session will explore four open questions:

1. How do cultural perceptions of cycling shape infrastructural investment and spatial justice?
2. Can high bicycle ownership be understood as latent but unused transformative capacity?
3. How can infrastructural hypocrisy be analytically assessed beyond conventional infrastructure metrics?
4. How might this phenomenon be addressed in policy, planning education, and governance, and what broader lessons might it offer in global debates on cycling transitions?

By situating Wroclaw as both a specific case and a representative example of wider regional dynamics, this contribution invites interdisciplinary dialogue on how cultural narratives, institutional practices, and street design interact to shape unrealised mobility potential.

1. Raport 2025: Jak Polacy jeżdżą na rowerach? | CentrumRowerowe.pl Available online: https://www.centrumrowerowe.pl/blog/raport-2025-jak-polacy-jezdza-na-rowerach/.
2. Radziwonowski, G. Ilu właściwie jeździ ludzi na rowerze w Polsce? Available online: https://magazynbike.pl/2025/09/01/ilu-jezdzi-ludzi-na-rowerze-w-polsce/.
3. Wroclaw – Copenhagenize index Available online: https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/index.php/project/wroclaw/.
4. Historia działań prorowerowych Available online: https://rowerowy.wroclaw.pl/historia-dzialan-prorowerowych/.
5. Wrocław Się Liczy - Kompleksowe Badania Ruchu - Wrocław i Otoczenie 2024 Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/wroclaw-sie-liczy-kompleksowe-badania-ruchu-wroclaw-i-otoczenie-2024/273800383.
6. Kompleksowe Badania Ruchu We Wrocławiu i Otoczeniu - KBR 2024 - Kompleksowe Badania Ruchu - Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej Urzędu Miejskiego Wrocławia Available online: https://bip.um.wroc.pl/artykul/565/70659/kompleksowe-badania-ruchu-we-wroclawiu-i-otoczeniu-kbr-2024.
7. Perzanowski, M. Bez auta we Wrocławiu ani rusz. Niechętnie jeździmy rowerem, komunikacją – bez zmian. Znamy wyniki Kompleksowego Badania Ruchu 2024 Available online: https://gazetawroclawska.pl/bez-auta-we-wroclawiu-ani-rusz-niechetnie-jezdzimy-rowerem-komunikacja-bez-zmian-znamy-wyniki-kompleksowego-badania-ruchu-2024/ar/c1p2-27053231.
8. Standardy Techniczne Infrastruktury Rowerowej Available online: https://www.irt.wroc.pl/pliki/standardy_techniczne_infrastruktury_rowerowej_2021/index.html.