In the way we conduct a lot of so-called research into improved cycling, we actually support and consolidate car-centrism. Some examples:
• We ask for bike lanes, LTNs, improved overtaking rules. With this, we implicitly acknowledge that the default is “car infrastructure”, that cars will always be there.
• We focus on urban areas and “reduced” traffic, implicitly conceding that rural roads belong to cars, and thereby accepting that cars play a role – also in or around urban areas.
• We look at incentives to make cycling attractive to people, instead of via policies and laws removing private cars.
• We speak (and believe) the language introduced by the car lobby. “Saving lives”, “VRU”, “improve cycling safety”, etc. Thus, we normalise the car and its framing.
• We try to show with so many arguments that bikes are better for people than cars, but we do this in a world built for cars, where cars do not have to prove anything, therefore we must lose.

Why are we doing so?
• Funding steers. It’s hard to work without funding. Funding for “cycling” research often comes in small amounts, keeping us scrambling and busy with small incremental projects, preventing us from seeing the bigger picture.
• Our methods, KPIs, terminology are car-anchored and tacitly accepted as standard, therefore it is difficult to develop a new approach.
• We are used to being grateful for the crumbs that fall off the car-world’s table and worry to even ask for the bare minimum. Out of fear to not be taken seriously, we keep demands and expectations low.

What should we do instead?
Instead of focusing on cycling, we should focus on a world accessible to everyone, which can only mean a world without private cars – anywhere. No concessions. We should replace “Vision Zero” with “Vision for All”.