A new study shows that bike lanes alone are not enough. Join the Zero Call for safer streets

In cities around the world, bike lanes have become the most visible symbol of sustainable mobility and a sign that urban planners are finally taking people who travel without cars seriously. For many people, however, these lanes represent a far more complicated reality. Painted bike lanes can be more of a symbolic gesture than a real change. Even their regular users do not perceive them as safe.

A narrow strip of asphalt where a painted line separates cyclists from fast-moving cars does not, in reality, represent a true return of streets to people and their natural movement. This contradiction lies at the heart of the study Excluded by Design: Barriers to Human-Scale Travel Revealed Through Marginalised Groups’ Experiences of Streets, written by Jonathan Flower, John Parkin, and Ian Walker. Drawing on the experiences of people in Bristol who walk, cycle, or use mobility aids, the study reveals that even streets designed with “active travel” in mind still prioritize cars over people. The authors point out that the most vulnerable road users—children, seniors, wheelchair users, and cyclists—continue to perceive urban streets as spaces designed against their needs.

A Potemkin Measure

For streets to truly support walking and cycling, they must be functional, safe, and accessible—qualities that remain the exception rather than the rule. Bike lanes are often presented as a simple way to promote cycling in cities: low-cost measures that increase the number of cyclists and signal progress. However, the study shows that such infrastructure guarantees neither safety nor a sense of equality for its users. Even within bike lanes, cyclists feel endangered due to poor design, unclear rules, or the reckless behavior of drivers who fail to respect their protective function.

“Go Ride in the Woods”

The research places this issue within a broader cultural context. In countries such as the Netherlands or Denmark, the bicycle is considered a fully legitimate mode of transport, which is reflected in planning practices and public perception alike. In other countries, transport is still primarily associated with cars powered by fossil fuels, and this blind spot shapes street design, budgets, and political priorities. This also applies in our context. For many people, cycling belongs in the woods for recreation, not on city streets as a means of getting from point A to point B. In such an environment, bike lanes function more as an unwilling compromise—a narrow slice carved out of a system that remains focused on cars rather than on the safety and comfort of people.

“Cyclists shouldn’t have to dress like they’re going to the front line,” says Olympic champion Chris Boardman. Separated infrastructure gives them safety.

Everyday reality of mobility

The authors used so-called Q methodology, a technique that identifies groups of shared viewpoints rather than classifying participants by demographics or mode of transport. Forty-nine participants aged 18 to 81—including people with disabilities, parents, cyclists, and people with visual impairments—evaluated statements related to street design, regulations, and the behavior of road users. Follow-up interviews revealed why participants valued certain elements more than others and how their lived experiences shaped their perception of streets. The research thus provides robust insights into the everyday reality of urban mobility.

Safe and separated

A key finding of the study is the importance of separating cyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles. Participants consistently reported that sharing space with cars or other fast-moving modes of transport causes fear and anxiety, especially among people with limited mobility or orientation. Smooth surfaces and direct, continuous routes are also crucial, as uneven sidewalks and fragmented paths discourage cycling and wheelchair use as practical modes of transport. Participants further emphasized that the behavior of all road users is just as important as design itself—close passing by drivers, cyclists riding on sidewalks, or illegal parking on shared paths all reduce the safety of the most vulnerable. The study thus confirms earlier research showing that well-designed, separated infrastructure—together with appropriate regulations and safe behavior—is necessary to support cycling and reduce the risk of injuries. Vision Zero—the goal of zero traffic fatalities—has been achieved through this combination in Helsinki, Oslo, and the Italian city of Bologna.

Cars as the default

However, urban planning in many cities has prioritized motor vehicles since the 1960s. Even then, Colin Buchanan’s report Traffic in Towns warned of traffic congestion, pollution, and the decline in urban environmental quality. Nevertheless, the following decades were dominated by traffic engineering that created hostile environments for anyone not sitting in a car. Even contemporary approaches such as shared spaces—although they bring measurable safety and health benefits—are implemented inconsistently and remain politically contested.

Different road users have different needs

The study’s findings show that painting lanes alone is not enough. Streets that genuinely support cycling require an integrated approach that treats design, speed reduction, and consistent enforcement of rules as interconnected factors. Physical separation, smooth and direct routes, and enforcement are essential foundations, but they must be accompanied by a cultural shift that recognizes cyclists as legitimate users of streets. Political will and support are just as crucial—from reallocating space and funding to actively promoting streets designed at a human scale.

A Czech perspective on bike lanes

The findings from Bristol are also confirmed by AutoMat’s unique research within the Czech context. According to more than 1,200 respondents, bike lanes here are not perceived as measures that help cyclists feel safe. The problem with Czech bike lanes often lies in the fact that they run alongside rows of parked cars, and their insufficient width does not allow cyclists to react to so-called dooring. Moreover, within bike lanes, the mandatory 1.5-meter passing distance for drivers overtaking cyclists does not apply.

We must listen to the most vulnerable

The British study also highlights the importance of including marginalized voices in planning decisions. Cyclists are not a homogeneous group: children, older people, experienced riders, and recreational cyclists face different barriers. Listening to those most affected by transport restrictions or dangerous infrastructure ensures that changes to infrastructure do not merely symbolize progress, but actually deliver it.

Ultimately, Excluded by Design calls for a holistic approach to streets that goes beyond simply adding bike lanes. Streets should be places where people of all abilities can move safely and fully participate in urban life. For cycling to thrive as a normal mode of transport, cities must design streets that prioritize people’s movement over vehicle throughput. If you want this too, add your signature to Call Zero and send a clear message to politicians that you need safe mobility in the city.

Do you like what we do at AutoMat? Support us and feed AutoMat with any amount! Thank you!