Cited by 1,591Urban Transport and AccessibilityTransportation Planning and Optimizationtransportation and logistics systems

Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany

Pucher, John, Buehler, Ralph·2008·Transport Reviews

Abstract

This article shows how the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made bicycling a safe, convenient and practical way to get around their cities. The analysis relies on national aggregate data as well as case studies of large and small cities in each country. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro‐bike policies and programmes, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking. Moreover, strict land‐use policies foster compact, mixed‐use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multi‐faceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling. For comparison, the article portrays the marginal status of cycling in the UK and the USA, where only about 1% of trips are by bike.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01441640701806612

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Pucher, John
Venue
Transport Reviews
Published
2008-07
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
495-528
ISSN
  • 0144-1647 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5327
OpenAlex
W2164133872
Cited by
1,591
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 134 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 122 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 119 · 2014: 94 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 75
FWCI
135.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Transport Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › transportation and logistics systems
Keywords
cycling promotion, cycling infrastructure, traffic calming, bicycle parking, public transport integration, road safety education, motor vehicle tax, parking restrictions, land use policy, urban travel behavior, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review