Mandatory helmets? A bike lane requirement would be much smarter
Bikes get more people out of cars than public transportation. So why does public transportation get more funding than bikes?
Published on June 12, 2025
Carlo van de Weijer has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Eindhoven University of Technology and a PhD degree with honors from Graz University of Technology. He has broad experience in the automotive industry. Currently, he is the Managing Director of the Eindhoven AI System Institute (EAISI).
It's time to stir things up in a seemingly happy marriage: that between public transport and bikes in the Netherlands. For years, they have been presented as the ideal couple in the battle against cars, perfectly complementing each other in sustainable mobility. And yes, at the national and regional levels, that image is accurate. Think of a train journey combined with a public transport bicycle for the last leg. However, locally and in the suburbs, public transportation and bicycles are often direct competitors. In that battle, the bicycle is rarely the equal partner it should be. Public transport consumes a disproportionate amount of public mobility resources, while every dollar spent on, in, or around a bicycle path yields much more.
Financial advantage
There is reason to reconsider how we distribute means of mobility. The classic arguments in favor of public transport - that it is safer and cleaner than cars - will soon no longer hold water. This removes an essential part of the moral and financial advantage that public transport has enjoyed for years. What remains is the pressing problem of limited mobility space.
If we truly want to reduce car traffic to alleviate this space problem, we are left with two alternatives: public transportation and cycling. Both are important, but deserve a fair comparison. While public transport structurally consumes the largest share of the mobility budget, the bicycle proves time and again that it can get more people out of their cars for a fraction of that cost. Policy disproportionately favors public transportation, while the bicycle demonstrably delivers more benefits. This is neither economically nor socially sustainable.
In addition to the space issue, there is another equally urgent reason to invest heavily in cycling: safety. Cyclists are increasingly the victims of serious traffic accidents. While traffic as a whole has become safer, cyclists have been left behind—their share of traffic casualties is rising. That alone justifies a change of policy. Not only in terms of attention, but above all in terms of investment.
Mandatory bike lanes
The Road Safety Coalition – a partnership between the ANWB, Fietsersbond, RAI Vereniging, and others – has recently called for two clear priorities: smart enforcement and significantly improved cycling infrastructure. At the same time, the public debate focuses mainly on compulsory helmet use – an easy distraction that places the responsibility on the victim. It is high time for a different kind of obligation: compulsory cycle paths. More, wider, separate cycle paths. Conflict-free intersections. Infrastructure that aligns with current speeds and user needs.
Yet bicycles are rarely given priority in plans or investments. They usually remain a secondary mode of transport, as shared bikes or an extension of public transport. And this even though ordinary, privately owned bicycles – used monomodally – often achieve more at the local level than the entire public transport system combined. This imbalance is not only a missed opportunity but downright irrational. Meanwhile, pressure on our bike paths is only increasing. Electric bikes have broadened and accelerated their use. Young people, older people, commuters, people with disabilities – everyone cycles. Just look at all the cargo bikes, tricycles, hand bikes, and electric wheelchairs. The bike path has become the most inclusive public space in our mobility system. That inclusivity requires more than just good infrastructure. Think of cycling lessons for newcomers, safe parking facilities, and shower facilities at workplaces.
The biggest problem is that there is simply too little cycling infrastructure. And what does exist is often of poor quality or unsafe. So here is a concrete proposal. Add one meter of bike lane per resident to the network. That amounts to 17,484 kilometers. The costs are manageable, comparable to what we spend annually on public transportation subsidies or the leading road network. However, the social benefits are often many times greater: fewer accidents, healthier individuals, lower healthcare costs, and increased labor productivity.
Empty buses
The bicycle deserves more than applause. No other form of mobility gets people out of their cars so effectively, quietly, healthily, and affordably. Every municipality, region, and province should rethink how mobility resources are allocated. And time and again, the answer is confronting. Most of the budget is allocated to public transportation, while the bicycle, with a fraction of that, delivers significantly more. This cannot be justified rationally. For the price of one kilometer of rail, you can build a whole city full of safe bike paths. We subsidize empty city buses, but forget about the crowded bike paths.
The Netherlands is a cycling country, but mainly in reputation, not in the budget. And even that reputation is not a given. It has to be earned. Not with leaflets or campaigns, but with investments in concrete and asphalt. More bike paths, fewer casualties, more people out of their cars.
Is this stirring up trouble in a good marriage? Perhaps. But only because the bicycle does not have to be a second-class partner in a relationship that deserves equality.
This column previously appeared in the FD and has been republished with permission.