One of the undeniable advantages of active mobility, such as walking and (e-)cycling, is that it literally gets people moving. That provides an important benefit in countering our overly sedentary lifestyles. Moreover, research shows that you do not necessarily have to train intensively every day to enjoy health benefits. Trips that could easily be made on foot or by (e-)bike are ideally suited to that approach.

That is why quite a few policymakers and interest groups—cyclists’ organisations in particular—have jumped on the active-mobility bandwagon. In the mobility pyramid, walking and cycling are placed at the top, while individually motorized transport is placed at the very bottom, below public transport.

Revolutionary change

However, this mobility pyramid seems to us to be gradually becoming less accurate. New types of vehicles have meanwhile appeared on the market that are not (yet) included in the classical story of the pyramid. Electric scooters are a clear example. In addition, the pyramid does not take into account a revolutionary change in the mobility of all of us. Whereas in the past the car played a largely exclusive role and was used to go to work, the bakery, the church, and the sports club, we now use a much broader mobility mix. If I take the train, for example, I first have to walk for 20 minutes. Our tram line to the station has been suspended for four years, and after several thefts I no longer feel comfortable parking my bike at the station.

Moreover, the debate on active mobility is, in my opinion, going off the rails. Because of tunnel vision, important aspects of mobility are either completely overlooked or distorted. Take, for example, the Belgian federal survey on commuting 2024–2025, which identifies two important trends.

The relativity of increases and decreases

The use of (e)cycles for commuting has more than doubled over the past 20 years. In Belgium the modal share rose from 7.8% in 2005 to 16.5% in 2024. This means that in 2005, out of roughly 4.2 million working people, about 327,000 went to work by (e)cycle, compared to 825,000 in 2024. This amounts to a total increase of 498,000, or 24,900 per year during that period.

In addition, the survey reports that motorised private transport for commuting is steadily declining. Over a period of 20 years, the share of the car has shrunk from 66.8% in 2005 to 61.4% in 2024. Remarkably, in the analysis of the survey this is presented as a decline of 8%. The question is whether replacing the percentage-point change with a relative percentage change here is accidental.

In any case, this corresponds to an increase in the number of car commuters from 2.8 million to 3.07 million, a total of 264,400 more people, an increase of 13,220 per year. The so-called decline in car use for commuting appears somewhat different in light of this additional information. The relative share may indeed have declined, but the number of car commuters has in reality increased, even though that increase is smaller than the increase in (e)cycle commuters. All of this places the results of active mobility policy in Belgium in a somewhat different light.

Statistics vs. reality

In the analysis of this survey, active modes are often triumphantly highlighted, because the growing number of cyclists is obviously encouraging for corresponding policy. The question is to what extent this survey and its results provide an accurate insight into mobility and the problems associated with it.

For example, electric scooters are nowhere mentioned in the research, even though they are now clearly present in the traffic landscape. Under the heading “cycling,” no distinction is made between conventional and electric cycles; let alone that there would be any indication of the type of cycle used: folding bikes, cargo bikes, the widely stigmatized “fat bikes,” and so on. Speed pedelecs are also nowhere to be found in the statistics. Are they counted among bicycles or among mopeds, which, incidentally, also do not appear in the statistics?

Moreover, the results are based on exclusive use of the transport modes. If someone rides a folding bike to the station and continues to their workplace after arrival, that bicycle trip does not appear in the statistics.

In other words, these statistics make it possible to celebrate the doubling of cycle use over the past 20 years, which is clearly marked as a success of active mobility policy. At the same time, the increase in the number of motorists is completely overlooked. The report also obviously says nothing about traffic emissions, congestion, or traffic safety.

In the Top 500 of the worldwide congestion index (Inrix), 7 (!) Belgian cities appear, with Brussels in 18th place. According to the Flemish Environment Agency, road traffic still has the largest share of emissions from transport, “especially due to passenger cars.” That is precisely a problem that cannot be solved through an exclusive policy focus on active mobility.

Astonishing research results

In the Netherlands, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the ministry responsible for transport policy, has pushed the misuse of the concept of active mobility even further. Their conclusions in a study on the use of the electric cycle are simply astonishing. For example, they conclude that the rise of the electric cycle has advantages and disadvantages. “Both for physical and mental health and for the environment. This depends, among other things, on the distance travelled, the level of electric assistance, and the mode of transport that is replaced. If the electric bicycle replaces the car, this may have environmental benefits. For traffic safety there are mainly disadvantages. Think of more and more severe accidents.”

RIVM continues: “For young people, the use of the electric bicycle is expected to be negative for health. This is because the electric bicycle usually replaces the ordinary bicycle. As a result, young people may move less.” RIVM goes even further and believes that the electric bicycle should be discouraged for short distances. In addition, the Institute states that more research is needed to map the effects on health and the environment. “For example, the influence of the pedal assistance used on the physical effort required on an electric bicycle or how often the car is replaced.” Why does it not surprise us that RIVM does not seem to know that this research has already been carried out extensively, with across-the-board positive results for the electric cycle.

Policy going off the rails

This is active mobility policy that is going off the rails. Yes, people should be encouraged to engage in active mobility, but not at any price. The suggestion to discourage electric cycles for short distances is absurd, especially when it comes from a government institute. Would it not deliver much more for active mobility to discourage car drivers from using their cars for short distances? Strangely enough, this active mobility policy turns against sustainable means of transport, while an equally outspoken negative attitude toward individual car traffic is completely absent.

In the same vein, I also often hear the statement that electric scooters should not replace walking. Or that it cannot be the intention for our cities to become “flooded” with micro-cars. Active mobility policy is even pushed so far that electric cycles can only enter the market if they operate exclusively with pedal assistance. Put a throttle or button on that cycle allowing it to run on the motor alone and you can no longer bring the vehicle onto the market. The technical legislation on electric cycles is a very clear example of a violation of the principle of technological neutrality in favour of active mobility.

Can you imagine technical legislation that only allows manual cars and prevents cars with automatic transmissions from entering the market? Would anyone think of subjecting a 2-ton SUV to a completely different legal technical framework than smaller, lighter cars in order to keep them off the road? On the contrary, electric SUVs enjoy subsidies, while micro-cars in the L-category are denied those subsidies.

Putting things back into perspective

Electric cycles on which you do not necessarily have to pedal to receive assistance would give access to active and sustainable mobility to millions of people who are unable to pedal continuously due to a physical limitation. But policymakers, supported by quite a few interest groups, insist again and again that such a cycle is no longer a cycle and therefore does not belong in the picture of active mobility.

It is high time to restore the concept of active mobility to its proper proportions. It is a commendable policy option to encourage people to move more. It is an option that can be implemented through subsidy programmes, travel allowances, attractive leasing formulas, and so on. It is not an all-encompassing solution for all mobility problems, and it certainly should not be misused to keep other forms of sustainable transport—particularly light electric vehicles—off the road.

Annick Roetynck,
LEVA-EU Managing Director

---

LEV4Climate Study: Study on the potential of small and light electric vehicles

LEVA-EU has commissioned a study from the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) to investigate the potential of light electric vehicles in the fight against climate change. The findings are impressive, to say the least. The report on the study is available for download.