Tag Archive: Active Mobility

  1. Active Mobility Policy Is Going Off the Rails

    Comments Off on Active Mobility Policy Is Going Off the Rails

    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.

  2. The mobility pyramid concept supports the future of sustainable urban transport

    Comments Off on The mobility pyramid concept supports the future of sustainable urban transport

    Source: Tomorrow.city

    EIT Urban Mobility has published the second edition of its Costs and Benefits of the Urban Mobility Transition study, the findings of which support the logic of the mobility pyramid, where active mobility and public transport are prioritised over private motorised transport, for optimum environmental and financial returns. The study was developed in conjunction with consultancy firm TRT Trasporti e Territorio.

    The mobility pyramid concept is based on that of the familiar food pyramid, and was originally conceived by Danish architecture company Jaja. The pyramid format is intended to encourage people to make more choices from the base and lower parts of the pyramid structure, and the least from the top, with Jaja stating simply that “It’s good for you, your wallet and the environment.”

    The position of different transport modes in the pyramid is a result of ranking based on their efficiency, impact on the environment, and their societal benefits.

    • Active mobility: This forms the pyramid’s base section, with net-zero emissions, and should be the most dominant mode for sustainable transport networks and systems.
    • Public transport: This forms the mid-section of the pyramid, and is an efficient, scalable mode enabling people to travel further and quicker in scenarios where active mobility is not feasible. EIT Urban Mobility emphasises that public transport systems should be “inclusive and accessible, available to all.”
    • Private motorised transport: The tip of the pyramid represents the least sustainable, but often most ubiquitous mode of transport, due to car-focused urban planning.

    The EIT Urban Mobility study’s findings support the hierarchy of the pyramid, demonstrating that active mobility and public transport translate into significant health benefits, reductions in carbon emissions, and cost savings.

    Study methodology

    The study explores three scenarios of emissions reduction through simulations in twelve city prototypes. These scenarios are evaluated using carbon emissions indicators, plus financial costs and benefits linked to the interventions, and simulated to align with the Green Deal objectives.

    Cost benefits

    The study’s third scenario, which prioritises the achievement of net-zero emissions by 2050, found that the encouragement of a shift towards walking and cycling could result in health benefits equating to approximately €850-1,170 per capita. The WHO’s Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) is cited in the study, which has found that “greater levels of activity yielding greater benefits for individuals, particularly those who are induced into active modes from relatively inactive lifestyles.”

    Scenario three – assuming the highest reduction in private car trips – is also the one which demonstrates the greatest cost savings for transport users. A shift in habits from private motorised transport towards more public transport and shared mobility translates into the highest cumulated cost savings per inhabitant – individual savings of up to €2,900 per inhabitant in 2030, and €15,000 per inhabitant by 2050.

    The role of shared mobility

    Shared mobility solutions, such as bikes or scooters, can serve as key connection modes within the transport ecosystem, particularly for first- or last-mile connectivity to public transport and destinations. The study emphasises that, while such services have the potential to enhance accessibility, there must be proper planning in place, to allow these services to complement public transport effectively. Without holistic planning and proper integration, shared mobility can actually reduce public transport use, rather than support it.

    Investment in public transport

    The study highlights that investment in reliable, efficient public transit systems can increase ridership by 7% by 2030, when combined with regulations such as low emissions zones which are designed to discourage individual car usage. An important additional benefit is that road traffic deaths decrease when users switch from private cars to urban public transport, as trams, buses and metro systems all lead towards safer streets.

  3. Last Chance: Sign the Open Letter Before ZIV’s Proposal Destroys Your EPACs or EPAC Components

    Leave a Comment

    The German bicycle industry association, ZIV, has published a position paper, “E-bikes – Active Mobility as Success Factor”, that supposedly aims to protect the legal status of electrically power-assisted cycles (EPACs) by keeping them out of the type-approval system in Regulation 168/2013. If ZIV’s proposals were ever adopted, a large share of the EPACs that are currently excluded from Regulation 168/2013 would actually be pushed into that ill-suited and expensive legal framework. That would destroy a large part of the EPAC market. Will your EPACs or EPAC components survive the ZIV proposal?

    At the moment, all EPACs with a maximum continuous rated power of 250 W and motor assistance up to 25 km/h, provided the rider is pedaling, are excluded from Regulation 168/2013 under Article 2.2(h). As a result, they fall under the Machinery Directive. In the meantime, the sector has developed European standards to help manufacturers comply with that Machinery Directive framework: EN 15194, EN 17404, and the EN 17860 series. Under this system, which allows self-certification, millions of EPACs have been placed on the market. Under the type-approval system, in category L1e-A for EPACs with a maximum continuous rated power of 1 kW and motor assistance up to 25 km/h, not a single bicycle has been brought to market, because the legal framework of Regulation 168/2013—written for mopeds and motorcycles—is unsuitable and far too expensive for EPACs.

    However, ZIV proposes to add several technical requirements to the current exclusion of EPACs from Regulation 168/2013. On top of the existing maximum continuous power and speed limit, ZIV proposes the following:

    • A limit on motor assistance to a maximum of four times the power the rider produces themselves. So if you cannot produce enough power to get the motor’s needed help to move the EPAC—for example because you are not physically strong enough or because the terrain is too hilly—your access to EPACs will be severely restricted. In other words, access to EPACs for physically weaker people is put at risk. The use of cargo EPACs in non-flat areas is also jeopardized.
    • A limit on peak power to 750 W. Peak power means the highest power the motor can deliver for a brief moment, for example to accelerate or, again, to get up a hill. Current law does not impose a limit on that power. This proposal would also restrict access to EPACs to those who are physically strong enough to pedal the EPAC forward on their own.
    • Finally, ZIV also wants to limit the weight of EPACs that are excluded from Regulation 168/2013: to 250 kg for single-track and to 300 kg for multi-track. As a result, almost all cargo EPACs for logistic purposes would fall under type approval.

    Conclusion: a large share of the EPACs that can currently be built according to European standards and self-certification would end up under Regulation 168/2013 and type approval. This legislation consists of 1,032 pages of technical requirements and associated tests. The vehicle type must be approved by an accredited test house—of which there are only a handful in Europe. When anything on the vehicle type is changed, there is a good chance that type approval will have to be performed again.

    That is exactly why no vehicles are approved in L1e-A. All EPACs that would be pushed into type approval by the ZIV proposal are therefore as good as doomed. On top of that, most Member States do not grant L1e-A the same conditions of use as EPACs under the Machinery Directive. They would no longer be allowed on the road under the same rules as conventional bicycles, and there is a real risk they would be subjected to helmet requirements, driver’s licenses, insurance, and more.

    ZIV is already trying to make this proposal a reality. In CEN/TC 333, the European committee where EPAC standards are developed, ZIV is continuously pushing for a new standard with so-called performance requirements for EPACs, with maximum assistance ratio and peak power as the main elements. Together with its members, LEVA-EU is systematically filing objections in TC 333 against such a standard. If that standard were ever formally put on the table, ZIV would then have a perfect argument to get those same parameters added to Article 2.2(h) of Regulation 168/2013. That would mean only EPACs would be excluded that have:

    • a maximum continuous rated power of 250 W, and
    • pedal assistance up to 25 km/h, and
    • a maximum assistance ratio of 4, and
    • a peak power of 750 W, and
    • a weight up to 250 kg for 2-wheel EPACs or 300 kg for EPACs with 3 or more wheels.

    This would immediately push a large part of EPACs and their components into type approval—and ultimately out of the market. So ZIV’s proposal, which supposedly is meant to protect the status of the EPAC, would in reality destroy a significant portion of EPACs, their components, and the businesses behind all of this.

    Last Chance to Act

    LEVA-EU will close this initiative this week and send the open letter to policymakers. This is your final opportunity to sign and make your voice heard.

    Read and sign the full open letter below. Then, go one step further: share it with your colleagues, partners, and networks.

    Do not let Europe become the desert of light electric mobility innovations.

    Read and sign the full open letter here. Then, go one step further: share it with your colleagues, partner, and networks.

    LEVA-EU Open Letter on ZIV PositionDownload

    Stand with LEVA-EU. Sign the open letter.
    Please note that when you sign, your name, company/organisation and your job title will be published

  4. Help Stop ZIV’s Attack on Light Electric Mobility: Sign and Share LEVA-EU’s Open Letter

    Leave a Comment

    LEVA-EU has issued an open letter, addressed to ZIV, CONEBI, and the European Commission, warning that the ZIV proposal for more requirements on Electrically Power Assisted Cycles (EPACs) would cripple innovation, accessibility, and sustainability in Europe’s light electric mobility sector.

    The open letter, see below – now open for signatures from companies, researchers, users, and associations across the LEV community – calls on the two trade associations and on the European institution to reject ZIV’s proposal and instead work with stakeholders on a dedicated, technology-neutral LEV Regulation.

    What’s in ZIV’s Proposal?

    On 7 April 2025, ZIV published its position paper “E-bikes – Active Mobility as Success Factor”. Behind the polished language lies a restrictive agenda: arbitrary technical limits on EPACs, including:

    • maximum assistance ratios
    • peak power caps
    • vehicle weight limits

    If enacted, these rules would force countless Electrically Power Assisted Cycles (EPACs) into the L-category type-approval system under Regulation 168/2013 — a costly, outdated, and unsuitable regime.

    Why We Wrote the Open Letter

    In the letter, LEVA-EU and co-signatories warn that this proposal would:

    • Eliminate entire categories of LEVs crucial for logistics, inclusivity, and sustainable transport.
    • Discriminate against elderly, disabled, and physically weaker users, restricting their access to essential mobility.
    • Protect incumbent interests while penalising innovators and start-ups.
    • Undermine the EU’s Green Deal and climate goals, limiting the modal shift potential of LEVs.

    The open letter stresses: “Do not let Europe become the desert of light electric mobility innovations.”

    A Structural Problem Needs a Structural Fix

    The letter also highlights the legal flaw in EU rules: the split between Regulation 168/2013 and the Machinery Directive, both inadequate for Light Electric Vehicles (LEVs).

    Today, nearly identical vehicles face radically different rules, one example:

    • a 250W EPAC escapes type-approval,
    • while that same EPAC with 300W must undergo expensive and unsuitable testing.

    This violates the principle of technology neutrality enshrined in EU law. Instead of correcting this, ZIV’s proposal would make the situation worse.

    The Call: A Dedicated LEV Regulation

    The open letter urges all addressees the European Commission to brush asise ZIV’s restrictions and instead work with the LEV community to establish a dedicated LEV Regulation — a fair, proportionate, and future-proof framework that supports innovation, accessibility, and Europe’s climate goals. This is more than a policy debate. It is a defining moment: will Europe lead the world in clean, inclusive mobility, or will it allow protectionism and outdated rules to hold us back?

    Join the Movement – and Mobilise Others

    Read and sign the full open letter below.

    Then, go one step further: share it with your colleagues, partners, and networks. Every signature strengthens our message to policymakers that Europe’s future in light electric mobility cannot be sacrificed to outdated rules and protectionist agendas.

    Together, we can stop ZIV’s attack on light electric mobility.

    Read and sign the full open letter here.

    LEVA-EU Open Letter on ZIV PositionDownload

    Stand with LEVA-EU. Sign the open letter.
    Please note that when you sign, your name, company/organisation and your job title will be published