Cycling issues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
C answers that the bicycle is important for public health and the environment 1 and wants goals for cycling policy as well as better infrastructure and cycle highways 1. C also wants mobility goals 2 and that cycling should be included in these for both urban and rural areas 2. KD argues that citizens themselves should judge means of transport 3 and that cycle paths are primarily a municipal responsibility 4 5. MP sees the bicycle as a freedom reform 6 and wants a rural environment agreement 7. S wants a national goal to double cycling traffic by 2035 8 and to systematically expand the infrastructure 8. L wants coherent routes and uniform signage 9. SD wants to harmonize the regulatory framework for cycle passengers 10 and reinstate traffic schools 10. V wants to adopt a national goal for increased cycling 11. M considers that the conditions in rural areas are worse than in cities 12.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (16)
Ulrika Heie (C)
Mr. Speaker! Cycling issues – that is the simple name of the committee report we have to deal with today. But actually, quite a few questions are contained within this area, where we see the bicycle as an important part of the entire transport system.
Interest in cycling as a means of transport has increased among the Swedish population. There are good cycle paths with better winter road maintenance on the roads, winter maintenance on the cycle paths, and better interchange points between cycling and public transport. If even more of this were done, cycling could increase even further. Many good efforts are being made, not least in many regions linked to public transport, but so much more could be done.
I would like to highlight a few different parts in this. We all know that the bicycle takes up relatively little space in traffic, so for the space in traffic, it would be good if more people switched and started cycling instead of taking the car. We know that cycling does not generate any emissions, and we know that it is good for public health. There are therefore many reasons to take cycling policy more seriously than I perceive the government parties do.
We have highlighted the need for goals for cycling policy in the report. Then it is said that there are transport policy goals and so on. But when we examine those goals a bit further, we see that a great deal is still missing, and I would like to give some examples of that.
Just a few years ago, VTI, of which Cykelcentrum is a part, received a mandate to develop proposals for goals for an increased share of cycling. They did a good job. They produced a report. The previous government produced a proposal and also sent it out for consultation with the final response date in November 2022.
In our report, there is now a sentence that reads: "According to information from the Government Offices, the matter regarding VTI's proposal for goals for an increased share of cycling has been filed without further action." This is not a particularly positive approach if we mean that cycling has a number of important functions in our society and that we could work more with it.
In this situation, it is also important to look at goals specifically for the bicycle's part. The report mentions that a number of motioners propose that the bicycle should be seen as its own type of traffic, but from the government's side, it is argued that the bicycle is part of road traffic. When we discuss bicycle safety issues, we see however that a part of the road traffic work that has been done to make roads safer for motorists, for example through separation of traffic, 1+1-road or 2+1-road, has resulted in that the space for cyclists on these roads with fairly high speeds has decreased. Then one has to cycle on other roads, it is sometimes said. But sometimes there actually are no other roads.
I am surprised that the government parties do not place greater weight on cycling issues. One must stop viewing cycling as a matter of bicycle parking and instead see it as an important issue for public health, for the environment, and for accessibility in our cities.
I would also like to highlight road safety. The statistics regarding injuries to cyclists are not pleasant. There can be many different explanations. It can involve things such as wearing a helmet and knowing the cycling rules. Those who use electric scooters are also included here. There are many different factors that cause the accidents to increase, Mr. Speaker. But one can also say that road safety has decreased on the separated roads that I mentioned a short while ago.
Trafikverket highlights the need for joint planning. It would be good to plan bicycle paths simultaneously with other things. But unfortunately, that is not how it looks in reality. I think it will be important for the government parties to really take up traffic safety issues in their policy.
I almost want to advertise this report. It is very good that everything is done, from defining what a bicycle is to referring to a number of different parts of investigations and so on. It is important to highlight these questions. But that it then has not resulted in more action from the committee majority surprises me very much.
I can mention the separated roads. You who are listening to or participating in the debate are very aware that the number of barriers has decreased because railings and the like have been built. The possibility of stepping out into the other lane when overtaking a bicycle no longer exists. There is a railing there. It is important to take those issues with some greater seriousness.
We see that the proportion of children who cycle is decreasing. It is clearly a disappointing development as well. I can understand many parents' concern about letting their children cycle in traffic because the bicycle is not taken into account in the way that would be necessary. I understand that concern and can understand that cycling is decreasing. But at the same time, it is very tragic from a public health perspective. We also know that the traffic situation around various schools is almost unsustainable with all the parents who drop off their children when they actually could cycle instead.
The design and maintenance of roads really need to be looked at. I think it is a bit of a pity that the government parties are not more active when it comes to that. It is noted that the bicycle is regarded as a vehicle within the category of road traffic. That is, no special consideration is taken into account. It is assumed that the planning is done as simply, efficiently, and quickly as possible within the framework of the regulations. But in what way is it followed up that this occurs? It is said that it is important to follow up on the goals that have been set. It stands in the committee's position. But then one only gives examples of assuming that it occurs. That, Mr. Speaker, I think is very unfortunate.
We mean that there are great opportunities to increase accessibility and to really work on developing bicycle traffic throughout the country, in both urban and rural areas. Land can be released for cycle paths in Trafikverket's road areas and opportunities can be given for the municipalities to use them in another way. There is also an opportunity to build so-called cycle highways, which may sound like a contradiction in itself. But it is about really promoting cycling. It would increase safety if there were a coherent system and not a situation where one cycles on cycle paths for certain parts of the route, then out in traffic, and then again on cycle paths. It is very important.
In this context, I would like to advocate for the work that NTF does. They work on traffic safety issues, not least aimed at children and young people. In the past, if I may put it that way, one worked quite a lot with bicycle safety in the Swedish school system. One certainly still does so in some places. But I would wish that the government saw the whole of civil society's and the school's opportunities to be an active part in increasing cycling. I miss those parts in the report.
Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to return to the possibility of using the bicycle as a part of the entire transport system. Further reviews need to be conducted on in what way the bicycle could be utilized and also, for example, take it on the train. That is another important part when it comes to this.
As a conclusion, I want to say that I move for approval of reservation 7, which concerns infrastructure for cycling. I think it is important to highlight that area specifically.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my speech by calling for approval of the proposals in the committee report and rejection of all motions.
There are some interesting phenomena when we talk about infrastructure in general. It is that we, in different ways, set goals and talk about goals. When it comes to the cycling area, there are goals. One can discuss whether they are good or bad, but there are goals nonetheless. Within public transport, goals are set, just as for shipping and railways. What is common for the vast majority of the goals, Mr. Speaker, is that preferably no one should travel by car. Preferably everyone should do something else. That is a political direction one can have, but that type of goal has a very difficult time gaining traction in reality.
People use the transport systems they need, in the way they need them, based on the circumstances they have. That makes me think that it would sometimes rather be wise if one discussed and set goals that were about mobility and cooperation and about having the right vehicle at the right time and so on.
In the discussion about, for example, bicycles, I often experience that people forget that the car is a freedom reform. We walked or used horses, shipping, bicycles, and railways at approximately the same time as the car arrived. That entire technological development has led to economic growth. One can view the bicycle as an important instrument without putting it in relation to other modes of transport. Cycling does have an intrinsic value. Many of us surely do so sometimes where we simply take the bicycle, take the family with us – and for my part, the hunting dog – and enjoy getting to cycle for a while.
My experience when it comes to cycling is that it has become easier. There are more cycle paths than when I was young and cycled to school. On the other hand, there are fewer children cycling to school today, despite the fact that the infrastructure has improved. I have been a school politician before, and it was one of the things we discussed quite a lot. What is it that makes parents not let the children cycle to school? It would have been better for the children. They would have been significantly more alert during the class lessons. One of the reasons is that the parents themselves think that it is often a very chaotic traffic situation at the school. But why is the traffic situation chaotic at the school? Yes, because the parents drive cars to a school that is not prepared for it. Many of our schools were built at a time when people actually cycled or walked to school.
Many questions concerning the encouragement of cycling naturally fall under municipal responsibility. That makes a debate here in the chamber about cycling somewhat awkward for natural reasons. A very large amount of the responsibility for cycling actually lies with the municipalities. Approximately 80 percent of all walking and cycling paths are managed by the municipalities. It is obviously still good to raise the issue in the chamber. It is good that we also have a discussion. But then it becomes more on the overall level. What should any laws look like? Are there regulations? It can be about standards for different variants of walking and cycling paths and different forms of cycle paths. I think, Mr. Speaker, that very many good motions have been submitted pointing out what can be done.
We all in this room are well aware of how the order is. It is therefore clear that we have looked at motions, requested rejections, and referred to what is happening in the government. But that does not prevent there still being a good conversation about cycling. Internally in KD, we have worked quite a bit with reflections on whether one can have different standards for walking and cycling paths and still be able to apply for state funds.
Today it is mainly for a variant of standard that can be supported. I believe we will have to return to that discussion. Must pedestrian and cycle paths follow other roads, or can new ways be found to route them? In the report, it can be seen that it is already possible today to do it in another way, but then we get other conflicts of interest. Who, for example, will release the land required to build a new pedestrian and cycle path? We will return to the fact that this is actually a municipal responsibility.
An area that has improved is public transport, even though many think it could be a little bit better. When I traveled here to Stockholm yesterday morning, I saw a man who took his bicycle first on Västtrafik and then on SJ's train. That one has the possibility to take one's bicycle obviously facilitates mobility.
This is what I mean when I speak about what goals we should have. I would like to have an increased mobility goal, that is to say a goal that allows different types of transport to cooperate. I actually became happy when I saw that man make his choice, without for that reason feeling that I as a politician must have everyone make the same choice.
The report also addresses electric scooters, something one can reflect on quite a bit. Most of the motions are of a restrictive nature. The committee's response in the report is also of a restrictive nature. I couldn't help but smirk a little when I read it. We are probably a rather dull bunch. We see electric scooters solely as a problem.
In the real world, things have become much better in this area. Several of us surely remember how it looked in Stockholm just four or five years ago when electric scooters were tossed more or less everywhere. Now the municipalities have taken measures and established parking zones and cut the power in certain places, for example inside Gamla stan. It is much more difficult to ride there than before.
The electric bicycle has probably come to stay, and it also gives us increased mobility. But as several members have pointed out, it has also given us reason to reflect on safety, helmet requirements, and the like. I share the committee's assessment for the time being and stand behind the proposal in the report, but this was an interesting area to read about. We saw it more as a problem than an opportunity – I say "we" because the same thing is stated in our own text.
Technological development constitutes an opportunity for people to move more. This means that when more people take an electric scooter, it is probably still one of them who refrains from driving a car. Once again, we come to the concept of mobility.
Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee report and against the motions.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Mr. Speaker! I was, frankly, concerned by the Christian Democrat Magnus Jacobsson's lack of enthusiasm regarding the possibilities of cycling. He perhaps mentioned that cycling has an intrinsic value if one is going out to exercise one's dog, but otherwise, there was no greater enthusiasm regarding how one can work with this.
The committee was involved in setting mobility goals, and I believe that can be an important part. Therefore, one can ask why the mobility goals are not highlighted in another way in the report, when there is now an opportunity to do so.
The member mentioned also that it was better in the past when one was young and it was possible to cycle to school. Now, the cars have taken over. Here I want to get to the core. Does the member see that cycling, linked to a mobility goal, can be important for both urban and rural development? It is said that with a distance of up to five kilometers, it is possible to use the bicycle as a means of transport during large parts of the year, if not the whole year. This would in many ways ease traffic.
If the member says that while one can set goals, but the goals should be about that no one preferably wants to drive a car, it sounds very defensive. A mobility goal should perhaps be more effective and developmental? I became a bit concerned, because there are conditions to see cycling as more than a leisure activity. One could make use of this mobility.
I was pleased by what the member said about bicycle paths and developing different regulatory frameworks, but where are the development opportunities in terms of cycling?
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that Member Heie and I are approaching the issue from two different perspectives. It is quite obvious that in many municipalities and in some political parties, there is an immense eagerness to control the citizens. This is done through zones where one is not allowed to drive or through times when one is not allowed to drive. It also happens when new properties are built without any parking norms. Fundamentally, it is an ideological stance when one believes that society, in some sense, should push the car aside as a vehicle.
My basic position is that the citizens themselves have the full ability to judge which means of transport is appropriate. And the question of the car's environmental impact is primarily about fuel and not about the fact that there is a vehicle in itself.
Something else that sets us apart is that I think this, from a state perspective, is a small issue. It is primarily the municipalities that have responsibility for pedestrian and cycle paths, and they are working a great deal on that. I tried to describe that over time we have built more pedestrian and cycle paths. Still, the report shows that the proportion of those who cycle is decreasing. We have made it much easier to use the bicycle, but the proportion of those who cycle is becoming smaller. One can have different views on that, but it probably depends on the fact that the citizens themselves think there are other ways to move around.
One of the modes of transport that constitutes the greatest competition to cycling is public transport. When public transport is expanded so that it becomes good, fewer people will cycle. There are thus also such connections, which is sometimes forgotten.
In this context, the question about school is primarily about attitude. My parents let me cycle. Myself, I was worse at letting my children cycle. This is probably due to anxiety.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jacobsson for the answers to the questions.
I hope the member did not mean that I, as a member of the Centre Party, and my party specifically would have a need to steer the citizens in these matters. One might think that the bicycle is important for the possibility of mobility without it for that reason being a way to try to steer the citizens and say that they are not allowed to use the car. The car is an important part of the transport system, but it is the balance I am talking about. If the member, on the other hand, discusses mobility issues, then bicycle and car should be able to work better together. I was a bit surprised by what was said.
The member mentioned also that it is the municipalities that are expanding this. But the politics at the national level has in another way a responsibility to provide the conditions. That was what I requested. In what way do the Christian Democrats, who also have the ministerial post, want to provide conditions so that the bicycle path networks can be built together? It is these that are pointed to when the deficiencies in the whole are mentioned. One would need coherent bicycle networks in another way for cycling to be able to become an alternative to other modes of transport. Provide conditions for that! The member, who nevertheless belongs to the same party as the minister, should raise these issues.
If one thinks it is a problem that children and young people do not move enough, the bicycle is an opportunity. How does the member view working more with behavioral changes and with parts that increase traffic safety but also increase knowledge in order to increase knowledge among young people and their parents?
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I am trying to be clear that we have probably never had as much walking and cycling path as we do now. I swear, most municipalities are working with the education of students in school etcetera. Still, we see that cycling is currently decreasing.
I think the municipalities are doing the right thing and doing it well, but I believe that what we see, for example that cycling to school is decreasing, is fundamentally more about parental anxiety. People are worried that the children are out in traffic, even though the traffic has many times become better than it was when we were young. It is an attitude issue that one can, of course, work on.
When it comes to what we can do as a state, I still think the report is clear that in several of the issues previously raised and which are now also raised in the motion, it is already possible according to the legislation to proceed in other ways and through other paths. I am satisfied with the wording there, but I also think that in reality, one should make more use of the legislation and the opportunities that exist.
The first time I myself had a reason to think a bit more about the mobility issue and go and ponder it a bit was during the previous parliamentary term when I sat in the Committee on Transport. We were in California then and met Uber. It happened to be Uber, so it is not about advertising that company. There are a lot of other problems with Uber that one can take issue with. Just in this specific case, it happened to be at their headquarters that we conducted a study visit. The vision they described was that if you want to get from Stockholm to New York, your app should basically tell you that here you have a rental bike, and here you can take a rental car. You take this flight, and when you land there is a rental bike and so on. They envisioned mobility through the entire chain.
I actually think that is how much of the future's mobility will be. I just look at myself. Sometimes I rent a Voi or similar because I need to move quickly and am not in the mood to take a car. I simply believe that mobility is what we should focus on.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Member Magnus Jacobsson spoke in his speech almost more about other types of transport than about bicycles, despite this being a bicycle debate. He was careful to emphasize that the car is a freedom reform. But I would like to highlight that the bicycle is also a freedom reform, which makes it possible for children and young people to reach their friends and leisure activities, and for adults to combine utility with pleasure in their daily commuting. Not least, it is a freedom reform that reduces our climate emissions and makes it possible for us to reach our climate goals.
When leading and governing in public activities, goals are important for achieving results. But ambitious goals and the resources to achieve them are something this government lacks. This actually reflects, Mr. Speaker, their lack of will and commitment to accomplish something.
When we from Miljöpartiet were in government, we took important steps for increased cycling through, among other things, urban environment agreements, a cycling pot, and a national cycling strategy. We from Miljöpartiet were not satisfied; we wanted to move forward even more. But we took important steps. What happens now? Nothing.
Cycling is about space in the city. It is about the environment, resource efficiency and public health but also about the economy of society. There, cycling has great potential, if one dares to invest in cycling.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not think it is a secret either for the Chamber or for any listeners that there is a large political difference between the Christian Democrats and the Green Party. It is quite true that when the Green Party was in government, they made large investments in cycling. They set large goals and so on, while at the same time letting both the railway and the road decay in terms of maintenance.
It is no secret that this government went to the election on the basis that it would address the lack of maintenance that has existed, among other things, on the roadside and on the railway side. It is clear that we have resources and we allocate them, and it is no secret that there is an ideological and political difference there. We focus on getting the large transport system in order while Miljöpartiet has often focused on the smaller part of the traffic, which cycling is, regardless, if one talks about money.
Of course, cycling is important. But it is primarily a municipal responsibility, because it is in the municipalities that it is used. Very few cycle paths have been built between municipalities. One can have discussions about that. One can also have a discussion about, for example, so-called cycle highways between municipalities. Would this be profitable in relation to the costs, considering how many people would use them?
We know that cycling, in the same way as public transport and railways, is primarily used in the labor market region, that is, in one's own sphere, when commuting to and from work or when cycling in one's spare time. One must therefore also ask whether this is the area where the state should allocate the greatest resources. Or should we dare to admit that this area of responsibility is municipal and that the municipalities are already doing very much to develop cycling? My view is that they are doing so, and I think that is good.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I want to correct Member Jacobsson. The government that the Green Party was a part of allocated large resources and made historically large investments in the railway and in improving maintenance. If Member Jacobsson believes that the small but very effective resources that could be invested in increasing cycling could be redistributed to catch up with the maintenance on the roadside, I think he is mistaken.
The car has, despite everything, become the norm in society, and Jacobsson wants to accommodate the car norm. But it also means that car traffic is favored at the expense of other types of traffic. For that very reason, it is important to dare to set goals and allocate resources to create the conditions for increased bicycle traffic. It is, after all, the infrastructure we have that creates the environment required for people to feel safe and secure and for it to be smooth and easy to take the bicycle.
Just as Member Jacobsson pointed out, there is a relationship between public transport and cycling. If you invest in cycling traffic, you can relieve the pressure on public transport, which is important in our cities, where public transport is often heavily burdened. It is also cost-effective; it is not particularly expensive to invest in cycling infrastructure. You do not need the same load-bearing capacity or the same widths.
In today's traffic environment, the pace is more intense than in times past. We have larger and longer vehicles. It is clear that this affects both children's and adults' opportunities to get around on a bicycle in a safe and secure way. For that very reason, we need to facilitate for municipalities and regions that have a severely strained economy to take the necessary measures to create better and safer cycling infrastructure.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to make a small, cautious correction regarding the previous government's budget. It was so weak that the Transport Administration itself stated that when the planning period in question was over, the maintenance of both roads and railways would be worse. We must be a bit careful with the facts here in the chamber.
When it comes to the cycling issue, it is entirely correct that cycling works very well in urban areas and on distances of up to five kilometers. My view of Sweden's municipalities is that they are working with this. My view is that, above all, municipalities that have extra good conditions, for example Lund, Umeå and others, have worked a great deal with strengthening the cycling networks. I think that is good. The catch is only that we are standing here in the chamber and are going to have a cycling debate about something that is handled by the municipalities up to 80 percent of the time.
In the report, it is very clear in the answers to the various motions: It is already permitted, is already ongoing, or is being handled by the municipalities. It is clear that it then becomes extremely difficult to have a hard, clear debate, when we actually might be standing in the municipal council and discussing our own strategy.
When it comes to the overall goal, this government is also working to improve and facilitate for cyclists. I think that is good. But I also think it is good that the debate clarifies that there is an ideological difference. Some parties want to control people while other parties, such as the Christian Democrats, think that we should look at mobility as a whole.
Inga-Lill Sjöblom (S)
Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the Committee on Transport's report on Cycling Issues.
We Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 1.
Every day, people in our country cycle to work, to school, to training, or to the grocery store. It is a choice that is both climate-smart, healthy, and space-saving. It is a choice that benefits the entire society, but it is also a choice that all too often occurs despite lacking infrastructure, unsafe traffic environments, and political passivity.
We Social Democrats want to change this, because we know that cycling is not just a matter of freedom of choice in the transport system but part of the solution to several of our time's greatest challenges: climate change, congestion in our cities, and the deteriorating public health. But if cycling is truly to be able to play the role it deserves in Swedish transport policy, political will and purposeful governance are required.
Therefore, we propose that a national goal for bicycle traffic be established by the government. It is time for Sweden to move from fine words to actual action. We want to see a time-bound, quantified goal, for example that bicycle traffic should double by 2035. It is entirely possible, but it requires that we make bicycle policy exactly what it should be: an integrated part of social planning, not a parenthesis.
VTI, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut, was commissioned in 2021 to develop a basis for such a goal. It was reported in 2022. It is time to use that basis. Why is the government waiting?
Mr. Speaker! It is about the fact that we need to expand the cycling infrastructure in a more systematic way. Today, there are far too many people cycling in environments that are not safe. There is a lack of coherent cycle paths. There is a lack of lighting. There is a lack of planning at the regional level to facilitate bicycle commuting between municipalities.
This is particularly important for children and young people. Being able to cycle to school should be a matter of course, not a risk. By creating safe cycle paths, we also build a culture where the bicycle becomes a natural choice from an early age. It is an investment in future health, in mobility, and in safety.
We want more children and young people to grow up with the bicycle as their obvious means of transport, not with being driven to school as the norm. It is not just climate policy but also freedom policy that children can get themselves to school, to extracurricular activities, and to friends.
Mr. Speaker! We must also talk about something that receives far too little attention in this debate: bicycle thefts. What does it help with new bicycle lanes if people do not dare to park their bicycles for fear that they will be stolen? The thefts have become so extensive that they actually constitute a concrete obstacle to the transition.
We Social Democrats therefore propose that the government investigates a national bicycle register. We already have a car register that works well, so why not use the same principle for bicycles? It would make it harder to sell stolen bicycles, make it easier to recover one's property, and provide a clear tool against the organized crime that we know lies behind many of the thefts.
Mr. Speaker! We also need to adapt the legislation to new technology. Electric bicycles are becoming increasingly common. It is a welcome step towards more sustainable travel, but the development is moving faster than the legislation can keep up. We therefore want the government to push for a common EU standard for charging of electric bicycles. It is a simple measure that would simplify everyday life for consumers, reduce vulnerability, and furthermore strengthen safety.
It concerns, not least, preventing fires and explosions linked to electric bicycle batteries – a growing problem that deserves more attention. We want to see more research and better regulation. It is about safety, it is about accessibility, and it is about Sweden being at the forefront in the green technological transition.
Mr. Speaker! This is not a marginal issue. It is not a niche debate on bicycle policy. This is about the transport of the future, the public health of the future, and the climate goals of the future. It is about a policy where we do not only plan for the car but also for the human being.
We Social Democrats want to make life easier, safer and more sustainable for those who choose the bicycle. It requires investments, but above all, it requires a clear political direction. A national goal for cycling is not just a management tool, it is a statement of will about what kind of society we want to build.
To those of you in the government base, I want to say: You are happy to talk about freedom, responsibility, and long-term sustainability. Then show that you mean business! Stand behind a national goal for cycling! It is wise, it is concrete, and it is what Sweden needs.
Helena Gellerman (L)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on Cycling Issues.
There are many advantages to people cycling, not least the health aspect and reduced congestion in public transport. This is why the Liberals want to make it easier for cyclists. A very important prerequisite for cycling to be smooth is that there are continuous safe routes and that these are maintained continuously.
There are far too many poorly planned traffic environments that hinder the cyclist. Here I am primarily thinking of the complex infrastructure in our cities and suburbs. We must work to ensure that the bicycle path network connects and, perhaps even more importantly, that the maintenance of the bicycle paths is carried out. A hole in the road is hardly noticed by a motorist, but for a cyclist, it can result in an accident where they are seriously injured. I personally have several friends who have stopped cycling due to accidents related to substandard maintenance. Decisive action is needed here, but this is primarily the responsibility of the municipalities.
To facilitate commuting by bicycle, we want to see a coherent planning of the bicycle paths at the regional level where the municipalities cooperate across municipal boundaries. For the cyclist, the standard of a bicycle path should not have to deteriorate at a municipal boundary. It is not reasonable. We want to see more initiatives for coherent regional bicycle routes to make it easier to cycle longer distances.
I also want to raise the need for uniform national signage for cycling. When cycling across municipal and regional boundaries, clear signage is needed to facilitate orientation. The State needs to cooperate with the municipalities so that the signage is primarily implemented but also looks the same everywhere.
The provisions of the Road Act regarding the construction of cycle paths have been discussed for a number of years. Cycle paths that do not have a direct connection to roads for motor vehicles are not designated as roads according to the definition in the Road Act, which means that there is no possibility to claim land for a separate cycle path in the same way as it does for public roads.
For the Liberals, it is of great importance that great consideration is given to property rights when assessing potential changes to the Road Act to facilitate the construction of cycle paths.
Mr. Speaker! The Liberals also want to increase the possibility of taking the bicycle on the commuter train. By combining public transport and cycling, more people can leave the car and thus make a contribution to the environment and reduce congestion on the roads. The electric scooter is very interesting for transport to and from public transport. It takes up little space on the train and allows one to then smoothly travel a short distance to where one is going.
Mr. Speaker! The Liberals are positive towards electric scooters. They clearly fill a niche when it comes to transporting oneself over shorter distances. They have now existed for a few years, and both the positive and, unfortunately, the negative effects of their arrival have shown themselves. We are beginning to get to grips with the parking problems while work remains to implement measures against the increasing personal injuries, unfortunately with several deaths.
Accessibility for all pedestrians, not least the elderly and persons with disabilities, is crucial for us. Clarifications of the regulatory framework for electric scooters are needed so that we minimize the negative effects.
Mr. Speaker! Cyclists are unprotected in the traffic environment. Separate cycle paths exist in many places, but at the same time, cyclists often share the roadway with motorists. Traffic safety needs to be improved in many places, not least when cyclists are being overtaken.
Sweden has a long tradition as a leading country when it comes to road safety. We should therefore lead the way even when it comes to cycling.
The Liberals view positively on addressing cyclists' perceived insecurity on the roads through a speed-dependent distance of at least one and a half meters during overtaking. Such a rule would signal to car drivers that more factors than just the distance affect traffic safety and that risk compensation is required during overtaking. At the same time, I want to emphasize that it must be easy for car drivers to remember the rule for it to have an effect.
Road safety for cyclists is particularly important for cyclists who participate in cycling races. Cycling races are an important incentive to increase cycling and thereby strengthen health. The Government has therefore, in the budget for 2025, allocated funds so that the previous fee for, among other things, putting up temporary signs on the roads for cycling races has now been removed. This is positive and an economic relief for everyone who organizes cycling races going forward.
Mr. Speaker! Technology is developing rapidly, and we see a constant evolution of the bicycle concept – not least in the form of electric bicycles and electric scooters. The Liberals view this development positively. At the same time, road safety must be protected, as we see an increasing trend in the number of bicycle accidents in recent years. It has increased by approximately 25 percent.
That is why it is important that research on various aspects of cycling continues to receive support so that we can understand how cycling can be facilitated and how we can minimize the number of bicycle accidents in the future. The research's knowledge-enhancing work is important so that we can take the right measures in the future and make it more attractive to cycle.
In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and reject all motions.
Patrik Jönsson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I would first like to say that we stand behind all of our reservations, but in order to save time, I move for approval only of reservation 11, which covers not allowing cycling against one-way traffic as well as a unification of the regulations for bicycle passages and bicycle crossings.
Mr. Speaker! I thought I would start with this odd set of regulations for bicycle passages and bicycle crossings, which completely and unnecessarily complicates things to an incredible extent for everyone out in traffic.
It should be easy to do the right thing in traffic – that must be a basic principle in the work to strengthen safe traffic. But the regulations for bicycle passage and bicycle crossing are a textbook example of how things can be complicated. Very few cyclists and motorists know the difference between these two types of intersections between road and bicycle path.
Therefore, we from the Sweden Democrats move for approval of our reservation that the law shall be amended and that the same rules shall apply to both. We believe that it would be best and safest if all bicycle crossings were simply converted into bicycle passages. The motorist is protected, but the cyclist is not. Here, in order to reduce serious accidents, we must align the regulatory framework so that cyclists shall stop and give way to cars and other vehicles.
We also mean that a simplification of rules should be that the coloring of cycle paths is regulated. That coloring a cycle path, as in some municipalities, can be a good way to attract attention, for example in an intersection. It is then reasonable that the same coloring is used regardless of which municipality one is in. It is about making it easy to recognize the situation when one, as a motorist, approaches a cycle path.
Mr. Speaker! I do not know whether it is because the thieves are taking the bus instead of the bicycle or if it is an actual decrease or just a reduced willingness to report. In any case, it is pleasing that the decrease in the number of reported bicycle thefts continued even last year.
Between 2022 and 2023 the decrease was 8 percent, and at the end of this year 2024 it turned out that the decrease was a further 5 percent. With that said, 54,848 bicycle thefts were still reported last year, of which approximately one quarter were of electric bicycles. The largest decrease was in Norrbotten, 26.5 percent, while Gotland somewhat surprisingly saw an increase of 13.6 percent.
It is still so many who are affected that it corresponds to more than all the inhabitants living in the city of Kristianstad. It is also a large expense for the insurance companies, which annually pay out more than a quarter of a billion in compensation for those affected.
It is true that the crime of bicycle theft is one of the less serious in its character, but bicycle thefts nevertheless cast a damp blanket over people's desire to cycle.
I can only look out for myself – I have barely three kilometers to the railway station, but I don't want to leave my bike there and then walk around worrying that it will be stolen. I have already lost two bikes.
I am not a fan of various government subsidies, which also usually disappear after a couple of years. However, I argue that municipalities could do significantly more to build safer parking spaces for bicycles, for example at travel centers. I believe that this measure alone would be the one that attracts the most people to choose cycling over cars.
When it comes to which measure would most reduce the number of bicycle thefts, I believe, however, that it is at the customs where one should look. Had it been possible to stop every heavy vehicle on its way out of the country, one would also have stopped the large export of stolen bicycles carried out by international gangs.
Mr. Speaker! In 2024, 26 cyclists died, which is the same number as the year before. To this should be added that approximately 2,000 cyclists are seriously injured every year. These injuries often result in lifelong consequences.
Over the last two decades, the number of seriously injured in traffic has decreased significantly – except in one group, and that is the cyclists. Here, it is not the e-scooter riders who stand out; they constitute less than one-tenth of the seriously injured even though one might think otherwise. However, the group of e-scooter riders is increasing when it comes to the injured – not seriously injured but just injured. In 2019, approximately 700 accidents on e-scooters were reported. In 2023, it had risen to 3,400. This is highly concerning.
I live alone in a child-friendly area, and I see more children on electric scooters than on regular bicycles. I have also read that bicycle dealers sell fewer children's bicycles and that children would rather have an electric scooter than a regular bicycle. The children then not only miss out on the exercise, but there is also a greater risk that they will injure themselves. If the children carry the habit of using an electric scooter into their teenage years, they will also miss out on the good effects that cycling has on health.
Mr. Speaker! To continue on the theme of bicycle injuries, I want to highlight the fact that most bicycle accidents are single-vehicle accidents. Approximately eight out of ten seriously injured cyclists have been injured in single-vehicle accidents.
If we are to find a glimmer of hope, it is possibly that fewer cyclists are injured in collisions with motor vehicles. A bicycle helmet provides good protection against head injuries, but the municipalities must become more aware of the condition, design, and layout of the cycle paths. Other members have pointed this out here previously. In addition to the personal suffering, it is a problem for society that so many cyclists are seriously injured.
Mr. Speaker! I thought to conclude by touching upon the importance of learning to cycle and learning traffic rules at an early age. When I was little – it is unfortunately becoming quite a long time ago – the municipalities had traffic play schools. In these, there was a constructed traffic environment with authentic road signs and painted roads where one could in a lighthearted way learn everything from stop signs and giving way to the right-hand rule and speed limits. This facilitated things for the children until they were to go out into traffic themselves. I would have welcomed it if the traffic play schools were re-established.
Teaching children traffic awareness early can actually make the difference between life and death, Mr. Speaker. Today, it is also the case that not all children even get to learn how to cycle, and fewer and fewer students cycle to school. According to the school traffic survey conducted in 2022, the proportion of children who cycled to school fell from 21 percent to 13 percent in just three years. This is a grim trend. The probability that today's students, when they become adults, will see the bicycle as the primary option for transporting themselves is, of course, low. It is perhaps time for the state to start an information campaign to get more students to cycle to school.
There is some hope, however. WSP's mobility study indicates, in any case, that more city dwellers are taking the bicycle to work. The bicycle as a means of transport is space-efficient and quiet. It contributes to reducing congestion in cities and takes up little space to park. The gains from increased cycling are, of course, great.
Madam Speaker! Furthermore, I believe that the Road Act should be amended in favor of simpler, wider, quieter, and more beautiful cycle paths.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! In April last year, Sweden signed the European Bicycle Declaration. The declaration is described as a historic milestone for promoting cycling, and cycling is a popular mode of transport that is increasing greatly in many places around Europe. Amsterdam has long been a cycling city. There, 51 percent of the inhabitants cycle daily. Copenhagen is not far behind. There, cycling accounts for 49 percent of all commuting trips. In Paris, a lot has happened in a short time. Today, more Parisians cycle than drive cars – something that no one thought could be possible just ten years ago. There are many more examples than that. A lot is happening in many places in Europe.
In Sweden, the development is unfortunately not as positive. We have previously heard a fair amount in the debate about children and young people cycling, which has decreased by 40 percent since the 90s. This is a worrying development, where the possibility for active transport and everyday exercise is not promoted in the way that is needed and where clear goal-setting is lacking.
Trafikverket's orientation basis, which forms the foundation for the government's infrastructure bill, is not based on target management, i.e., setting a clear goal and taking a direction. Instead, it is based on forecast management. Forecast management does not create change but more of the same. We know what the consequences will be. We know that Trafikverket has consistently overestimated travel by car and simultaneously underestimated travel by rail over the last decades. This has caused us to lock ourselves into a transport system that is not sustainable, while at the same time we have cemented a capacity shortage on the railway. Despite the fact that this is well known, the government does nothing to change these planning conditions.
Furthermore, it is the case that cycling as a mode of transport is missing from the forecasts. These only apply to motorized journeys. Cycling is also not a mode of transport in its own right, but cycling is lumped together in the category "cycling and walking". This is, all in all, a very harsh treatment of one of our modes of transport, and it naturally has consequences.
Madam Speaker! Cycling has great potential. This is shown, not least by Paris, Copenhagen and several other cities that have radically transformed their transport infrastructure. There is also an expectation that politics should step forward. A recently published survey shows that seven out of ten residents in four medium-sized Swedish cities desire a less noisy and more traffic-safe urban environment, where there is also more space for cycling.
Several have previously mentioned that VTI during the last parliamentary term received a government mandate to investigate a goal for increased cycling. The investigation proposes a national and ambitious goal where cycling increases in a way that climate impact decreases, accessibility improves, and public health is strengthened without the share of walking or public transport journeys decreasing. Here is exactly what is needed for the government, ready-made. This is ready to be adopted, together with a mandate to Trafikverket to develop an action plan for how the goal shall be reached. The national level also needs to step forward and take a greater economic responsibility for an expanded cycling infrastructure by linking resources to the goal. This would have been completely in line with the cycling declaration.
I hope that the signing was not just an empty symbolic act. The declaration aims high, and it is also very clear that the signatories shall work to ensure that cycling reaches its full potential in Europe. It is a promise and a hope that commits.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Madam Speaker! I think that the bicycle in many ways is a fantastic means of transport. It is fast and convenient, and it provides both fresh air and exercise. Cycling is not only good for the individual. It is socio-economically advantageous. It benefits society by making the environment better, and it also contributes to better public health.
Despite this, cycling has decreased over decades, if one disregards cities and larger urban areas. Not least, the number of cyclists has decreased among children and young people. A contributing cause to this trend is that the road network is increasingly less suitable for cycling. Wider vehicles and higher speeds on roads where the shoulder is minimal or completely missing make it sometimes directly dangerous to use the bicycle as a means of everyday transport in the countryside. The road space is no longer sufficient.
The traffic safety measures implemented for motor traffic in the form of side rails and two-plus-one roads have caused further problems for unprotected road users. The small space that remained has simply been eaten up. This hinders cycling in a very unfortunate way.
There must be an opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to travel on the same terms as motor vehicle traffic. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to introduce a rural environment agreement to improve cycling in the countryside.
Madam Speaker! Cycling throughout Sweden needs to increase for both the sake of health and the environment. For this to be possible, the conditions for cycling must be significantly improved. Cycling is a central piece in the work of achieving a sustainable transport system. A safe, secure and convenient cycling infrastructure is crucial to increase cycling traffic. It must be easy, smooth, safe and secure to cycle.
Many municipalities around Sweden are actively working to facilitate for cyclists. Cycle paths are being built, bicycle garages are being completed in central locations, companies are arranging suitable spaces for showering and changing, residential buildings are getting mobility spaces, company bikes are becoming more common, and cycling is increasing sharply. There are clear goals for cycling's share in the local transport system, and the role of the bicycle is in many cases integrated at the local level in the planning.
At the national level in Sweden, however, the bicycle is treated poorly, Madam Speaker. Trafikverket, which has the primary responsibility for Sweden's transport, focuses on other things, primarily on the car. The possible road network for cycling is shrinking drastically, and the additions are negligible. Transportstyrelsen, which sets the regulations at the agency level, does not want to change the rules in favor of the bicycle. It is constantly half-measures that create problems for the municipalities when they want to give cycling a more central role.
One might ask why. The answer is that we have a government that does not think cycling is a national issue; it has become clear during this debate. From the beginning, I had intended to say that we have a government that does not think cycling is a priority issue, but this government does not even think it is a national issue, if I am to be blunt.
There are no national goals when it comes to cycling. There are general objectives regarding increased cycling, but there are no concrete goals for cycling specifically. We know all too well that we lose the momentum in our institutions and agencies when goals are lacking. We need concrete national goals for how cycling traffic shall increase. Then perhaps we can get some momentum in Agency Sweden and in its priorities and assessments.
The Swedish Transport Road Research Institute, VTI, has, on behalf of the previous government, developed a proposal for 2035 which involves a doubling of cycling compared to today. I believe that this should be established as a goal by the Riksdag. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 3 from Miljöpartiet.
A goal must, of course, also be followed up with sufficient resources. Several different places where cycling is prominent have been mentioned in the debate, and I also want to highlight a few. Countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland, and Austria, which are truly investing in increased cycling, allocate approximately 10 percent of the infrastructure budget to cycling specifically. Sweden stands at about 1 percent, and the proportion in the county plans is not increasing.
Furthermore, this government has decided on active deteriorations. Among other things, they are removing the urban environment agreements, which have been a support for municipalities that want to improve for cyclists. They also stopped the proposal for a mode-neutral travel deduction, which seven parties in the Swedish Riksdag were initially in agreement on.
Madam Speaker! Some important improvements that would be needed and that we would like to implement – in addition to a clear goal – are highlighted in this report. One such is to change the Road Act to ensure that land access for cycle paths is equivalent to land access for roads for motor vehicle traffic. In that way, it would become easier to expand a cycle path network.
We would like to see a rule of consideration regarding cycling that means a distance of one and a half meters should be applied when overtaking cyclists so that one can feel safe when cycling. We would also like so-called school zones to be established in the vicinity of schools, with a speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour, to ensure that children and young people can take their bicycles to school. Parents should also be able to feel safe that the children get around without being injured by other road users.
We would also like to see that one simplifies and facilitates for cyclists by, for example, allowing right turns on red and cycling against one-way streets.
Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet naturally consider that all our proposals in this report should be implemented, even though I move for approval only to reservation 3. It needs to become easy, smooth, safe, and secure to cycle. This requires investments at all levels – including the national – for coherent cycle paths and improved traffic rules. Then people will truly have the opportunity to choose their own mode of transport instead of, as the Tidöre Government wants, being forced to take the car that becomes the only viable option if one does not invest in cycling.
Oskar Svärd (M)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report concerning cycling issues. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
The bicycle's role in society is becoming increasingly important. More people choose to commute by bicycle year-round, both to work and to public transport hubs. At the same time, the popularity of cycling as a sport is growing, both as recreation and in terms of the number of fitness races.
To mention one of the most well-known races, I would like to highlight Vätternrundan, which passes through my home county, Örebro län, and more specifically Askersunds kommun. Vätternrundan's various races have 36,000 registered participants per year. It is a truly impressive arrangement. Thanks to the efforts of seventy organizations and associations as well as 4,000 volunteer officials, the race can contribute 10 million kronor to various associations every year. These funds primarily go to sports organizations, which creates opportunities for more children, youth, and others to take part in the community and joy that association life offers.
Madam Speaker! The market for different types of bicycles is expanding continuously, providing more options for both everyday cyclists and enthusiasts. This development is very positive and contributes to both better health and sustainability. In addition to being an efficient way to get around, cycling contributes to better health by strengthening muscles and improving fitness. Whether it is a fast racing bike, a stable mountain bike, or a nimble city bike, the bicycle offers freedom and movement in a sustainable way.
Madam Speaker! Different parts of Sweden, however, look very different. The bicycle is an excellent means of transport in urban environments, where it contributes to reduced congestion, better air quality, and smoother commuting. Several of the members have mentioned different cities. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight Örebro municipality, where 34 percent of trips in the city are made by bicycle. This can be compared with Copenhagen, which was mentioned here earlier.
Madam Speaker! In the countryside, however, the conditions are worse, as the distances are longer and the infrastructure for cyclists is limited. In several municipalities in Örebro län, it is simply not possible to cycle along the country roads. The roads are narrow and poorly maintained. There is also a shortage of cycle paths. This can make cycling both impractical and unsafe outside of the cities.
The Moderates want all of Sweden to live. I therefore want to highlight that all types of transport are important parts and that the bicycle is an excellent mode of transport where it works well, i.e., primarily in the cities.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.