Cycling issues

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! More people are urged to cycle, but the fear of theft is hindering development. Such is a headline from the Swedish Theft Prevention Association in a text published on International Cycling Day on June 3 last year. I unfortunately have to say that the headline hits the nail on the head.

Three weeks ago, the Riksdag's bicycle network had a very productive seminar focused on bicycle thefts. In addition to bicycle thefts, a national bicycle register was also on the agenda. I intended to return to this later in my speech, Madam Speaker.

The fear of having one's bicycle stolen – or of having had one's bicycle stolen – appears to be the single greatest threat to increasing cycling in Sweden. In the article I just mentioned, Svenska Stöldskyddsföreningen raises some points from the survey they had Demoskop conduct. It is actually somewhat sad figures that are presented. Over 40 percent stated that they avoid cycling for fear of having their bicycle stolen, and 17 percent of those who have had their bicycle stolen stop cycling entirely.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the Demoskop survey shows that 30 percent of those who actually were robbed chose to acquire a used bicycle. The risk, of course, is that one then unconsciously buys a stolen bicycle and thereby contributes to there being more stolen bicycles.

Something pleasing, however, is that bicycle thefts are decreasing. In previous years, around 60,000 bicycles were reported stolen, but the amount has decreased noticeably. Between 2022 and 2023, the decrease was 8 percent, and in 2024, the decrease was a further 5 percent. Last year, the decrease was a full 15.2 percent. Then, 46,497 bicycles were reported stolen, of which approximately one quarter were electric bicycles.

The insurance companies paid out compensation for 36,000 stolen bicycles in 2024. Thus, not all stolen bicycles become insurance claims. The value of these 36,000 bicycles was approximately 230 million kronor. The total value of the stolen bicycles is however expected to be significantly higher, as the unreported figures are judged to be large.

Madam Speaker! What can we then do about this problem, and where do all the stolen bicycles go? Some, of course, remain in Sweden, while a large part are judged to end up in the former Eastern states. As recently as March 14, the customs at Lernacken on the Öresund Bridge made a unfortunately rare seizure. They stopped a transport with nine exclusive sport and racing bicycles that were on its way to Poland from Denmark.

This time it was perhaps God's providence that it was a transport that went via Sweden on its way to Poland, for when it comes to detecting stolen goods being taken out of Sweden, the customs' resources are altogether too meager. As a result of the open borders policy, stolen goods can be taken out of Sweden almost risk-free, and the customs is clear: theft rings have systematized the vacuuming of Sweden – and surely not just Sweden but all of Western Europe – of bicycles that are stolen for further transport and sale in Eastern Europe. The risk of detection is negligible.

The Customs Authority states the following: ”In Skåne, there are no known examples where extensive thefts on Swedish soil have been revealed during export out of the country.” I have personally visited the Skåne Customs, and they confirmed that resources are lacking to control outgoing goods. I mean that larger resources really should go to the Customs so that they can perform controls on outgoing goods to an increased extent.

When it comes to other measures, of course, everyone can use heavy, and multiple, locks on their bicycle. It can absolutely have an effect and make some thefts more difficult. More patrolling police, and above all more vehicle checks, would definitely be useful. Better, and camera-monitored, bicycle parking would also help.

I also intended to return to the question of a national bicycle register, which was discussed at the seminar. If a European register were introduced that copies how registers for cars, motorcycles, and heavier vehicles function, it would of course have been significantly harder to sell stolen bicycles – even in the eastern states. I do, however, find it difficult to see that such a register will ever be built up.

There we return to the question of whether it should be a national register and what one as a cyclist would be willing to pay for such a register, for it would of course not be free. The question is also whether it should be mandatory and whether it should be based on frame numbers or on other identification. I am convinced that we will not resolve that question here today, but I am open to investigating it further. Even if the conclusion becomes that this should not be implemented by the state but through private initiatives, it is indeed a matter that we would really need to review.

Madam Speaker! To return to what I said in the introduction: More people are being urged to cycle, but the fear of theft is hindering development. We must truly sharpen our efforts to stop these thefts.

Madam Speaker! In 2024, 24 cyclists died, which is a decrease of two from the year before. Five of these were traveling on electric scooters. At the same time as we can see how those seriously injured in traffic overall have decreased since the turn of the millennium, the curve unfortunately points in the opposite direction for cyclists. We also see how the popularity of electric scooters is reflected in the accident statistics: In 2024, 4,476 personal injury accidents were reported with these vehicles.

When I look out at my neighborhood at home, I now rarely see children on bicycles. Instead, they arrive on electric scooters, and they often arrive at a higher speed than those on bicycles do. The trend in accidents is dramatic. In just one year, between 2023 and 2024, the number of personal injury accidents increased from 3,425 to 4,476.

At the same time, the Stockholm Traffic Office reports that trips with rented electric scooters have decreased by approximately one-third since 2021, which strongly suggests that the accidents occur on private electric scooters. Almost half of all accidents are related to persons under 25 years of age, and three-quarters are single-person accidents. If this trend continues, I believe that something must be done, even though I am not a friend of unnecessary regulations.

Madam Speaker! The regulations for bicycle crossings and bicycle overpasses make it unnecessarily difficult for everyone out in traffic – completely unnecessarily. That it should be easy to do the right thing in traffic must be guiding in the work to strengthen a safe traffic system. Therefore, the regulations between bicycle crossings and bicycle overpasses need to be harmonized. Very few cyclists and motorists know the difference between these two types of intersections between road and bicycle path. It would be best and safest for everyone if bicycle overpasses were simply converted into bicycle crossings. The cyclist is the unprotected one, not the motorist.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to make a point for reintroducing the traffic play schools. Learning traffic rules and traffic etiquette at a young age is something one benefits from for the rest of one's life. The traffic play schools had a constructed traffic environment with painted roads, traffic signs, and pedestrian crossings, just like in real life. One learned everything from stop signs and the right-hand rule to speed signs and giving way. The traffic play schools made learning easy and enjoyable and prepared children to go out into traffic. These traffic play schools can actually save lives, and I would welcome them being re-established.

Since 1995, the proportion of children who walk and cycle to school has been approximately halved, and a major reason for this is parents' anxiety. At the same time, much has been done to ensure that children's walking and cycling paths to school are safe. It is perhaps time for an information campaign for parents to get more children to choose the bicycle or, for that matter, the walk as the natural choice for getting to school.

In a world where sedentary behavior is spreading, it is high time to reverse the trend and let the children get out and move. Let the children get the chance to choose the bicycle to school! The bicycle is playful, the bicycle is balance and motor skills, the bicycle is exercise, the bicycle is fresh air – and above all, the bicycle is freedom!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Inga-Lill Sjöblom (S)

Madam Speaker! I became quite curious about you and this matter of a national bicycle register, Patrik Jönsson. I missed that lecture because I was ill, but I wonder how you think it should look. We do have a motion on this, and I just want to ask you: Could you imagine voting with us to introduce a bicycle register?

How it then becomes, that is, whether it is a voluntary or mandatory register, is another matter, but an investigation can be conducted on introducing a register. Do you stand behind our motion, Patrik Jönsson?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind you not to address each other as "du" in the debate, but to say "ledamoten" or the member's name.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Inga-Lill Sjöblom for the question. That it is a very pressing question, we can probably agree on.

Rent frankly: When it comes to voting on each other's proposals, we all know how it works, that is to say that one usually votes within one's own bloc.

I would still like to return to the fact that the question absolutely would need to be highlighted. Is it even possible to establish such a register from a state level? It would probably have been best and most comprehensive if it were done by the state, but I also think that the cost could spiral. One pays a registration fee when one has a vehicle, for example – are the cyclists willing to do this? Purely in terms of social economy, the question is whether the costs would exceed what all the stolen bicycles cost, because then the point of it somewhat falls away.

On the question of whether I am willing to vote for the proposal, I can answer straightforwardly that it perhaps cannot be done. Above all, however, I mean that the question should be investigated. When it comes to the question of whether we really should have such a register, my answer is that I think it would have been very welcome. If it then lands on private initiatives or on the state, I do not know. It would likely land on private initiatives.

I welcome the question from Inga-Lill Sjöblom and appreciate the commitment.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Inga-Lill Sjöblom (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Patrik Jönsson!

I hope that in the future we can work together so that such a proposal becomes a reality. It is, in fact, an important proposal so that people can keep their expensive bicycles. Then, perhaps I might also think that it should be a private register, because I am also thinking of the bicycles that Patrik Jönsson spoke about, that is to say those that are assembled. One gets so many bicycles stolen and puts together a bicycle. Should there be a register? Maybe not, but I would like to investigate the issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes I might have welcomed somewhat broader cooperation and that it could work differently in the Riksdag. But this could very well result in us finding a consensus; that would be welcome.

It does happen that the bicycle is found by the police and that one gets it back because one has a registered frame number. Something could perhaps be done at a reasonable cost. Maybe it would make thefts more difficult. It would at least increase the possibilities of finding the bicycle's owner.

We can probably agree that it is very distressing to have one's bicycle stolen. One feels violated in some way; it is an uneasy feeling. Very many even choose to stop cycling altogether, as Demoskops' survey showed.

I have personally had two bicycles stolen. I remember it with discomfort – it somehow feels very close to home. It is not at all like a burglary, but it is still a violation of one's privacy.

I hope that we find a good way forward here.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Inga-Lill Sjöblom (S)

Madam Speaker, observers in the gallery and you who are sitting at home watching on TV or on a computer!

Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report TU13 Bicycle Issues. The Social Democrats stand by all of their 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 is made 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. It is part of the solution to several of our time's greatest challenges: climate change, the congestion in our cities, and the deteriorating public health. If cycling is truly to be able to play the role it deserves in Swedish transport policy, however, 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 and quantified goal, for example that bicycle traffic should double by 2035. This is fully possible, but it requires that bicycle policy is made into exactly what it should be: an integrated part of social planning, not a parenthesis.

We are not alone in this. VTI, the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, was commissioned in 2021 to develop a basis for such a goal. It was reported in 2022. We believe that the government should take these proposals into account and move forward towards a more sustainable, healthy, and bicycle-friendly Sweden. Why has the government waited so long?

Madam Speaker! 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 also a lack of planning at the regional level to facilitate bicycle commuting between municipalities.

Last week, we in the committee were informed that Trafikverket had built 40 kilometers of bicycle path during 2025. Sweden is quite large. Now I know that the distance Uppsala–Björklinge is included in this statistic. That bicycle path is 20 kilometers long and thus accounts for half. It is nearly finished; one has come halfway.

Most bicycle lanes are built in cities, where the municipality is the principal. In 80 percent of cases, it is the municipality that has most of the bicycle lanes. When will we get safety out in the countryside? That is where Trafikverket builds bicycle lanes.

Madam Speaker! 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 a natural means of transport, not with being driven to school as the norm. It is not only climate policy but also freedom policy that children can get themselves to school, to extracurricular activities, and to friends.

Madam Speaker! We want to point out that the extensive bicycle thefts are an obstacle to increased cycling. They lead to large costs for both individuals and insurance companies. They also deter many from cycling, as one does not know if the bicycle will still be there when one comes to pick it up.

We want to highlight that the government should take several different initiatives and, among other things, review the need to establish a bicycle register to counteract bicycle thefts and other organized crime directed against bicycle owners. There are two types of thieves: those who take a bicycle just because they want to get somewhere and those who plan their thefts.

We already have a vehicle register that works well. Why not use the same principle for bicycles? It would make it harder to sell stolen bicycles and easier to recover one's property.

Madam 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 so fast that the legislation is not keeping up.

We therefore want the government to push for a common EU standard for charging electric bicycles. It is a simple measure that could simplify everyday life for many consumers, reduce vulnerability, and furthermore strengthen safety.

Many of us here in the chamber know how difficult it is to get the battery in here in the Riksdag; one has to go the long way around. There must be another way.

It concerns, not least, preventing fires and explosions linked to the bicycle battery. This is a growing problem that deserves more attention. We want to see more research and better regulation. It is about safety and accessibility and about Sweden being at the forefront in the green technology transition.

Madam Speaker! This is not some marginal issue or some 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. Investments are required, but above all, a clear political direction is required. A national goal for cycling is not just a management tool but also an expression of will regarding what kind of society we want to build.

To those of you in the government base, I want to say the following: 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.

(Applause)

In this speech, Kadir Kasirga (S) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Almost all of us Swedes have at some point learned to ride a bicycle. We remember the freedom, the balance, the speed, and the feeling of suddenly moving forward on our own. But cycling issues are not about nostalgia. They are about how people actually get to work, to school, and out into life. That is why we must talk less about symbolic goals and more about a functioning reality. People do not start cycling more because the state sets new headlines. People start cycling more when it is safe, simple, and possible in everyday life.

The bicycle is an important means of transport. It contributes to better health, reduced congestion, and a more sustainable transport system. In cities like my home town Karlstad, the bicycle often works very well, especially for shorter journeys. There, it can be an obvious choice in everyday life. But Sweden is larger than its city centers. In large parts of the country, the distances are long and the alternatives few. There, the car is not a problem but a prerequisite for everyday life to function.

It is not possible to build railways to all parts of the country, and it is not a sustainable way of traveling to think that one should be able to cycle everywhere. A serious transport policy must therefore strengthen cycling where it works best and simultaneously safeguard accessibility throughout the country and ensure that the municipalities build up such a structure.

When we talk about cycling issues, we most often talk about climate and urban planning. All too rarely do we talk about the children. Every day, children cycle to school, practice, and friends. Cycling provides freedom, healthy movement, and independence, and that is what we should promote. But we adults also have a responsibility. The figures are serious. In Sweden, approximately 2,800 children are injured every year so seriously in bicycle accidents that they need to seek hospital treatment. That means an average of six children every week. Bicycle accidents are the most common traffic accident among children under 15 years of age.

Despite the fact that it is statutory that children under 15 years of age shall wear a helmet, only 64 percent of them do. In accidents with electric scooters, more than half of the injured children were not wearing a helmet. This is not just statistics in a report. These are children who suffer permanent injuries and families whose everyday lives are changed in an instant. Folksams' bicycle helmet test from 2025 showed that a poor quality children's helmet gives a four times greater risk of concussion than a good children's helmet, despite the fact that all tested helmets were EU-approved. Approved is, therefore, not always sufficient.

Road safety is therefore not just about technology and infrastructure. It is also about creating a culture where children's safety always comes first, and we must talk about this even more. It is about safer traffic environments around schools, better maintenance of cycle paths, and clear information to parents and children. It is also about the fact that helmet use must be taken more seriously. For children to be able to cycle safely without risking life or health, we must take this seriously, ensure that the implementation becomes much better, and inform parents about how important this is. It is not a detail in traffic policy; it is a fundamental safety issue that children can cycle safely to school, play, and leisure activities.

Cycling is also part of something larger. It is part of public health and community life. It is part of people's opportunities to move more in everyday life. Therefore, it is positive that the government has acted so that non-profit associations can continue to organize fitness races and other events on state roads without being hit by unreasonable costs. Trafikverket can now refrain from charging compensation from non-profit associations of up to 150,000 per event. It is a concrete decision that makes a difference for thousands of active people across the country.

Sweden is not built only by plans and authorities. It is built by voluntary forces, passionate individuals, and people who create movement and community throughout the country. We as politicians should facilitate this, not oppose it. We shall make it easier to cycle where the bicycle works best. We shall make it safer to cycle, especially for children and young people, and we shall ensure that the entire transport system holds together. We shall not create new headlines but ensure that what we have decided is implemented and functions.

Real traffic policy is not about choosing between bicycle and car, but about people arriving safely every day. When a child gets on a bicycle, it should not be the beginning of a risk but the beginning of an opportunity – an opportunity to move, to grow, and to become independent. Our responsibility as decision-makers is to ensure that that opportunity is safe. Children's safety in traffic is not a technical issue; it is a moral obligation.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin my speech by quoting a passage from a text. It sounds like this: ”Parents shall be able to feel security that their children can travel safely to school and activities. In the same way, both working people and retirees must be spared that feeling of exposed insecurity that it entails to cycle on roads trafficked by cars, buses, and trucks. Against this background, the construction of coherent cycle lanes is very important.”

This is important and true, and it is also actually exactly what Vänsterpartiet is proposing this year, namely that the state should take responsibility for a traffic-safe, coherent cycling infrastructure. But the text I read out does not come from our motion but from a motion that M raised during the previous parliamentary term and which was signed by, among others, Maria Stockhaus and Sten Bergheden. They both sit in the Transport Committee this parliamentary term and now, as representatives of the government side, demand a rejection of precisely what they themselves thought, and I assume still think, is important and urgent.

This is what makes me almost lose some of my enthusiasm, because why strive for influence and government power if, when you do get influence, you do not carry out what you said you wanted to? The Moderates have a good bicycle policy in opposition but unfortunately a non-existent bicycle policy in government.

This is also confirmed by the Swedish National Audit Office, which has audited the government's work to improve the conditions for bicycle traffic. The Swedish National Audit Office states in its report that there are several serious deficiencies. It describes a cycling infrastructure that is not connected and is not traffic-safe, and where far too many cyclists are seriously injured in encounters with other traffic. This is an important report for everyone who wants to see an improved cycling infrastructure, but the government's response to the report has been very restrained. The response was

Approximately: "Thanks for the comments. Goodbye!" This demonstrates low ambition regarding cycling issues.

Cycling is also low priority in the proposal for a new national plan. It has not even received its own heading in the plan but is tucked into the health section through a few sentences about cycling. It clearly shows that cycling is not seen as a mode of transport in its own right but is allowed to be included a little in a corner, as if it were a favor. This way of handling cycling contradicts the bicycle declaration that Sweden signed as recently as the spring of 2024, i.e., during this government's time. The bicycle declaration highlights cycling as a central mode of transport for transition, public health, and accessibility, and advocates that cycling should be integrated into the rest of the transport planning.

When the government is asked what is being done to fulfill the bicycle declaration, they point to the country's municipalities and regions and say that it is their responsibility and argue that the declaration is not legally binding. I wonder: Why such low ambition? I don't understand it. What is the problem? We must be able to do better than this.

From Vänsterpartiet, we have several proposals. We want to see an amendment to the Road Act to break deadlocks and make it possible to build cycle paths without requirements for shared traffic or functional connection with a state road.

We also want to investigate existing cycling infrastructure to identify deficiencies and increase accessibility for cyclists. We want to see a national goal for increased cycling, and we also want to dust off and update the national cycling strategy from 2017 – a strategy that no one today seems to know still applies.

We also want VTI to be tasked with following up on its 2017 report on cycling among children and young people and to be given a mandate to develop concrete proposals for measures to increase and promote cycling among children and young people.

Madam Speaker! Cycling deserves more than a few lines under the health section in the national plan. It is time to highlight cycling as its own mode of transport in its own right. It is time to take inspiration from all the countries and cities around Europe that have come so much further than Sweden has in this area.

By increasing cycling, we can tick off several national goals. It contributes positively to the transport policy goals, the environmental goals, the climate goal, and the public health goal. It is high time to get this moving now!

I move for approval of reservation 12.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are currently debating a bicycle report.

Cycling has, just like many other types of traffic, actually different purposes. One of the most important purposes is to give children and young people the opportunity to get to school, sports practice, or other events that they feel like. Cycling is also a way to develop a labor market region, often within a municipality.

This is somewhat the point: in the Christian Democratic ideology, we are quite careful with the principle of subsidiarity – a concept used within the EU and which many of us experience as common. It is about making so-called sub-evaluations. When I listen to the debate, Madam Speaker, I hear a desire to move the responsibility, in this case for bicycles, higher up in the hierarchy. It sounds like it would change something in general, but I do not believe that it does.

I believe instead that it is very good that cycling is a municipal responsibility. I believe that it is much better for the municipalities to own the issue precisely when it concerns cycling, resources, and resource efficiency. If one wants to connect cycle paths between different municipalities, Trafikverket can already assist today. The National Audit Office has also pointed out that it is fully possible today to build new cycle paths that are not connected to other roads.

This is exciting, because I must admit that as recently as a year ago, I also was of the opinion that one had to follow Trafikverket's path in order to build a pedestrian and bicycle path. I am therefore grateful that the National Audit Office has pointed out that that is not quite how the law should be interpreted. Many municipalities should take a look at this.

There is another issue that I have raised internally. That is how party politics works, that you don't always get everyone on board, and it is also the case when one negotiates between different parties. I would like to see a new classification of footpaths and cycle paths. I have already been clear that I consider cycling to be a municipal responsibility, but if a municipality today seeks funding from Trafikverket and wants a collaboration, it is always the high standard for footpaths and cycle paths that applies. I am a bit skeptical about this.

Let me take a practical example. At home in Uddevalla, we have an old railway, the Lelångebanan, which runs through large parts of Dalsland. It has been prepared by several municipalities in consultation with the landowners into a fantastic walking and cycling path. It is, however, not a walking and cycling path, as it has neither asphalt nor anything else. But it is always prepared, and very many people walk there with the dog, cycle, and so on. But it is not possible to apply for money for Lelångebanan if one would want to prepare it. Now we have such luck that it concerns an old railway embankment, so it is very stable in itself.

One could very well imagine having different levels of paths and cycle paths, ranging from this type of embankment to what I myself have called cycle highways. I was scolded for saying "highway," but it is about dosed lanes. This has been tested in Skåne, if I am not completely mistaken. There should be an opening here for how one seeks funding, even though the responsibility is municipal.

When it comes to traffic rules, I myself have on several occasions pointed out that one should look at the 1.5-meter rule. One should also consider and review what applies during right turns and so on. I am therefore very pleased that the government has tasked the Transport Agency with investigating distance rules and clear guidelines for how drivers of motor vehicles should notice cyclists. I think this is positive, and I hope that in connection with this, one can also review other regulatory simplifications that would make it easier to cycle.

Several speakers have already raised what is the unpleasant part of cycling, namely that we see many accidents. A few of us sat and chatted before the debate, among other things about the electric scooters. They are defined as bicycles today, and it is among them that we see very many accidents. We also see, regarding public health, children and young people who stop cycling and switch to electric scooters. I have grandchildren myself, and they are at their grandfather's and think it would be fun to have an electric scooter.

The question is whether we should not consider a light moped license for electric scooters given the injuries we are seeing. Now I am speaking freely for a bit, because I think we can do that in the chamber sometimes. Today, an electric scooter is defined as a bicycle, but given the injuries we see, the question is whether we will not have to return and review this in the future.

Regardless of the general reflections, in all humility in a speaker's chair, it is pleasing that the municipalities are actually acting. Here in Stockholm, we see an enormous difference compared to a few years ago, as the municipality has regulated where one can park and how one can drive. The municipality has also restricted the speed in certain parts of the city, for example inside Gamla stan. Again: Cycling is a municipal responsibility, and it is positive that the municipalities are also taking the responsibility.

Regarding the Riksrevision's criticism, I share the government's view that it is the public benefit that should be decisive when roads are built, regardless of which vehicle is intended. I also do not believe that we should shift the responsibility from municipality to state.

We probably all need to think about this. There is a general discussion in politics that when a new road is built, a pedestrian and cycle path should be laid next to it. Sweden is a very large country. If we start doing this on all our roads, it will become incredibly expensive, and it will also mean that we build fewer roads.

An assessment must actually be made: Where is a regular road appropriate? Where is a road with a wide shoulder where one can cycle alongside appropriate? Where is a pedestrian and cycle path necessary? From this perspective, I actually think that the Swedish system works very well fundamentally.

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but bring up one more thing, namely politics' eternal desire for goals. I understand that companies set goals, because that is part of the business model. One sets a goal, and then one wants to achieve it. But in politics, we have a public transport goal, and there are those who desire a cycling goal. Then we should also have a goal for how much the cars should increase, an aviation goal, and a railway goal. That will end up roughly like the municipalities' population goals. If all municipalities' population goals were to be reached within ten years, 40 million people would live in Sweden.

It becomes a bit silly sometimes, Madam Speaker, when we politicians deal with goals in that way. The business sector works with goals; we shall work with infrastructure.

Then I am back to what I began my speech with: Cycling issues are primarily a municipal responsibility. That is how the subsidiarity principle looks. I think it is wise that we continue to have that responsibility at the municipal level. The municipalities are, in many contexts, fantastically skilled at seeing where it might be appropriate to expand.

A national plan will be produced, and in it we will also see what ends up in the regional plans. Then regional politicians and municipal politicians can see where it is appropriate to, possibly in cooperation, build walking and cycling paths between different municipalities. I do not believe it is precisely the Riksdag that should decide that for the entire kingdom.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report 2025/26:TU13 Cycling issues.

If one looks at the definition of a bicycle, one sees that it is not just what one first thinks of. Also bicycles with electric assistance, electric scooters, wheelchairs and even Segways fall under the concept. It is easy for us to only think of traditional cycling, and that is true many times given that it is completely dominant, even though the electric scooters are increasing.

Cycling has many advantages that make it encouraged. Cycling is good for public health and provides fast transport. If you are going somewhere here in Stockholm and look at route planning, it often results in that the fastest way to get around is by bicycle. It also has a relatively low investment cost.

But cycling also has disadvantages, such as unprotected road users and a high risk of accidents. As we have touched upon, the bicycle is also a theft-prone product. Here, one should perhaps use new technology to a somewhat greater extent than now, GPS pucks and other things, but it is still impossible to avoid that the bicycle is theft-prone.

We have a large bicycle network, Madam Speaker, of 27,000 kilometers. It is complicated to get in bicycle paths where a car infrastructure is already laid. The cost is relatively high.

We can look at the municipalities' priorities. We have a tax equalization system that is important for tax collection to be somewhat fair and for keeping the country together. Something similar does not exist when it comes to infrastructure for cycling. Here, there are large differences. A smaller municipality with poorer finances often has to choose to omit cycle paths in order to manage the core of welfare, such as school, care, and culture. Given how important cycle paths are, it is unfortunate to have to make those priorities.

My home municipality Nässjö made a prioritization of six kilometers that would have been perfect to lay a cycle path on, given that one is placing a reserve water source that would have been perfect. It did not go through. On the other hand, one connects Nässjö and Eksjö along national road 40, which is two miles. It may seem long, but we can look at why it is being done. It was, therefore, a two-plus-one road, where it becomes hopelessly difficult to cycle – I believe it was Miljöpartiet that highlighted it in a reservation. Sometimes it is therefore necessary to build new infrastructure for cycling at two-plus-one roads. It is then good that the state is involved and financing those parts.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 10 under point 4, Infrastructure for cycling.

The National Audit Office gives stinging criticism in its report regarding the state's measures concerning the creation of good conditions for bicycle traffic in Sweden. The criticism can be summarized as that they are ineffective and do not lead to increased or safer cycling. It is regrettable that the government dismisses many of the recommendations that the National Audit Office provides.

I want to highlight that Trafikverket must plan for national cycle paths and cycle lanes to a greater extent. Why? Well, cycling is good for public health. Furthermore, emissions must be reduced, and cycling produces minimal emissions. The bicycle also takes up relatively little space in a traffic situation. The calculation is therefore positive.

As many have pointed out, national goals are missing. Why should we have national goals, Member of Parliament Magnus Jacobsson? Just when things are very positive, it is important to have national goals precisely to reinforce the positive. This applies to cycling to the highest degree. I hear that everyone here is actually very positive about cycling. In the previous debate about aviation, it was not at all in that way. Here, there is still a difference in the traffic laws.

What we should prioritize are trips to and from work or school. A traffic unsafe situation is created when more people start driving their children to school, specifically during drop-off and pick-up. If we can gain a better understanding of how one behaves in traffic, it will become safer when our children cycle to and from school, but also when we cycle to and from work.

I also want to mention cycling on the railway. We should not only think about cycling from point A to point B but also include other modes of transport such as the railway, so that one can take one's bicycle or electric scooter on the railway in a simpler way than today.

The part that is problematic is the accidents. That is also why I think one should have a goal. If you have a goal for cycling, you also highlight what is problematic, and that is the accidents.

Accidents have increased in total. Between 2022 and 2024, the number of bicycle accidents increased from 700 to 800. During the same period, the number of car accidents decreased by 300 to reach 1,600 in 2024. The bicycle accidents therefore stand at half of this, and that is a very high proportion. In that case, I have only looked at serious accidents; it becomes different if one looks at accidents across the board.

Regarding the serious accidents, is the technology in terms of helmets important? There are better and worse helmets, and it is important to highlight the issue. The insurance companies are good at stimulating the use of helmets, but that is because the accidents constitute a large cost for the insurance companies. Therefore, there is a self-interest in pushing forward on the issue.

Madam Speaker! I conclude by saying: People cycle too little. Let us change this.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There were two things I reacted a bit to. One is the concept of utility, perceived utility, and that some things are more useful. What has been absolutely most useful for Sweden and for the people is the introduction of the car. It has changed our work environment and what people feel. Just such a thing as driving from Gothenburg to Uddevalla late in the evening – the road is completely empty, you are a bit tired and worn out, and then you get to feel that freedom.

When my children were small, I had a convertible. My little boy was with me when I bought it, and he lay down in the back seat. I asked him what he was doing, and he answered: Dad! I love this car.

It is not just about a sense of freedom, but the car has given us freedom, welfare, and functioning healthcare. The concept of utility therefore becomes exciting.

I reflected on the Eksjö–Nässjö stretch. I went online and asked the simple question of how many people use it. The stretch is new – it opened in 2025, I believe. The answer from ChatGPT was: Difficult to assess. I believe that will be the answer even in three years, four years, and five years.

This is the problem: If we set a goal, the authority Trafikverket will, in accordance with the goal, build pedestrian and cycle paths in various places where they are not used or are used marginally. It is cost-driving in an incorrect way. It would have been better if the pedestrian and cycle path funds had been used within the two municipalities, and then we could, in accordance with what has been stated in previous reports, make it easier to take the bicycle on the bus or the train. It is primarily in the urban area that the bicycle functions as within a labor market region, but it also applies where children and young people use the bicycle to get to school.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Magnus Jacobsson for the question.

Why pit different modes of transport against each other? I agree with the member's description of the feeling of freedom that a car provides and its utility. Here, I was actually speaking about the utility for public health and the environment. The feeling of freedom I can feel today with a car is that I can take a bicycle with me even with the car, especially in the member's home region on the west coast. In the summer, it is not so easy to park – which would provide a feeling of freedom in that area.

Regarding the stretch between Nässjö and Eksjö, I agree with the member's opinion. Just as I said, I wondered how many will use the stretch. This is because they had created two-plus-one roads which made it extremely difficult to get through by bicycle. There was a logic in this.

I highlighted the road between Bodafors and Nässjö, which is six kilometers, and it should have been obvious for work commuting. There is no logic in terms of making the right priorities here, but rather it depends on who pays and the priorities that are made in the municipality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! That is somewhat my point, that is to say, not to set modes of transport against each other. That is what happens when one sets collective goals and cycling goals. Then we suddenly set modes of transport against each other.

For some strange reason, it is always all types of transport that are not car or aviation that are supposed to have a goal, almost as if car and aviation were the evil on earth. On the contrary, car and aviation are immensely essential for a functioning transport system.

Regarding cars and aviation, however, we need to work on making them more environmentally friendly, and we need to work on developing a different fuel mix. We are already doing that and are generally in agreement.

Madam Speaker! I maintain that I am somewhat surprised by the eagerness to have specifically a bicycle goal.

The same is true in the question of accidents. There is already a goal, namely zero killed and injured in traffic. That is why we have statistics, and we measure where the injuries occur in the vehicles. In this case, we see that the number of bicycle accidents is increasing. I have not delved deeply into this, but I suspect that it is the number of accidents with electric scooters that is going up. That is where we see an increased use. Then we must be prepared to take measures. But I am not sure that bicycle goals in themselves will lead to fewer traffic accidents. If, on the other hand, we improve the infrastructure in urban areas where many live and where many use electric scooters or regular bicycles, it will likely lead to fewer accidents.

We who live in the countryside or near the countryside should demand that, in connection with two-plus-one roads, there are substantial turn-offs. People must be able to get around even in the countryside, but one must think about it already when building the regular road. Otherwise, it will lead to the compelling phenomena.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I nevertheless appreciate that we land on the focus on the risk of accidents.

The number of fatal accidents with bicycles is 27 for 2024. At the same time, there were 117 fatal accidents with cars. But in terms of serious injuries, the number is large for bicycles. The accidents have increased with e-scooters, but it is not about the serious accidents. Probably it is because one stands lower on an e-scooter, and then the accidents do not become fully as serious as with a regular bicycle. At the same time, the volume increase means that there is an accident risk, and then we must keep track of it.

Just as has been raised earlier this afternoon, we must have full focus on the fact that the helmet is important for both bicycles and electric scooters.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! We have today debated the Committee on Transport's report on cycling issues.

Madam Speaker! There are many fine advantages to people cycling, not least better health and reduced congestion in public transport. Therefore, the Liberals want to facilitate things for cyclists. One of several important prerequisites for getting more people to cycle is, however, that there are coherent safe roads and that they are maintained continuously.

Unfortunately, there are far too many poorly planned traffic environments that hinder cyclists, not least in our cities. 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 after accidents on substandard roads. Decisive action is needed here, but this is primarily the responsibility of the municipalities.

To facilitate commuting by bicycle, we Liberals want to see a coherent planning of the cycle paths at the regional level and that the municipalities cooperate across borders. It is not reasonable for the standard of a cycle path to deteriorate at a municipal border. We want to see more initiatives for coherent regional cycle routes, in order to make it easier to cycle longer distances.

The Liberals also want to increase the possibility of taking the bicycle on commuter trains and buses. By making it possible to combine using public transport with cycling, we believe that more people can leave the car behind and thereby make a contribution to the environment and reduce congestion on the roads.

The electric bicycle is very interesting when it comes to transporting oneself to and from public transport. It takes up little space on the train and then takes you smoothly the last bit of the journey.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are positive towards electric scooters. They have become a clear niche when it comes to transporting oneself over shorter distances. They have existed for a few years now, and both the positive and, unfortunately, the negative effects of the arrival of electric scooters have shown themselves. We are beginning to get to grips with the parking problems, which were the completely dominant element when they arrived. But work remains to implement measures against the increasing personal injuries, which we have heard about earlier in the debate. Unfortunately, there have also been several deaths.

Accessibility for all pedestrians, not least for the elderly and persons with disabilities, is crucial for us. Clearer rules for electric scooters are needed, but also better supervision of compliance with the rules that exist. That which there is no supervision over, that which is not checked, is not complied with.

Madam Speaker! Cyclists are unprotected in the traffic environment. Separate cycle paths exist in many places, but often cyclists share the roadway with motorists. Road safety needs to be improved. This applies in particular when cyclists are being overtaken.

Sweden has a long tradition of being the leading country when it comes to road safety. We are known for our zero vision, which many countries follow. We should therefore lead the way even when it comes to cycling. The Liberals have for a long time pushed for a speed-dependent distance of at least one and a half meters during overtaking in motions in the Riksdag, which is firmly anchored in research in Sweden. Such a rule would signal to car drivers that more factors than just the distance affect road 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.

Now, the Liberals, together with our coalition parties, have tasked the Transport Agency with investigating how a rule for a minimum distance when overtaking cyclists can be introduced. This is a very positive first step for safer cycling on roads. The assignment is to be reported by August 30th of this year at the latest.

Road traffic 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 allocated permanent funds so that the previous fee for, among other things, putting up temporary signs about cycling races on the roads has been removed. It will be a positive economic relief and a recognition of the important work that everyone who organizes cycling races does for health in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Finally: Technology is developing rapidly, and we see a constant evolution of the cycling concept. This applies in particular to electric bicycles and electric scooters. The Liberals view this development positively. At the same time, road safety must be protected. Unfortunately, as we have said, we have seen an increasing trend in the number of accidents involving unprotected road users in recent years. It is therefore 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.

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. This applies in particular for our children, so that the children's parents can feel that there is a safe cycle path for the children and dare to let them go. In that context, the thoughts are perhaps to paint a signal on ordinary roads, where cars also drive, that a cyclist might be coming.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and reject all motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by highlighting the national cycling strategy from 2017. It was the first of its kind in Sweden and was developed when Miljöpartiet was in government. The cycling strategy was an important step toward promoting increased and safe cycling.

Much has however happened since then. Interest organizations, municipalities and regions have repeatedly asked if it is still relevant. Now the National Audit Office also states that the strategy is outdated and needs to be updated. It is criticism that the government cannot turn a blind eye to.

The National Audit Office points out in particular that there is a lack of sufficiently clear requirements for accessibility for bicycle traffic. I completely agree with that. The Government should, as a matter of priority, investigate state principles or requirements for where basic accessibility must be ensured and give the Swedish Transport Administration an explicit responsibility to maintain it within the state's road maintenance responsibility.

We also have the European Bicycle Declaration, which is an important guide and highlights cycling as one of the most effective tools to achieve goals in climate, public health, social inclusion, and economy. The declaration contains 36 commitments. Sweden has signed it. But nothing in the government's communication shows how they intend to fulfill these promises. There is not a word about how the deficiencies raised by the Swedish National Audit Office should be rectified. I mean that Sweden should consolidate its efforts to realize the intentions in this European declaration. It would be a clear step forward.

Madam Speaker! Cycling should be a real possibility, not only in the cities but in the entire country. Modern electric bicycles make it possible to cycle longer distances, but then there must also be cycle paths. Unfortunately, development is currently severely limited by how the Road Act is interpreted. The current interpretation means that cycle paths in the countryside almost always must be located right next to a road for cars. This prevents smart, logical, and short routes and has received sharp criticism in the National Audit Office's review.

Trafikverket interprets the legislation as that cycle paths must relieve an existing state road. This means that one cannot build cycle paths at motorways or where they lack a direct connection to a road, even though it would often be the best solution for cyclists. In practice, it stops regional commuting routes that could provide large climate and accessibility gains.

We must also be honest; cycle paths adjacent to major roads are not attractive. They are noisy, hazardous to health, and often longer than more direct routes. And when the cycle path is not counted as a public road, uncertainties are created regarding responsibility, land access, and maintenance.

These problems have been well-known for a long time. The National Audit Office clearly states that the interpretation of the Road Act hinders or makes it impossible to build attractive cycle paths. This is something that both municipalities, regions, and the Transport Administration themselves are aware of. The regions want to change the law, SKR wants to modernize it, and the Transport Administration warns that it hinders effective solutions.

Despite all this, the government rejects almost all of the National Audit Office's recommendations and argues that the law is already sufficiently flexible. But those who work practically with bicycle planning know that this is not true. Therefore, I believe that the government must urgently return with proposals to amend the Road Act. It must become fully possible to build separated cycle paths without requirements for a functional connection with a road for cars. Trafikverket should also be tasked with reviewing its internal principles, so that we ensure equivalent land access for cycle paths and roads for cars.

Madam Speaker! I also want to speak more broadly about the bicycle's role in the transport system. I think the bicycle is a fantastic means of transport. It is cheap, efficient, quiet and sustainable. It is good for the climate, for the economy and for public health.

Still, cycling has decreased in large parts of the country over decades. Why then? Well, because the road network is no longer adapted for cycling, especially not in the countryside. Wider cars, higher speeds, and two-plus-one roads with railings have made the roads more dangerous for unprotected road users. The small amount of space that existed has been eaten up. Cycling has been pushed out. This is something we must change.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants to introduce rural environment agreements – equivalent to the previous urban environment agreements – to strengthen cycling throughout the country. Safe, secure and convenient cycle paths should not be something that only large cities get.

The municipalities are already doing a lot. They are building bicycle garages, rerouting traffic around schools, creating mobility solutions, introducing commuter bikes, and integrating cycling into planning. But at the national level, cycling is unfortunately still treated as an afterthought. Trafikverket's priorities focus on car traffic, and the state investments in cycling are marginal.

Sweden still lacks national goals for cycling. We have general ambitions but no concrete goals, and without goals, the momentum is missing in Agency Sweden. VTI has developed a proposal to double cycling by 2035. It is a goal that the Riksdag should establish.

But a goal is not enough. It must also be followed by resources. Countries such as Austria, Ireland, and the Netherlands invest around 10 percent of their infrastructure budget on cycling. Sweden is at around 1 percent. This government has also removed the urban environment agreements and stopped the mode-neutral travel deduction – two reforms that would have significantly strengthened cycling.

Madam Speaker! I also want to raise the issue of safety. Overtaking is one of the greatest risks for cyclists in rural areas. In several countries, a rule of consideration regarding a minimum distance of 1.5 meters during overtaking has been introduced. The Transport Agency has said no to this without providing any empirical basis. At the same time, research from among others VTI shows that perceived safety requires a distance of 2.5–3 meters during overtaking at 70–90 kilometers per hour.

It is clear that today's rules are not sufficient. Therefore, an opportunity to have a 1.5-meter rule on designated stretches should be introduced even in Sweden. It would make a big difference for the perceived safety and open the door for more cycling in the countryside.

Madam Speaker! In summary, Sweden needs clear goals, modern legislation, and real investments in bicycle traffic. The National Audit Office has done its job. Now it is time for the government to do its.

I naturally support all of the Green Party's reservations, but in order to save some voting time, I move for approval of only reservation 11.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 25.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)