OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Cyclists' Federation

ECF

The European Cyclists' Federation advocates for increased cycling across Europe to improve climate, mobility and public health.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Magda Kopczynska (Director-General Mobility and Transport) and

28 Jan 2026 · Courtesy visit to provide updates on ongoing activities of the association, current priorities and interest on upcoming EC initiatives relevant for cycling

Meeting with Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

4 Dec 2025 · Sustainable Mobility

Meeting with Gabriele Giudice (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto) and Cycling Industries Europe

21 Nov 2025 · State of the EU cycling sector and bike adoption

Response to Collection of urban mobility data per urban node

19 Nov 2025

The European Cyclists Federation (ECF) welcomes the European Commissions initiative to establish common urban mobility indicators for all TEN-T urban nodes and the draft implementing act. We acknowledge the draft act's pragmatic reliance on existing EU data sets to meet the 2027 deadline. However, we also see the need for a more strategic, coherent, and ambitious indicator framework to support EU transport policy goals. ECF calls for stronger methodological clarity, improved alignment between indicators, and increased technical and financial support for Member States and urban areas to improve urban mobility data collection. Urban mobility indicators should be more closely linked to EU transport policy goals. Key recommendations for the indicators proposed in the draft act include: - Clarifying that the Number of trips indicator is in fact a complete modal split metric based on regular travel surveys for all modes, with clearer definitions for multimodal trips; - Expanding vehicle stock indicators to include bicycles and shared mobility; - Linking serious injuries and fatalities data with exposure data to enable meaningful road-safety assessments. To strengthen the indicator set, we propose two new indicators: - annual distance travelled by mode (critical for exposure and emissions calculations); - and the share of dedicated cycling infrastructure relative to the road network. Both indicators would be instrumental for following up on EU transport policy commitments, including the European Declaration on Cycling. Finally, ECF calls for a clearer long-term roadmap for indicator development beyond 2027, ensuring that future updates provide a more complete picture of urban mobility across all modes and fully reflect EU transport policy goals. You can find ECF's full contribution in the attachment.
Read full response

Meeting with Elena Kountoura (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Nov 2025 · Meeting with "European Cyclists’ Federation" representatives

Meeting with Daniel Attard (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Cycling Industries Europe

30 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Tourism

Meeting with François Kalfon (Member of the European Parliament) and Cycling Industries Europe and JobRad Holding SE

3 Oct 2025 · Verdissement des flottes & Financement

Meeting with François Kalfon (Member of the European Parliament) and Cycling Industries Europe and JobRad Holding SE

25 Sept 2025 · Verdissement des flottes & Financement

European cyclists urge inclusion of bikes in fleet rules

8 Sept 2025
Topic — EU consultation on setting zero-emission requirements for corporate vehicle fleets.
Message — The federation wants (e-)bikes and cargo bikes included in the zero-emission fleet definition. They advocate for a mode-neutral approach that supports bike leasing and mobility budgets.12
Why — This expansion would significantly boost demand and jobs within Europe’s cycling industry.3
Impact — Car manufacturers lose their exclusive claim to corporate fleet incentives and registration targets.4
Read full response

Response to Sustainable transport investment plan

21 Aug 2025

The European Cyclists' Federation (ECF) welcomes the Commission's Sustainable Transport Investment Plan initiative but urges inclusion of urban mobility as a strategic pillar for Europe's competitiveness. Urban mobility: The missing link in STIP **Critical gap**: Current STIP discussions focus on aviation, waterborne transport, and rail digitalisation while overlooking urban and regional mobilitywhere 80% of Europeans will live by 2050. This represents a fundamental misalignment with Europe's transport challenges. **Market failures apply equally**: The same barriers STIP aims to address (market fragmentation, limited demand coordination, under-utilised public procurement) significantly hinder urban mobility investment. Excluding this sector wastes the opportunity to leverage STIP's framework where it's most needed. Cycling's competitive advantage **European manufacturing leadership**: The cycling industry represents a rare European manufacturing success story. Unlike other transport sectors dominated by non-EU players, Europe leads global cycling innovation and production. STIP should prioritise this homegrown competitive advantage. **Investment returns**: Cycling infrastructure delivers exceptional ROIevery euro invested generates 6.5 in regional economic returns. With 66% of urban trips under 5km perfectly suited for cycling, the modal shift potential is enormous. **Climate & Health Co-benefits**: Increased walking and cycling contributes up to 1,170 per person in health gains by 2050 while directly supporting EU climate targets through reduced emissions. Recommendations for STIP urban mobility integration 1. **Align with existing EU legislation**: Connect STIP to the European Declaration on Cycling, TEN-T urban nodes requirements, and AFIR compliance timelines to create coherent investment signals. 2. **Support European industry**: Prioritise cycling and zero-emission bus manufacturing, among other truly sustainable transport modes, to strengthen EU industrial competitiveness while meeting sustainability goals. 3. **Enable multimodal systems**: Integrate cycling infrastructure with public transport hubs, first/last-mile connectivity, and protected cycling networks as part of comprehensive urban mobility solutions. 4. **Leverage SUMPs**: Recognise Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans as investment blueprints and align STIP funding mechanisms with their implementation. Conclusion A STIP without urban mobility investment misses Europe's greatest transport transformation opportunity. By 2027, TEN-T urban nodes must adopt SUMPs covering functional urban areasexactly where integrated cycling and public transport solutions are needed most. The 1.5 trillion urban mobility transition by 2050 represents Europe's largest infrastructure challenge and opportunity. STIP can either catalysse this transformation or remain irrelevant to where Europeans actually live, work, and travel. Excluding urban mobility from STIP would be strategically shortsighted, economically wasteful, and environmentally counterproductive. We urge the Commission to position urban mobilitywith cycling, active and sustainable mobility as a key componentat STIP's core.
Read full response

European Cyclists' Federation urges focus on bicycle tourism

1 Jul 2025
Topic — The European Commission is developing a strategy for sustainable and competitive tourism.
Message — ECF requests that cycling tourism and the EuroVelo network be integrated into the official strategy. They also call for investment in cross-border safe cycling infrastructure and digital tools.123
Why — Official recognition and funding would allow their network to expand and innovate.4
Impact — Non-European tourism hubs lose market share if the EU secures its global lead.5
Read full response

European Cyclists' Federation demands Modernisation Fund subsidies for e-bikes

24 May 2025
Topic — Evaluation of operating rules for the Modernisation Fund regarding climate action investments.
Message — The organization insists that electric bicycle purchase subsidies be recognized as priority energy efficiency investments. They urge the recognition of cycling's energy-saving potential compared to other transport modes.12
Why — Expanding funding eligibility would lower purchase prices and increase the bicycle industry's market share.3
Impact — Car manufacturers lose as funding and commuters shift from vehicles to more efficient cycling alternatives.4
Read full response

Meeting with Isabelle Vandoorne (Acting Head of Unit Mobility and Transport) and Cycling Industries Europe and JobRad Holding SE

14 May 2025 · Exchange of views on progress related to implementation of the European Declaration on Cycling with particular focus on bike leasing

Response to Connecting Europe through high-speed rail

8 May 2025

ECF, the European Cyclists Federation, very much welcomes this forthcoming Action Plan on Connecting Europe by high-speed rail. Any high-speed train, in fact any train, needs be to fed: passengers need to get to and from the station the first and last mile and they spend considerable time and effort in doing so. For the overall travel experience, there is more than just the train journey in itself. ECF advocates to better integrate cycling with (high-speed) rail in Europe. In the Netherlands, where a vibrant bike-rail eco-system exists, more than 40% of rail passengers travel by bicycle to the railway station. This integration consists of state-of-the art bike parking facilities at railway stations; a performant bike-sharing scheme; and the possibility to bring bicycles onto trains. ECFs forthcoming Cyclists love trains 2025 report will analyse the bike-friendliness of some 67 rail operators in Europe. It will conclude that among all long-distance types of trains (IC, EC, night trains and HSR), HSR is by far the least performing rail category when it comes to accepting passengers travelling with non-dismantled bicycles. We therefore propose several solutions on how to improve intermodal bike and train integration in general and with HSR in particular. ECF recommendations include, among other: Increasing, over time, the legal minimum requirement for bicycle carriage on all regional and long-distance trains in the EU from 4 to 8 per train composition; removing technical and regulatory barriers to retrofit bike spaces on rolling stock servicing cross-border connections; creating a Single EU Bicycle Ticket across different rail operators; tying EU funding to multimodal accessibility; prioritizing Bike-Rail Integration in TEN-T Regulation implementation processes; funding research and monitoring.
Read full response

Meeting with François Kalfon (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Feb 2025 · Politique européenne du vélo

Meeting with Sophia Kircher (Member of the European Parliament)

31 Oct 2024 · European Cycle Strategy

Meeting with Magda Kopczynska (Director-General Mobility and Transport)

4 Oct 2023 · Introductory meeting

Response to Revision of the specifications for EU-wide Multimodal Travel Information Services (Delegated Regulation 2017/1926)

28 Jun 2023

This submission has been prepared by the European Cyclists' Federation (ECF) with input from Cycling Industries Europe (CIE). The two organisations welcome the initiative of the Commission to provide new specifications for information services for EU-wide multimodal travel. In order to achieve the stated objectives of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy that is mentioned in the first recital of the proposal, and specifically to enable decisive action to shift more activity towards more sustainable transport modes (notably increasing the number of passengers travelling by rail and commuting by public transport and active modes) (point 11 of the Communication), it will be necessary for cycling to be treated as a fully-fledged mode of transport also when it comes to data and information services for multimodal travel. We appreciate that the current proposal takes steps in this direction, for example by including capacity and access conditions for bicycles in the definitions of auxiliary information for scheduled transport and transport on demand where relevant under level of service two for static, historic and observed travel and traffic data (point 1.2 (c) subpoint (b)). We also welcome the explicit mentioning of walking as a mode of personal transport in the introduction of the annex. We would like to emphasise that an overarching purpose of the MMTIS delegated regulation is to illicit behavior change (as stated above). Simultaneously, many local authorities have enacted/are enacting SUMPs to achieve this same goal. In this regard, we see it crucial for the MMTIS Delegated Regulation to be consistent with SUMP guidelines, especially in respect to the development of these guidelines being taken in the EUs Expert Group on Urban Mobility. Compared to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926 currently in place, the definitions of cycle networks have not been changed. We think that there is substantial room for improvement here. The terms segregated bicycle lanes used in the Annex to the Regulation, point 1.1.(e) subpoint (b) is confusing and not in line with international legislation. We propose to rephrase the point to "cycle network (cycle tracks, cycle lanes, bus-and-cycle lanes, on-road shared with vehicles, on-path shared with pedestrians)". In the definitions of detailed cycle network attributes (point 1.3 (c) subpoint (a)), the width of the infrastructure as well as the allocation to a specific regional, national and/or the EuroVelo cycle route network should be included. The inclusion of capacity and access conditions for bicycle will help users by providing relevant information for seamless and comfortable sustainable multimodal journeys including a cycling component. We consider that there are also other types of data that are relevant for users in this respect and should be included: This concerns for example the accessibility of access nodes with bicycles (including e.g. ramps/elevators and secure bike parking) (point 1.1 (d)), the fare conditions for taking bicycles on board for scheduled transport and transport on demand where relevant (point 1.2 (c) subpoint (a), or point 1.3 (a) subpoint (b) or (c)), or the occupancy rates of dedicated bicycle spaces on scheduled transport and transport on demand where relevant (point 2.3). In light of the proposed text, it should be recognised that the GBFS (General Bikeshare Feed Specification) standard has been broadly adopted by the bike share industry. You can find further details on our point of view on the draft proposal in the document attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Barbara Thaler (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

1 Jun 2023 · TEN-T

Meeting with Karima Delli (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Transport Safety Council and POLIS

27 Apr 2023 · Driving Licence Directive

Response to Creation of the Common European Mobility Data Space

7 Dec 2022

The European Cyclists Federation (ECF) welcomes the initiative of the Commission to propose further actions to build a common European mobility data space. In order to achieve the stated objectives of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, and specifically to enable decisive action to shift more activity towards more sustainable transport modes (notably increasing the number of passengers travelling by rail and commuting by public transport and active modes) (point 11 of the Communication), it will be necessary for cycling to be treated as a mode of transport in its own right also in the mobility data space. Just like other transport users, people who cycle need for example high-quality and up to date digital geodata on cycling infrastructure that can be fed into route planning apps. Data from automatic bicycle counters, from bike share systems etc. is often very valuable for planning and decision-making that help to create better conditions for cycling and to achieve a shift towards more active modes use. These use cases are just two examples which show that data on cycling should be collected and provided in the common European mobility data space, and that more efforts should be made towards the harmonisation of this data at the European level. Some Member States have already taken a proactive approach towards collecting cycling data and making it available at the national level, for example France with its national database for standardised digitalised geodata on cycling infrastructure, which is linked to OpenStreetMap, and the national platform for cycling usage data based on automatic counters all around the country. Other Member States are also making efforts to develop national standards for cycling infrastructure data at the moment. The EU should provide more support for these initiatives and above all for bringing them together to ensure harmonisation and interoperability between national standards, so that data can be used across the whole Union. Support and incentives, including financing, should also be provided to local and regional authorities, who are often the source of this data, to either collect the data, or to digitize their existing data on infrastructure and usage, and to make it available according to common standards.
Read full response

Meeting with Jakop G. Dalunde (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

3 Nov 2022 · TEN-T (Staff Level)

Meeting with Elena Kountoura (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

25 Oct 2022 · TEN-T

Meeting with Ciarán Cuffe (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jun 2022 · Cycling in the EU

Meeting with Jakop G. Dalunde (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Kreab Worldwide and

21 Jun 2022 · TEN-T

European Cyclists' Federation Urges EU to Integrate Cycling into TEN-T

7 Jun 2022
Topic — This consultation addresses the revision of guidelines for the trans-European transport network.
Message — ECF requests integrating the EuroVelo cycle network alongside other transport modes. They demand safe crossings to overcome infrastructure barriers and dedicated tracks for all projects.123
Why — Including cycling in TEN-T would secure European coordination and funding for the EuroVelo network.4
Impact — Motorists may face reduced infrastructure priority due to requirements for increased cycling crossings.5
Read full response

Meeting with Jakop G. Dalunde (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

20 May 2022 · TEN-T (Staff Level)

Meeting with Jakop G. Dalunde (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 May 2022 · TEN-T

European Cyclists' Federation urges better safety for vulnerable road users.

5 May 2022
Topic — Technical specifications for the safety and approval of automated vehicles in Europe.
Message — ECF requests that automated systems prioritize road user vulnerability and expand safety testing. They advocate for removing the term 'jaywalking' and improving crash data collection.123
Why — Cyclists would benefit from automated vehicles better equipped to handle complex urban environments.4
Impact — Vehicle manufacturers would face more rigorous and costly testing requirements for automated systems.5
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU

30 Mar 2022

The European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) fully supports the European Commission’s proposal to give cycling a much stronger role in the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Cycling is the most-energy efficient mode of transport, and providing easily accessible and secure parking infrastructure is just as critical for its regular use as charging infrastructure is for electric cars. Having said this, there is room for further improvement. 1. Quantitative and qualitative bicycle parking requirements Quantitative requirements: ECF suggests to apply the proposal to have “at least one bicycle parking space for every car parking space” in non-residential buildings only to buildings where demand for bicycle parking will generally be highest, in particular office buildings and buildings owned or occupied by public authorities. In other types of non-residential buildings, we propose to apply this formula: The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be twice the number of car places raised to the power of 0.7. This will lead to drastically lower numbers of bike parking against car parking in very large car parks. In return, get-out clauses for Member States need to be tightened. Qualitative requirements: While criteria for car parking are very much the same across EU Member States, this is not the case for bicycle parking. Yet the quality of a bicycle parking space is the most important factor determining its use. We therefore suggest adding a definition on “bicycle parking space” as well as requiring Member States to develop quality bicycle parking requirements in their relevant national legislations. We also propose that for every ten bicycle parking spaces there shall be one parking space designed for bicycles with larger dimensions such as cargo bikes. 2. National Renovation Plans. ECF proposes to set national targets for building bicycle parking spaces covered by the EPBD. This would form part of the Member States national renovation plan. Additionally, Member States that adjust their requirements for specific categories of non-residential shall explain in their national renovation plan how they will compensate for these adjustments in other non-residential buildings. 3. Scope of car parks The Commission’s proposes to apply requirements related to recharging infrastructure and bicycle parking spaces (article 12 “Infrastructure for sustainable mobility") to car parks adjacent to the building only. Car parks located inside the building, which are in the current Directive (EU) 2018/844 were deleted. This proposal is not sensible. As land is very expensive, in particular in urban centres, many, if not most, new car parks are located underground inside the building. 4. “Get-out” clauses for Member States Certain procedures at Member State level should be introduced to ensure that all possible measures are done to achieve the statutory number of bike parking spaces. In addition, we propose that lower numbers for certain types of non-residential buildings are compensated in other types of non-residential buildings. 5. Charging Infrastructure for electric bicycles The charging provisions in the current Directive as well as in the proposed recast all relate to “electric vehicles". Read e-cars only. No consideration is given to any other type of e-mobility, in particular e-bikes which so far have seen by far the largest sales numbers of any type of electro-mobility in Europe. ECF proposes to introduce an amendment that would stipulate that the installation of charging infrastructure for electric bicycles shall match that of electric vehicles. 6. Wider mobility considerations Proposed article 12.9 still leaves much room for interpretation. ECF proposes to require Member States to review their relevant car parking policies and consider introducing maximum norms, in particular in those areas that are well served by public transport, walking and cycling. Our full position is in the document attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Salvatore De Meo (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

21 Mar 2022 · TEN-T

Response to Evaluation and revision of the Weights and Dimensions Directive

18 Feb 2022

1) ECF would have concerns with road safety if larger Vehicles were allowed generally to cross border. Around 20% of cycling fatalities come about in crash with a large vehicle on European roads https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/document/download/82bfd7e1-b193-4eb3-ad8a-25d474924941_en Research has shown that there would be an increase in blind spots; a decrease in the manoeuvrability and handling both in turning and on the straight; as well as more encroachment onto pavements and cycling facilities http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/studies/strategies_en.htm. We would be very concerned that this would only increase the absolute number and the rate of accidents and fatal injuries sustained by cyclists and pedestrians. 2) If longer trucks were to be allowed free reign across European borders, there should be considerations on requirements for their use. For example, limiting to TEN-T, or primary roads for example, or trucks would have to be fitted with safety equipment beyond what is currently required by European vehicle safety legislation. 3) The impact on safety of allowing increased use of heavier vehicles should also be reviewed. The braking distance of heavier trucks could be severely impaired. Work ongoing at UNECE on the Automatic Emergency Braking requirements for HGVs is already experiencing sever difficulties in providing a satisfactory standard for interactions with pedestrians and cyclists https://wiki.unece.org/display/trans/AEBS-HDV 4) We also have concerns that the free movement of longer and Heavier Vehicles would lead to cheaper road haulage which would impact the shift to less polluting forms of transport and precipitate a reversal modal shift towards road. http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/price_sensitivity_of_road_freight_transport_-_towards_a_better_understanding_of_existing_results/1130. http://www.endseurope.com/docs/90514a.pdf. This would in turn mean more lorries on the road and a rise in crashes and fatalities. 5) The widespread use of LHVs would require massive infrastructure investments http://www.bast.de/nn_42642/DE/Publikationen/Download-Berichte/downloads/60-tonner-kurz,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/60-tonner-kurz.pdf, therefore other possible side effects of these vehicles could be the effect on changing of the general road structure and infrastructure taking resources from other more sustainable transport needs. 6) The Commission should also review how the scope of the Weights and Dimensions Directive could be extended to Light Duty Vehicles. The impact assessment could explore what would be the environmental, social, and safety benefits of imposing a dimensional limit on vehicles sold for private passenger use. Given the large number of ‘pick-up’ truck/SUV type vehicles on the roads, it is time to think about whether there should be considerations concerning how we classify these vehicles given the increase in size and use. These larger vehicles emit a great deal more emissions, and contribute to the inability of the transport sector to reduce its CO2 https://www.iea.org/commentaries/carbon-emissions-fell-across-all-sectors-in-2020-except-for-one-suvs . These large vehicles are also almost exclusively used within urban areas where they mix with unprotected users. There is global data that suggests larger (SUV, MPV) vehicles increase the risk for cyclists and pedestrians https://research4committees.blog/2015/11/16/the-impact-of-higher-or-lower-weight-and-volume-of-cars-on-road-safety-particularly-for-vulnerable-users/. Research has shown that vehicles with bigger engines in the 2-liter to 3-liter category shows a higher fatality rate than smaller engines https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/08/15/restrict-twice-as-deadly-suvs-in-u-k-cities-urge-transport-data-scientists/#4a2b91e61e10. The space that is taken by these large vehicles is space that could be used for more sustainable modes like cycling and walking.
Read full response

Meeting with Elena Kountoura (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and ChargeUp Europe and Portland PR Europe Limited

16 Feb 2022 · AFIR

Response to Count your transport emissions: CountEmissions EU

16 Dec 2021

The European Cyclists' Federation (ECF) welcomes the Commission’s CountEmissions EU initiative. In order to give a complete picture of sustainable transport and mobility options, it is important that active mobility modes like walking and cycling be included in the assessment and compared to other modes of transport and mobility. You can find our detailed feedback and recommendations in the attachment.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

29 Nov 2021 · Mobility

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

16 Nov 2021 · Cycling in Green and Efficient Mobility Package

Response to Revision of the specifications for EU-wide real-time traffic information services (Delegated Regulation 2015/962)

9 Nov 2021

The revised specifications on Road traffic information services should also include specifications for cycle networks, including geometry of cycle network links, static and dynamic regulations and restrictions, as well as real-time use of the network. As set out in the Commission’s recent Smart and Sustainable Mobility Strategy (point 35), increasing the modal share of active transport modes cycling and walking provides an important contribution to achieving EU policy goals in the fields of CO2 emissions reductions, reducing air pollution and congestion especially in cities, and increasing physical activity. To achieve this increase by making active mobility safe, comfortable and convenient, cycling and walking need to be treated as transport modes in their own right, also when it comes to the provision of road traffic information services. The cycle network and the pedestrian network are an integral part of the road transport system, as defined in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926 (point 1.1.e. of the Annex). Just like motorised road transport, the cycle network is also subject to many regulations and restrictions, both static and dynamic. Examples include: - accessibility/restrictions in use of cycling infrastructure for other light (electric) vehicles such as mopeds, pedelecs, speed-pedelecs, e-scooters; - speed restrictions: for example, speed-pedelecs are allowed to use cycling infrastructure in Antwerp, Belgium, but with a speed limited to 25 km/h instead of the default 45 km/h; - time-based restrictions, for example sections of a cycle route crossing a park or industrial area might be available only during daytime; a pedestrian zone in the city centre might be crossable by bike only in the night and/or in the mornings (when the pedestrian traffic is lower); - width and length restrictions, for example chicanes making it impossible to use a section of a route by a tandem, a bicycle with a trailer or a cargo bike; - roadworks resulting in detours or the need to use a different part of the road, for example carriageway instead of cycle track; - temporary closures for other reasons, for example a cycle route along the river closed because of high water level. The growing popularity of electric power assisted cycles (EPACs) necessitates also including information on recharging points for e-bikes and the conditions for their use. As for now, all the aforementioned information, while usually available, is not standardised across the EU, or even on the level of member states, and not accessible in a common access point. This harms the quality of real-time traffic information services for cyclists and has a detrimental effect on road safety: cyclists using route planners without access to up-to-date traffic information end up in unsafe situations (for example cycling between cars on a busy carriageway, sometimes in places where it is not legally allowed, because the traffic planner has directed them through a section of a route that is temporarily closed). It also hampers development of ITS solutions for active travel modes (for example finding the quickest route taking into account the expected waiting times on traffic signals). The aforementioned information is not covered by the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926 of 31 May 2017 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services. Regulation (EU) 2017/1926 considers cycle network a part of road transport, and delegates the provision of necessary standards for static (article 4.1.a) and dynamic (article 5.1.a) travel and traffic data for road transport (and therefore also cycle network) to currently discussed regulation (EU) 2015/962. Therefore, the update of the regulation should also include provisions for all necessary data on the cycle network.
Read full response

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President)

6 Sept 2021 · Speech at Velo-city 2021 Lisboa; Climate policies –The New Gateway for cycling towards a Green Recovery

Response to Revision of the Machinery Directive

3 Aug 2021

ECF represents the national cycling associations across the EU, thereby representing the users/riders of bicycles and electric assisted bicycles. We see the Electrically Power Assisted Cycle EPAC/Pedelec as a revolutionary mode of transport that has become, and continues to be, a popular choice of transport across the EU. Sales in 2020 were around 4.5 million and represent around 20% of the total bicycles sold in Europe. It is an incredibly useful tool for moving people away from environmentally damaging modes of transport like the private motor vehicle. Around 80% of car journeys are under 8 km, which is an ideal distance for an EPAC/Pedelec. They provide an active, healthy, and climate friendly mode of transport that is overcoming some of the barriers to conventional cycling. We are therefore concerned about the Commission’s decision to propose to exclude the EPAC from the Machinery Directive. The reasons for this exclusion are still not entirely clear, with the Commission stating in its impact assessment that the current system creates “problematic distortions in the market”, this is the only reason that is put forward as far as I can see. It would be very useful if the Commission would be able to explain clearly what is meant by that in order to justify this regulatory change. The current regulatory environment for EPACs works well with the Machinery Directive being covered within the EN15194 standard, and we have not received complaint or concerns from our members. There is also ongoing work at CEN for other power assisted bikes (cargo bikes and mountain bikes for example) which makes the exclusion of power assisted bicycles more worrying. We rely on a clear regulatory framework to recognize that the product is safe, there is currently no other option that would allow these bicycles to be clearly and safety regulated. It would probably fall to the General Product Safety Directive to shoulder the burden, but this is not specifically suited for EPACs and could allow manufacturers to place products on the market that are not as safe as the current regulatory system allows. Alternatively, we understand that the Commission is also in the process of putting forward changes to the L category Type Approval and may (or may not) propose a specific stand alone framework for power assisted bicycles and the so-called micromobility range of vehicles. But this is not certain, and we have no idea of what this framework will look like nor how long it will take before covering these vehicles. We have concern that there will be a gap allowing dangerous unregulated bikes onto the market and damaging the growth of the EPAC and power assisted bicycle market, all at a crucial time in the development of EPACs and other power assisted bikes. We ask the Commission to; 1. Clarify the problem with EPACs and power assisted bicycles remaining within the Machinery Directive. This has not been clearly explained, the regulatory environment works well currently, and we do not see a problem that the policy is trying to solve. 2. Keep EPACs and power assisted bicycles within the Machinery Directive until there is a relevant and satisfactory alternative. Given the interest from Europeans in buying this product (16% rise in sales year on year), a sudden relaxing of the regulatory framework could be exploited to allow vehicles of inferior quality to be placed on the market. The EPAC is an incredibly useful mode of transport that will be important in helping to achieve the EU’s goals of improving sustainable mobility, reducing CO2 emissions, improving air quality and reducing congestion. The EU has a direct mandate concerning the regulation of these vehicles and has a large responsibility to make sure that the growth of this vehicle is not interrupted or stalled going against the stated aims of the Commission to reduce CO2 emissions in urban transport.
Read full response

Response to New EU urban mobility framework

20 May 2021

The European Cyclists’ Federation welcomes the European Commission’s roadmap on a ‘New EU Urban Mobility Framework’. ECF has observed a tremendous increase in active mobility across Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. But were it not for the pandemic in 2020, we would not have seen any clear changes in urban mobility in Europe, partly due to the weakness of the 2013 urban mobility package. The pandemic created a spontaneous opportunity for cycling which many big cities grasped, but smaller cities are still behind. Nevertheless, ECF believes that now is the best chance for the European Commission to work with Member States to reinforce related legislation and propose new rules to transform temporary pandemic measures into permanent urban mobility solutions that adhere to the EU’s climate and transport objectives while vastly improving the quality of life for Europeans living in urban areas. Regarding the EU’s climate and transport goals, ECF stresses that while e-cars are needed in the mix of solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are not a solution for addressing many of the other transport-related problems the Commission has identified in its roadmap. With more car companies producing e-cars and their prices lowering, there is a risk that cities will continue to face road congestion, traffic fatalities and accidents, and poor individual and societal health indicators. Thus, while there is a place for e-cars in a new EU urban mobility framework, they should not be prioritised more highly than active and sustainable mobility solutions such as cycling and walking. Going forward, ECF emphasises the importance of setting clear, ambitious, yet feasible, targets to measure progress. For example, ECF recommends targets and benchmarks on: • The percentage of cycling’s modal share in Member States. • The kilometres of cycling infrastructure built in Member States and the type of infrastructure built, such as bicycle parking facilities and cycle lanes that are adapted to the surrounding environment that enables a high volume of cycling traffic while ensuring safety and separation from car traffic. • The percentage of road deaths in Member States per modal share user. • Specific increases in multi-modal options. • Cities needing to adopt Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to benefit from EU funding for urban mobility measures. In the forthcoming public survey, we advise the European Commission to ask specific questions on how the above-mentioned targets and benchmarks can be achieved, and which others should be included. In addition, ECF urges the Commission to incorporate the following points into further public consultation and as central points in the new urban mobility framework: • That every person should have the right to active mobility through access to a safe cycling and walking route network where they live. • The need for better data and data collection on cycling infrastructure and its use across Europe. • The need for better cycling infrastructure design guidance, with the outcome of having comprehensive and cohesive EU-level minimum quality requirements with more uniform design rules. • That cycling is a key measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector, particularly when there is a modal shift towards cycling. • That there should be better multi-modal cycling and train options on urban nodes of the TEN-T network. • That better guidance is needed for Member States to create SUMPs, and to make this mandatory for cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants on the urban nodes of the TEN-T network. • There should be more high-level European campaigns that put cycling in the spotlight as one of the best means of urban sustainable mobility. • Funding for cycling and cycling infrastructures should be prioritised so that it is on a level playing field with other modal options.
Read full response

Response to Technical requirements and test procedure for approval of intelligent speed assistance (ISA)

27 Apr 2021

Reducing speed is an important factor in reducing the number of cyclist fatalities; - Cyclists have a significantly lower risk of MAIS 2+ injury when speed limit is 30-40 kph compared to 50-60 kph (https://tinyurl.com/2b9h8rpu) - An increase of 1 km/h vehicle speed leads to a 3% increase in incidence of crashes/injury and of 4–5% in the incidence of fatal crashes (https://tinyurl.com/e7x2fz4s) - The likelihood of a fatal injury to a cyclist increases 11 times with vehicle speeds above 64.4 km/h and 16 times at 80.5 km/h (https://tinyurl.com/p8a4spjk) - There was a ≈ 50% reductions of cyclist fatalities after the introduction of 32 km/h zones in London/Vancouver/Toronto (https://tinyurl.com/yt4ub4ke) With regards to the ISA delegated act, we are still disappointed that a warning system consisting of a visual alarm and then a sounded alarm is considered in place of a real Intelligent Speed Assistance system that interacts with the driver. We do not believe that a Cascaded Auditory Alarm (CAW), is effective in vehicles where the alarm can very simply be turned off (https://ecf.com/system/files/ECF_Position_ISA_Implementation_Final.pdf). We believe that the Commission should only allow ISA systems where evidence of effectiveness is available; ‘effectiveness’ being a requirement of the legislation. Effectiveness must also include acceptance by drivers - not a system that is highly likely to be deactivated due to annoyance. However, we are pleased that there will be the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the various systems, and that this has been brought forward to 2025. Suggestions were sent to the Commission (Signed by many ECF, along with European Transport safety Council, the International Federation of Pedestrians, and POLIS) for improving Article 4 of the Delegated Act which lays out the information to be gathered and the review of the technical requirements (https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/EDR-and-ISA-concerns-letter-to-member-states_ahead-of-146-MVWG-1.pdf) It is important that the information/data collected on each of the warning functions should also be provided separately, in order for any differences in performance between the different warning functions to be identified. Our concern is that the current text may be interpreted as requiring manufacturers to provide the information on these three warning functions as one set of data, with the data on the speed control function as a second set of data. This would render the identification of performance differences between the warning functions impossible. This is not clear in the text. We would also like the information to be publicly available, so that all stakeholders have access to the information. We would also like to include text that specifically triggers a revision of the ISA delegated act already prior to the general review clause in the General Safety Regulation in order to minimize the availability of poor performing modes of feedback, if identified as such based on the information received by the Commission.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU

22 Mar 2021

ECF, the European Cyclists’ Federation, welcomes the revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) as part of the ‘Renovation Wave’ and ‘Fit for 55 Package’. The last EPBD revision in 2018 established the link between the building and mobility sector by providing requirements for charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. While ECF supports this link, we regret that it effectively applied to electric cars only. Yet since electric bicycles are 1) far more energy efficient than electric cars and 2) sell in much greater numbers, it is only logical and would form coherent policy to extend the e-mobility scope of this directive to electric bicycles and electric cargo bikes and include recharging infrastructure for these types of vehicles too. About 5.1 million electric bicycles have been sold in the EU in 2020, bringing total e-bike stock to about 20 million units. The market is expected to grow strongly over the next years and reach annual sales of 17 million units by 2030. Two in three bicycles sold then would be electrically assisted. Most e-bikes are charged at home or at work places. A lack of recharging infrastructure there, alongside secure and easily accessible bike parking, are among the main barriers to a further uptake of (electric) bicycle use across the EU. Therefore, in all new residential and non-residential buildings and those undergoing major renovation, e-charging points for e-bikes and e-cargo bikes have be provided in the close proximity of easily accessible and secure bicycle parking spots. The e-charging points ideally should be placed in a secured locker. Since a standard 230V household power plug is sufficient to charge an e-bike, such a locker can also be used to charge other electric appliances, such as mobile phones, laptops, and, if locker space permits, other micro-mobility devices, such as e-scooters. Beyond recharging infrastructure requirements for e-mobility, it is important to have the wider mobility aspects in mind, further to Art. 8.8 of the current EPBD directive. The (non-) provision of parking facilities and factors such as accessibility to parking and security, such as bike theft, do have a tremendous impact on consumer mobility choice and therefore total household energy consumption. The fact that the average non-car household does consume considerably less energy than a car household should be taken into account when revising the directive. ECF recommends to: • Eliminate minimum car parking requirements; and • Introduce minimum bicycle parking requirements where such do not exist yet.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Cycling Industries Europe

15 Mar 2021 · Cycling in the European Green Deal

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

16 Dec 2020

We welcome the systematic inclusion of cycling in the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, for example in point 3.3 d) of the annexes (Manufacture of low carbon technologies for transport - personal mobility devices) and point 6.13 - Infrastructure for personal mobility. Besides these fields, we see a few more activities whose inclusion would benefit the shift to a more sustainable mobility system, reducing green house gas emissions, improving air quality and reducing congestion: - repair, trade, and sale of bicycles - under point 6.6, freight transport services by road: inclusion of freight transport services by (cargo) bicycles ("cyclelogistics") - see for example EU Green Public Procurement criteria for transport, Point 9) - under point 7, besides installation, maintenance and repair of charging stations for electric vehicles in buildings (and parking spaces attached to buildings) also include installation, maintenance and repair of secure bicycle parking (including electric and cargo bicycles). For the following activities, we would suggest some modifications in order to better align them with the goal of promoting active mobility as an integral part of sustainable mobility systems: Under: 6.13. Infrastructure for personal mobility / Technical screening criteria / Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation add: “The infrastructure must increase the competitiveness of cycling and walking trips, by reducing the distance and/or time needed to make a trip in desired relation.” Justification: there are many examples of dedicated infrastructure discriminating cyclists and pedestrians by forcing them to make a detour or by longer waiting times at traffic lights. The infrastructure will only contribute to climate change mitigation if cycling and walking trips will be more competitive in comparison to motorized trips. Under: - 6.14. Infrastructure for rail transport - 6.15. Infrastructure enabling low-carbon road transport - 6.16. Infrastructure for water transport / Technical screening criteria / Do no significant harm (‘DNSH’) / (5) Pollution prevention and control add: “The infrastructure must not decrease the competitiveness of cycling and walking in its area of impact. It cannot make cycling or walking trips along or across the infrastructure longer, less safe or less convenient.” Justification: roads, railroads or inland waterways often create a barrier for cyclists and pedestrians. For example, an upgrade of a railroad line which included only 1 cycling crossing on 10 km section in a densely populated area (in comparison to 5 for cars), encourages using cars for local trips in the towns along the railway. This means that the positive impact in long-distance transport is countered by increased emissions from local transport. To ensure sustainability and substantial contribution to climate change mitigation, the activity must be screened for impact on conditions for walking and cycling in the adjacent area.
Read full response

Response to Green Paper on Ageing

8 Dec 2020

Cycling is an excellent way to keep fit and to increase lifespan. • Research has shown that regular cyclists showed less age-related muscle deterioration https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12735 • Elderly cyclists had white blood cell levels comparable to those of younger people https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12750 • Regular vigorous exercise protects telomere length and can save up to nine years of cellular deterioration https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743517301470 • A study of 260,000 adults, those that cycled cut their risk of death from all causes by 40% and cut their risk of cancer and heart disease by 45%. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456 • Exercise can reduce the levels of proteins in the brain linked to Alzheimer’s. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/aging/better-treatment-alzheimers-exercise-n397461 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/aging/better-treatment-alzheimers-exercise-n397461 • Coordination and posture also improves from using a bike, both of which help with balance. https://www.stayonyourfeet.com.au/over60/moveyourbody/ Roads and cycling infrastructure that is safe, and also looks safe, is an essential element in providing the right environment for elderly people to use the bicycle. The EU can influence urban mobility policy https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility_en and also has direct mandate over the safety, design, and development of TEN-T, EU funded, and EU major roads. Cycling often interacts with these infrastructures, and there is a great opportunity to incorporate cycling into them where they do not. We would call for integration of cycling into all TEN-T projects and also call for EuroVelo to be included in the TEN-T https://ecf.com/what-we-do/ten-t-eurovelo-and-cycling https://ecf.com/what-we-do/road-safety/safer-infrastructure As we age it can become more difficult to cycle and so we also need to promote safe alternatives from a regular bike such as the Electric Power Assisted Cycles (EPAC bicycle) with a built-in motor to assist with pedalling. https://ecf.com/what-we-do/road-safety/electric-bicycle-pedelec-regulation EPAC bicycles are becoming more and popular amongst all types of people wishing to continue using an active mode of transport while also requiring a little assistance. It is important that EPACs are regulated properly at the European level, this means no Type Approval requirements that would increase costs and could lead to Member States over-regulating them leading to a barrier to their use while making sure that the work at CEN and ISO on a global EPAC standard is maintained. EPACs will become a major tool for elderly cyclists and should be promoted ate the European level. The silver Cyclists EU funded project says that Senior European citizens using a bicycle as a means of mobility during their holidays should be treated equally with other cycle tourists and high-quality tourism products for a variety of budgets should be developed to cater for them urban development that does not support cycling. EuroVelo cycle routes should also be included in the TEN-T. Recommendation; • Promote the benefits of cycling • Increase funding for cycling projects to improve and increase cycling infrastructure • Increase the safety of motor vehicle safety to reduce crashes with cyclists • Promote modal shift away from passive motorised vehicles to active transport like cycling • Promote sustainable urban mobility and sensible urban land use planning to enable less need for long journeys with a motorised vehicle • Invest in high quality tourism destinations, especially in terms of safe, comfortable and attractive cycling infrastructure, accessible public transport and attractions • Incorporate Cycling into TEN-T projects where possible and also include EuroVelo into TEN-T, and promote cycling safety within the RISM directive implementation • Promote the use of Electric Power Assisted bicycles
Read full response

Response to Revision of Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)

1 Dec 2020

The Inception Impact Assessments correctly points out the need to adapt the TEN-T policy to the decarbonisation objective and other environment-related challenges set out in the European Green Deal. It also correctly recognises insufficient alignment with new transport policy developments and needs, which becomes an obstacle for more efficient and sustainable services. It gives a concrete example of an area for improvement (problem 1b): connection with active modes such as cycling or walking in urban node, and lists transfer facilities to active mobility solutions as one of the objectives. However, the problem of insufficient integration of active modes is not limited to urban nodes and transfer facilities. TEN-T infrastructure, e.g. railroads or expressways, is a barrier for walking and cycling in much wider context, including rural areas and trips that do not include a segment on TEN-T. Poorly designed TEN-T projects cut off suburbs from the cities and or cut small towns into two. This promotes using unsustainable modes for short trips, that could easily be walked or cycled, if a sufficient density of safe and comfortable crossings for pedestrians and cyclists had been provided in the project. This in turn leads to congestion and unnecessarily high emission levels. In extreme cases the TEN-T projects destroy existing active mode infrastructure or undermine the effects of other EU-funded investments. For example, some ERDF-funded cycle paths will end with dead ends, because cycling facilities have not been included in a CEF-funded road expressway interchange, or a tunnel under a TEN-T railroad. There are also examples of good practice, where a TEN-T project was used as an opportunity to improve conditions for active modes, or cycling infrastructure was added to a pre-existing TEN-T corridor (e.g. cycling bridge added to a railroad bridge). These demonstrated high potential of such interventions, with benefits exceeding costs as much as 14 times, but are still relatively rare across the EU. They are a result of determination of local authorities or civil society, not a coherent EU-policy. To address that, cycling infrastructure should be systematically integrated into TEN-T. The potential for cycling traffic in the area covered by the respective projects should be evaluated and necessary elements of cycling infrastructure should be integrated into project planning, design, and construction. This should include, apart from cycling connections in TEN-T urban nodes, also cycle routes along selected sections of TEN-T corridors, safe and comfortable cycle crossings across TEN-T corridors as well as upgrading other roads affected by TEN-T projects to safe cycling standards. As a parallel measure, EuroVelo, the European cycle route network, should be included in the TEN-T alongside the networks for other modes. The inclusion of a European cycle route network would recognise the importance of cycling to the continent’s transport system and its sustainability, particularly in achieving a more sustainable modal distribution and reducing GHG emissions in line with the 2050 climate neutrality objective. The EuroVelo network is already well-established in most EU countries and therefore its integration into TEN-T would be easy to achieve. The cost of realising it would be relatively low in comparison with other networks and cycling infrastructure is far more cost-effective. Furthermore, its inclusion k would directly contribute to meeting the TEN-T objectives, as listed in Article 4 of the current regulation, and stimulate the development of national, regional, and local cycle networks, as it serves as a backbone for such networks and provides a quality benchmark. It is time that cycling was properly integrated in the EU’s flagship transport policy!
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Cycling Industries Europe

30 Sept 2020 · Follow up Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Cycling Industries Europe

17 Sept 2020 · Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Cycling Industries Europe

10 Sept 2020 · Cycling and the European Green Deal

Response to Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy

23 Jul 2020

Cycling is best placed to deliver the European Strategy for a Sustainable and Smart Mobility. The European Commission states that the EU Strategy for a Sustainable and Smart Mobility “will focus on measures to reduce the impact on greenhouse gases emissions, on the environment and on the health of our citizens in general, and accelerate the shift towards more sustainable mobility." More cycling across Europe is by far the most effective measure to help achieve this and to fast-track the EU Green Deal. More cycling reduces air and noise pollution, improving both the environment and citizens’ health. There is no conceivable way for the EU to achieve a 90% reduction in transport emissions without a major, further shift towards more cycling. The European Cyclists’ Federation holds the view that there is much more potential for this shift. More citizens are cycling in Europe and bicycle sales are booming. E-bikes have opened up cycling to more people of all ages and abilities for private transport, and are proving increasingly to be a viable alternative to trips by car. Studies have shown that over 50% of motorised vehicle trips for moving goods in our cities could be switched to (e-)bikes. Over 90% of all commercial vans and trucks currently circulating are diesel-fuelled. A single cargo bike replacing a diesel transporter saves 5 tons of CO2 emissions per year, making cargo delivery bikes one of the most effective tools for achieving the EU goal of CO2 free city logistics by 2030. To realise cycling’s full potential and encourage more people to cycle more often, the European Strategy for a Sustainable and Smart Mobility needs to commit to this essential modal transport shift with more than just words: at EU level we need ambitious targets, effective policies and substantial funding for investments in safe, high quality cycling infrastructure throughout Europe. Road safety for cyclists has not improved to the same extent as for car passengers over the last decade, so this gap needs to be closed in the strategy as well. Other barriers to address include doing more to ensure affordable mobility for all, especially in EU countries with low (e-)bike uptake. Cycling is not only the most sustainable transport option for the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, it also provides a significant and rapidly growing contribution to the EU’s economy. Already today, cycling generates external benefits of €150 bn per year in the EU. This includes over €90 bn in positive externalities for the environment, public health and mobility system. In comparison, a recent study by the European Commission estimated the negative externalities of motorised road transport, i.e. the costs for the environment, health and mobility, to be €800 bn per year. What we want: We call on the EU to seize this golden opportunity to unlock cycling’s enormous potential for the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy and the EU Green Deal, with decisive policies and strategic investments that will increase cycling levels throughout the EU. This means 1) Creating a level playing field for cycling with other modes of transport by treating it as an equal partner in the mobility system, including recognising EuroVelo, the European cycle route network, as another TEN-T network; 2) funding at least €6bn in investments in safe, high quality cycling infrastructure in the 2021-27 MFF; 3) improving the EU Urban Mobility policy framework by making access to EU funding for safe and attractive transport infrastructure conditional on the implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) and the collection of urban mobility data; 4) enabling a centralised €5.5 bn EU E-bike Access Fund that will make the benefits of e-bikes available in all countries in the EU and stimulate further job creation; and 5) developing a genuine European Commission EU Cycling Strategy.
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Jul 2020 · Green mobility

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Jun 2020 · Greenmobility

Response to 2030 Climate Target Plan

31 Mar 2020

The European Cyclists’ Federation calls for ambitious modal shift policies in the transport sector at the European level to reduce its emissions. As much as 40% of all private car trips are shorter than 5km – a distance that could be easily cycled by most people if conditions were as attractive as in the Netherlands or Denmark. Such a shift would have manifold benefits: mitigating climate emergency, improving air quality and public health, easing congestion, upgrading the quality of public space and hence the quality of life, etc. All these benefits cannot be achieved by technological means alone! Against this background, the ECF fully supports the climate ambitions of the European Green Deal to increase the 2030 CO2 emission reduction target to 50 – 55 %. We even would encourage the Commission to go a step further and propose a reduction of 65 % in order to be in line with the Paris Agreement. Transport will be the primary challenge to achieve this target. Despite past technological developments, CO2 and fuel standards, the sectors emissions are still on a unsustainable growth path and now account for about 25 % of the EU’s GHG emissions. While the European Green Deal pushes for a number of welcome initiatives, such as tightening EU air quality legislation and adopting the polluter pays principle across all economic sectors, its transport toolbox continues to rely almost exclusively on technological solutions, such as digitalization and automation. However, these solutions will not suffice. New developments such as ride-hailing (Uber, etc.) seem to create additional demand for motorized transport and worsen congestion. MaaS is still in its infancy. The European Cyclists’ Federation urges the Commission to commit to MODAL SHIFT objectives, i.e. decreasing the share of private car trips at the expense of more trips done by walking, cycling and public transport. Such an objective needs to be translated into appropriate measures, most notably regarding investments decisions from EU funds such as ERDF and CEF in appropriate infrastructure provisions. Numerous towns and cities, regions and Member States are pursuing modal shift policies. Utrecht is currently developing an almost car-free new city district (Merwedekanaal) for 12,000 inhabitants. Ljubljana created a 10ha pedestrian zone in its inner city and reduced the share of private car trips significantly (from almost 60 % on 2003 to 42 % in 2013). Walking increased from 19% to almost 35% during the same time span. Brussels’ sustainable urban mobility plan ‘Good Move’ aims at creating 50 low-traffic neighborhoods across the capital region. France put forward a Mobility Law in 2018 with the objective of tripling the share of cycle trips to 9 % in the transport modal split. Austria wants to almost double cycling by 2025 to a 13 % mode share. At the pan-European level, under the umbrella of the WHO and UNECE, a pan-European Master Plan for Cycling is in the making with the objective of doubling cycling across the region (consisting of 54 signatory states) by 2030. The Commission must change course in its transport policy or it will become increasingly out-of-sync with what’s happening in the 27 EU Member States. We have attached the 2018 ECF position paper we published prior to the Communication ‘A Clean Planet for all – A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy’. Within, we claim that most relevant cycling trends such as the electrification of the bicycle fleet, the construction of cycle highways, the deployment of cargo-bikes for first and last mile urban deliveries etc. will continue to evolve and will increasingly convince more people to cycle more often. It is vital that governments at all levels, including the European, seize upon these trends and reinforce them through targeted measures.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

9 Jan 2020 · Cycling and the Green Deal for Mobility

Response to Specifications for the provision of cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS)

7 Feb 2019

In as much as the bulk of this work involves motor vehicle to motor vehicle and infrastructure (services) to motor vehicle technology, it would be hoped that this delegated act also takes into account future developments and incorporating other actors and modes of transport. However, our concern with the direction that this work by the commission is taking is that it would hinder development of safety critical, or other time dependent, services and measures for cyclists, and indeed for pedestrians. It is likely that the G5 transport wireless standard will not be the technology that would bring non-equipped and non-motorised users like cyclists into time sensitive systems. Rather, handheld devices and mobile phone/telecommunications technologies would be the likely direction of any future technologies. This would effectively mean that if the Commission were to keep to this course cyclists and pedestrians would be locked out of future time critical services and measures. We do not advocate the reliance on the use of connecting technologies to keep cyclists/pedestrians safe. We believe that in urban areas where people work, play, and live, safety should be for the infrastructure, traffic management, drivers, and vehicles to take the lead in creating a safe environment, rather than pass that responsibility on to the victims of road crashes. It should not be up to a child, pedestrian or a cyclist to carry a handheld device in order to stop a car from crashing into him/her. However, time critical safety features, and indeed all connected services, will be an important element of any future transport system. It would be unwise to exclude 40/50% of road users (cyclists/pedestrians/motorbikes/Light electric vehicles) from the very start of this technology’s introduction, or to favour, and give a frontrunner advantage to a technology that clearly does not have a broader inclusion in mind. This is a quickly changing landscape and the outcomes, use cases, and functionality of these technologies are still unknown. This delegated act should have a broad remit when deciding how to step out onto this road of regulating this technology rather than close off any future useful applications from the start. We would ask the Commission to allay the concerns of those who are becoming more connected with regards to information and services and may one day more than likely have to be incorporated into critical safety technologies or through information services provided to other modes of transport.
Read full response

Response to Road infrastructure and tunnel safety

17 Jul 2018

ECF supports the general direction of Commission’s proposal. However, two more critical pieces are needed to transform positive, but somehow abstract rules into efficient legislation: • More specific EU level guidelines on how to take into account the needs of cyclists are needed, as many existing TEN-T projects clearly demonstrate lack of necessary knowledge among many Member States. The guidelines should include minimum quality criteria for cycling infrastructure, obligatory for all roads falling under the scope of the Directive. • Including cycling infrastructure in training and certification of road safety auditors. In many Member States, practical implementation of the RISM Directive was focused on preventing accidents on motorways and similar high-speed roads. The extension of the scope of the Directive should be accompanied by significant changes in training and certification of road safety auditors. There are also other changes ECF would like to include: • Network-wide Road Assessment should include data not only about cycle traffic along the road, but also crossing it. In cases of e.g. bypasses number of cyclists moving across the assessed road might be much higher than along. For example, there are 17300 cyclists/day crossing a 1,5 km long section of Antwerp ring road (A1/A12 motorway, TEN-T core network, North Sea-Baltic and North Sea–Mediterranean corridors) between Borgerhout and Berchem interchanges. • If there are no dedicated bicycle facilities along the assessed road, it would be useful to include an information on whether there is an alternative route for cyclists (e.g. lower class parallel roads). • The estimates of bicycle flows determined from adjacent land use attributes should be used in the impact assessment and audit of new road projects, not only in assessment of existing roads. It is better to identify the need for cycling infrastructure before the road is built, not after.
Read full response

Response to General Safety of Vehicles and Pedestrians

17 Jul 2018

In the EU the number of cyclists being killed and seriously injured is decreasing, but it is still at a slower rate than for car occupants. While car occupant fatalities has dropped by 50% over the past ten years, cycling fatalities has stalled at around 25% and even increased slightly between 2014 -17. The great progress that EU vehicle regulation has made in saving lives and preventing injury for motor vehicle occupants should be replicated for those outside the vehicle. We have a major opportunity with the technologies currently available to have genuine VRU specific measures mandated for all new vehicles. Positive benefit to costs ratio have been posted for Intelligent Speed Assistance, Autonomous Emergency Braking for cyclists/pedestrians, improved front end design, truck turning assist, and HGV direct vision standards. Happily the European Commission has included all these in its recent proposal, this is a revolutionary moment in European road safety. Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) Reducing speeds of motor vehicles in urban areas is crucial in getting more people to use bicycles, not only does this decrease the real danger but it also decreases the perceived danger that those interested in taking up cycling, feel. The ISA included in the Commission proposal is crucially an intervening one with haptic and limiting feedback on the pedal when approaching speed limit. ECF call on the European Parliament and Council to defend the commission proposal to include intervening ISA in the Regulation. This should be the flagship of the EU’s contribution to road safety - 20% fatalities reduction! - With calmer roads. We call on the Commisison to work on the specifications as soon as possible, and to allow all stakeholders access to the technical specification working groups. AEB and design of vehicle front; Cyclists tend to impact higher up on the car, on the windscreen and on the A-pillars of the vehicle. There are also better materials available for windscreen design which absorb forces better. These also have been taken up by the Commission proposal. Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for cyclists and pedestrians is also included. Used together, these design improvements will have a huge impact in the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries.They act as multipliers on the benefits of each other and should be seen as a whole pedestrian/cyclist safety system. We call on the EP and Council to keep the commission proposal to improve front end design and AEB and for the commission to push work on AEB and vehicle design at UNECE to make sure it is ready. HGVs/Truck safety Trucks are involved in around 4,000 fatal crashes in Europe every year. Many of these fatalities, almost 1,000, are “vulnerable road users” such as cyclists and pedestrians.We have to make these vehicles fit for purpose in urban areas. The Commission proposal has included a right turning assist warning device in lorries to aid the driver detecting cyclists in blind spots of a right turning HGV. However there is no automatic braking, we believe that braking should also be part of the assist system. A direct vision standard for all trucks, a long running recommendation by ECF, has also been proposed allowing the driver to see clearly through the side and front windscreen. However lead in time is toolong for this measure (up to 2030) There are also other measures that can be important additions such as vehicles being fitted with a standard interface to allow fitment of alcohol interlocks, distraction detection systems, and event data recorders. ECF in general supports all the current Commissions proposed measures and package, this is an excellent proposal to be defended in general with some improvements possible by Member States and Parliament.
Read full response

Meeting with Silke Obst (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

11 Dec 2017 · Meeting with Mr Küster and Adam Bodor

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

25 Sept 2017 · EU Cycling Strategy follow up

Meeting with Paula Duarte Gaspar (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

8 May 2017 · Cycling's health benefits, promoting physical activity in general; supporting cycling as healthy lifestyle

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

7 Oct 2016 · EU Cycling Strategy

Meeting with Violeta Bulc (Commissioner) and

14 Jun 2016 · Meeting with the SG of the European Cyclists' Federation Mr. Ensink

Meeting with Alicja Magda Herbowska (Cabinet of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics) and European Travel Commission

6 Jun 2016 · European year of cultural heritage 2018

Meeting with Henrik Hololei (Director-General Mobility and Transport)

27 Jan 2016 · ECF Luxembourg Declaration; Transport White Paper

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

5 May 2015 · Meeting with ECF

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Mobility and Transport)

14 Apr 2015 · Transport White Paper, Urban Mobility Policy

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

30 Mar 2015 · Meeting with ECF

Meeting with Violeta Bulc (Commissioner) and

24 Mar 2015 · Issues discussed