The Netherlands is regarded as the number one cycling nation: around 28 per cent of all journeys there are made by bike, and the cycle network spans some 153,000 kilometres. However, with e-scooters, cargo bikes and fat bikes, the number of vehicles having to share this infrastructure is growing. Differences in speed, width and weight increase the potential for conflict, particularly on narrow paths. This has now been discovered by a research team at Breda University of Applied Sciences.
LEVs can replace car journeys
As part of the LEVERAGE project run by Breda University of Applied Sciences (BUas) and its partners, just under 2,000 people were surveyed. Around a quarter of them can envisage buying a light electric vehicle. Three-quarters of this group expect that this will lead to them driving less.
This is of interest to cities, but above all to suburbs and rural areas. There, people can use electric cargo bikes and other small electric vehicles to cover distances that many would find too far or too strenuous for a conventional bicycle, without having to go to the trouble of starting the car. After all, cars are still mostly powered by internal combustion engines.
Behaviour and infrastructure remain crucial
In their studies, the BUas researchers used eye-tracking, skin conductance measurements and questionnaires to investigate how cyclists react to LEVs. The unsurprising result: (e-)fatbikes and other LEVs attract more attention than conventional bicycles.
It is not the vehicle itself that poses a danger, but the way it is used. – Paul van de Coevering, Professor of Urban Mobility Planning at Breda University of Applied Sciences
However, measurable stress or an increased safety risk do not automatically arise simply because drivers are predictable on the road, show consideration and follow the rules. “It is not the vehicle itself that poses a danger, but the way it is used,” says Paul van de Coevering, Professor of Urban Mobility Planning at BUas.
According to the studies, blanket bans on specific categories of vehicles do not go far enough. Clear speed limits, consistent enforcement and sufficiently wide, separate cycle lanes are a more sensible approach. This also ties in with the debate on German transport policy: a look at the The Black-Red coalition’s cycling policy shows that concrete targets and determined action are now needed to expand the infrastructure.
Not every LEV is permitted on cycle paths
And is this now set to become a problem – is e-mobility a risk to cycling? To inform the debate, it is important first to look at the legal situation. After all, not every ‘cycle path’ is automatically the same.
Not all light electric vehicles (LEVs) are allowed to use cycle paths across the board in the Netherlands.
Not all light electric vehicles (LEVs) are permitted to use cycle paths across the board in the Netherlands. In our neighbouring country, a distinction is made between dedicated cycle paths (Fietspad) and combined cycle and moped paths (Fiets/bromfietspad).
Standard bicycles, pedelecs, regulation-compliant electric cargo bikes and electric fat bikes with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h are permitted to use both types of route. On combined cycle and moped fast lanes, vehicles such as S-pedelecs, mopeds and scooters with a maximum speed or pedal assistance of up to 45 km/h are also permitted; in Germany, these must travel on the carriageway designated for motor vehicles.
With e-scooters, the situation is almost the reverse: Germany allows registered pedal-assisted scooter-style models (not sit-on e-scooters) to be ridden on cycle paths. In the Netherlands, e-scooters without pedal assistance are only permitted on public roads if the specific model is approved. Many of the models on offer do not meet this requirement.
There are therefore currently (still) relevant differences between the legal situations in Germany and the Netherlands. These are particularly evident in the case of 25 km/h mopeds (Mofas), S-pedelecs and e-scooters. What matters is not what a vehicle looks like, but which legal vehicle category it falls into and what sign is displayed on the road. The following overview is intended as a guide for editorial purposes only and does not constitute individual legal advice.
| Vehicle type | Netherlands | Germany |
| Bicycle, pedelec, regulation-compliant electric cargo bike or fat bike up to 25 km/h / 250 W | Permitted on cycle paths and combined cycle/moped paths | Legally classified as a bicycle; use of cycle infrastructure in accordance with the usual rules |
| S-Pedelec up to 45 km/h | Not permitted on a cycle-only path, but permitted on a combined cycle and moped path | As a moped, you must always ride on the carriageway, not on the cycle path |
| Mopeds up to 45 km/h | On a combined cycle/moped path, otherwise on the carriageway | Generally the carriageway; no general permission to use cycle lanes |
| 25 km/h Snorfiets (moped) | Generally on the cycle path; in some places, you may be required to use the carriageway | Road; mopeds may use cycle paths outside built-up areas |
| E-scooters | Only a few authorised models; these must be ridden on cycle paths or shared-use paths | Just like a bicycle: Registered e-scooters (small electric vehicles) must be ridden on cycle paths, cycle lanes or cycle routes (where available) |
Conclusion: Make space, make the rules clear
In Germany, the Dutch concept of combined cycle and moped lanes – on which a wide variety of vehicles are permitted to travel – could, in theory, be implemented as a cycle route with exceptions, i.e. additional signs. However, this is even more complicated to implement than a cycle lane on its own – of which there are still far too few in Germany.
That said, the idea of separate, clearly signposted traffic lanes for vehicles travelling at different speeds definitely deserves more attention if we want to reduce car traffic. Where cyclists, S-pedelecs, cargo bikes and other light electric vehicles (LEVs) regularly share the road, narrow standard cycle lanes are no longer sufficient – if they exist at all.
Local authorities need safe, fast and convenient connections if people are actually to switch from cars to bikes. The following example also shows just how well this can work: BIKE interview with Boris Palmer on safe, fast and convenient cycle routes.
At the same time, the focus on infrastructure must not distract us from the responsibility of each individual. Despite all the rules and technology, mutual consideration remains the top priority, even amongst cyclists. Anyone overtaking must adjust their speed and keep a safe distance. Those travelling faster bear a special responsibility. And those who are weaker or ride more slowly must be able to trust that they will not be treated as an obstacle.
The latest accident figures make it clear why this debate is not a marginal issue. More fatal cycling accidents in Bavaria highlight the need for action in this country. The future of mobility will be more diverse. It will only be safe if infrastructure, regulations and consideration for others work together.
Join the discussion
How do you find the mix of bicycles, e-bikes, cargo bikes and other vehicles on your daily journeys? In your view, what is needed to improve road safety and encourage even more people to switch from cars to bikes? And what responsibility do you think faster cyclists should take towards slower and particularly vulnerable road users?
Please share your experiences and ideas in the comments. We look forward to a constructive discussion.
Sebastian Brust
Editor