ABSTRACT
“When it comes to cycling, there is only one expert: the cyclists themselves. The cyclist knows best which situations are dangerous, which short cuts are needed, which barriers should be removed … Where the government is doomed to fail given its technocratic approach, the Cyclists’ Union can be strong.” 1 With this resounding statement, the Dutch Cyclists’ Union (Fietsersbond) claimed that successful cycling governance was impossible without the input of everyday cyclists. Rather than making policy “from behind the car window” as cycling activists often suspected, urban engineers should work with cycling groups representing everyday cyclists. With their detailed knowledge of urban roads and the dangers of everyday mobility, they had the expertise engineers lacked. To curtail the car's place in the city, fight the record high numbers of traffic casualties, and make cycling a safer and more attractive option in Dutch cities, engineers and activists had to work together. The new organization of young activists also questioned the traditional, mediating, and monopolistic role of the ANWB in cycling governance. It was part of a larger critique.
