Commentary Planning for cycling = planning for equity: a response to Cupples and Ridley ‘Towards a heterogeneous environmental responsibility: sustainability and cycling fundamentalism’ (2008) Till Koglin Technology and society –Traffic and roads, Box 118 221 00 Lund, Lund skåne 221 00, Sweden Email: till.koglin@tft.lth.se Revised manuscript received 21 September 2010 The article by Cupples and Ridley (2008) discusses cycling fundamentalism and attempts to analyse bike- friendly policies with the help of Foucault, setting the policies in the frame of the neo-liberal spirit of sustainable development. I do agree that much of the sustainability agenda may be questioned and should be seen in the neo-liberal frame, because the term sustainability is so diffuse that everything can be interpreted as sustainable and the economic aspects are often prioritised (Baeten 2000; Foster 2002; Raco 2005). However, the neo-liberal turn can only be adapted to cycling and pro-bike policies when those policies are concerned with environmental arguments. I do, very much, agree that many environmen- tal policies, including bike policies, are a question of heterogeneous environmental responsibility in a post- political time of sustainability (Swyngedouw 2008). There are also other aspects to environmental problems than only transportation. Consumption in general is also a major problem (Bradley 2009). Therefore my arguments are more concerned with matters of equality in the urban environment than of environmental responsibilities. Developing bike-friendly policies and providing cyclists with good infrastructure are matters of equity in the city. The city is for everybody and all have the right to be in the city. Notwithstanding the Cupples and Ridley association that cars are to be looked at the way alcoholics, prostitutes and the like were regarded in earlier city images (Cupples and Ridley 2008), today’s cities and infrastructures are mainly built for cars. Modernism and functionalism effected urban planning in many cities and led to the discrimination against cyclists in the infrastructure (Nuhn and Hesse 2006). Cycling is seldom seen as a mode of transport, but is often as effective as the car. The view of cyclists is often very one-dimensional, which means that people often see cycling as a sort of recreation not trans- port. Therefore, the needs of cyclists have been and are still neglected in the transport systems (Khayesi et al. 2010). The few cities that do provide good infrastructure for cyclists are the safest for cyclists, pedestrians and cars (for example, Amsterdam, Freiburg and Copenhagen). Furthermore, there are very few measures as effective as cycle paths in terms of safety and comfort. Cycle paths, therefore, are one of the most important measures for increased safety. Without cycle paths, cyclists are exposed to motorised traffic, which is a safety problem, especially on roads with high speeds and no speed-reducing mea- sures (Pucher and Buehler 2008, Englund et al. 1998). However, cycle paths will not turn one into a better person or into a more environmentally concerned person. Cycle paths have nothing to do with environmental prob- lems; they are concerned with equal rights and with the fact that transport planners take care of the needs cyclists have! When it comes to car culture, or cyclists for that matter, one could argue, as Cupples and Ridley do, that the car has been incorporated into our personal life. However, the question is whether that justifies a status quo. Yes, the car is here to stay, but does that mean we should not focus on cyclists in urban planning? I argue that urban and transport planning have so far only considered the needs and demands of car traffic in many cities. The urban landscapes we see today are the results of planning for Area (2011) 43.2, 225–227 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00977.x Area Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 225–227, 2011 ISSN 0004-0894 © 2010 The Author. Area © 2010 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)