Nowadays cycling rates in most European cities are increasing, while many governments are looking for ways to integrate cycling into the daily lives of citizens not only as a leisure activity but also as an official means of transport. At the same time, a large part of the population itself aims to influence decision-makers and urban planners to make cities more sustainable and to actually adopt pro-cycling policies. This section of the population that desires a policy change often forms social movements that aim to make their demands heard and make substantial improvements. Such social movements are known from the past for their influential contribution to various burning issues such as gender equality, ecology, environmental protection, sustainability and many others. Various researchers have shown that social movements and advocacy groups present different compositions and work to promote change by targeting public opinion, the political arena, or both. However, the existing literature and previous research on their contribution to the promotion of cycling in the policy making process are quite limited. Therefore, this research sought an answer to the question: How do social movements influence the successful adoption or implementation of a favorable/positive cycling policy? Through a literature study on the theory of social movements together with the principles of the Multiple Streams Model by Kingdon, a theoretical framework is developed to better hypothesize how policy adoption and implementation works and how movements can influence it. Indeed, the report revisits Kingdon’s concept with a particular focus on social movements and their various activities in the policy making process. The key components of the MSF are the problem stream, the politics stream, the policy stream, the window of opportunity and the policy entrepreneur. Using this model in conjunction with social movement theory, three hypotheses have been developed and tested for the three cases. The comparative case study approach is used to allow a deeper understanding of the impact of social movements on the development of positive cycling policies and the events behind the adoption of the cycling policies in three European capitals where there is evidence of social activism are extensively analyzed. These were the cities of Amsterdam, Stockholm and Dublin. The main data sources were articles, scientific papers, local newspapers, magazines and blogs along with transcripts of interviews. Besides, through semi-structured online interviews, the perspectives of relevant stakeholders in the three cities, such as members of social movements and experts in the field of policy-making and policy analysis were investigated. The next step after collecting all the necessary data was the content and narrative analysis, in order to connect the cases in a meaningful way but also to identify common patterns. Conclusively, the findings from the three cases were compared and contrasted based on their differences and similarities in the strategy followed by the social movements, the emergence and constitution of their groups and generally their effectiveness in achieving favorable changes for cyclists. Overall, the report argues that by determining the role of movements within the streams there is an added value to the explanatory power of the context. Influencing the problem stream and seeking public support is a prerequisite for strengthening social movements, while they tend to use methods such as indicators and focusing events to determine the perception of the problem in the society. Identifying the problems and highlighting them to the public may be secondary if the movements themselves, due to their composition, know how to negotiate with decision makers directly. This is because social movements and advocacy organizations also aim to influence government agencies, especially when there is no political will for change or when they have the right means to approach them in terms of power and knowledge. The need for active negotiation with the political stream increases when there are strong policy opponents influencing the board in the background. These rivals often come from the automotive industry as they have conflicting interests with cycling policies that tend to undermine car dominance. Lastly, regarding the policy stream and proposals for change that usually come from the community of policy experts, it is not impossible for movements to contribute even to this stream, if they have the necessary knowledge and expertise to do so. Otherwise, seeking for interaction with experts in the field can help activists to get realistic policy proposals that can be used in their discussions with the decision makers. Furthermore, when there is a clearly defined problem, politicians are willing to adopt a realistic political solution, and a policy entrepreneur couples these streams at a window of opportunity, the result may be in favor of activists. A noticeable finding was that social movements themselves can also play the role of the policy entrepreneur and articulate the three streams. As Kingdon suggested, social movements can invest their efforts to closely collaborate with the decision makers and push for their interests. At the same time, they can also work towards influencing the three streams in different ways and emphasizing on different aspects depending on the composition of their teams, the timing of their appearance and the legal framework of the country. There may also be some other important parameters such as scale of the city, the funding availability, the shape of old inner cities or the existence of historic centers that can facilitate the movements' success in influencing a pro-cycling policy adoption. Despite the importance of these contextual parameters, this study shows that success lies in the hierarchy of cycling, arguing that whenever there is a will, a realistic way can be found. After all, social movements, in order to achieve the best result and be mostly effective, they should be aware of their strengths that are directly related to their knowledge of the cycling policy-making process, their size and passion. In this way, they can choose the right strategy to follow and influence the political scene. Besides, for people who wish to promote cycling and sustainable way of travelling it is crucial to find others with a common view, because although every voice matters, when these voices become collective, they are more likely to be heard and taken seriously by the decision-makers. Finally, policymakers need to be more open to dialogue with such groups, as they represent a legitimate part of society and can bring issues that ordinary people cannot include on the political agenda. Ultimately, actively listening and constructively discussing activists’ demands in a friendly environment -always under a realistic point of view- can also be beneficial to their political future In conclusion, the knowledge gathered through this report on the ways in which movements can bring about policy change has to do with the political status and legal framework of each country. It is therefore worth noting that, as this study focused on democratic capitals, this may have an impact on the generalizability of results for countries with very different policy frameworks.