Cyclists’ phone use can cause distractions and impose risks towards traffic safety. To prevent phone-related distractions, the Netherlands introduced a ban on handheld (HH) phone use for cyclists in July 2019. The effects of traffic rules on phone use and their underlying mechanisms are, however, uncertain. Comparing survey results from the Netherlands before (N = 553) and after (N = 484) the ban, using Denmark (before N = 568, after N = 519) as comparison group, this study explores whether introducing a ban is associated with changes in phone use, traffic rule beliefs, perceived risk, sense of guilt, and perceived annoyance. Comparison of phone function use before and after the Dutch ban revealed a significant decrease in the proportion using HH phone for conversation, while there was no change for other functions. In Denmark, proportions remained stable for all functions. Changes in the Netherlands possibly correspond to specific phone functions characteristics, e.g., how effortless one can pause and resume the function. The results additionally identified an increase in correct traffic rule identification, sense of guilt for HH phone use, and perceived annoyance, while there was no significant change in perceived risk of HH phone use. The study found that banning HH phone use was associated with increase in correct rule identification, but only to limited changes in HH phone use. Banning HH phone use might have greater effects in changing behaviours over time as a result of social mechanisms related to changes in sense of guilt and perceived annoyance.

Cities around the world make efforts to reduce car use and its negative consequences but even in cycling cities, mobility behaviour is still dominated by car use. This paper examines the effect of life events, changed resources and attitude-behaviour incongruency on changes in people's mobility style. The paper is based on a longitudinal survey including people who participated 2–3 times within a 2.5-year period. Applying latent transition analysis based on participants' mobility attitudes and behaviour, we identified 5 distinct mobility classes: one functional and one enthusiastic car user class; one car-prone and one car-aversive cycling class and a public transport class. Free-floating car sharing subscription had an effect on initial class membership but not on transition probability. However, shifts were significantly related to age and gender, changes in income and place of residence. Yet, most effects disappeared when car ownership was included in the latent transition model. Once people end up in car-centred mobility styles, a voluntary transition back seems difficult to achieve.

Phone use is likely to distract cyclists and possibly increase crash risk. Therefore, handheld phone use among cyclists is forbidden by law in some countries, even though cyclists use compensatory strategies to attempt to mitigate distractions and related effects. Both demographic, environmental, and psychological factors have been associated with cyclists’ phone use. This study extends the existing literature by including traffic rule beliefs as an explanatory measure in predicting cyclists’ handheld phone use and additionally explores how well cyclists know these rules in different legislative contexts. Online questionnaire responses were collected in 2019 among 1055 cyclists living in Denmark (N = 568), where handheld phone use for cyclists was forbidden, and in the Netherlands (N = 487), where it was legal. Responses on phone use, traffic rule knowledge, cycling behaviour, demographic, and psychological measures were used to identify factors contributing to the likelihood of handheld phone use in three regression models; one for all respondents and one for each country. In the combined model, believing there are no rules on handheld phone use increased the likelihood of handheld phone use while cycling. Other significant factors were subjective norm, perceived behavioural difficulty, self-identity as a safe cyclist as well as demographic factors. The country-specific models found that male gender was only associated with more handheld phone use in the Netherlands, while believing there was no ban was only connected to an increase in the likelihood of using handheld phone in Denmark. Correct traffic rule knowledge was almost three times higher in Denmark, where handheld phone use was forbidden. The results identify subjective norms, potential overconfidence, and traffic rule awareness (when there is a ban) as relevant factors in reducing the likelihood of cyclists’ handheld phone use. Findings from country-specific models possibly point to a connection between culture and traffic rules. Future research should focus on underlying mechanisms and awareness of traffic rules.

This paper focusses on travel socialisation by examining the effect of immigrant origin on cycling in two distinct European cycling cultures: Denmark and the Netherlands. Based on data from both countries’ national travel surveys, the empirical analyses show that people of immigrant origin cycle less compared to natives. While in Denmark this effect is significant only for people of non-Western origin, in the Netherlands it is also true for people of Western origin, probably because they originate to a greater extent from non-European countries (e.g., Indonesia). In the Netherlands, the effect of non-Western origin is larger for women than for men, while we do not find a significant gender interaction in the Danish data. Individuals with residence in neighbourhoods with a higher share of people of non-Western origin are less likely to cycle, probably as the national norm to cycle is less salient here. The results cannot be fully explained by differences in socioeconomic status, car access, or level of urbanisation. We assume that cultural norms mediated by parents play a relevant role. The results lend support to policies focused on stimulating the use of the bicycle among immigrants and especially women of non-Western origin.