A 2015 study from Montreal showed that half of all bicycles stolen are from ‘fly-parking’ locations (i.e. locations not intended for bicycle parking, such as lampposts and fences). Recent industry research conducted by Cycling Industries Europe (CIE) shows that 40% of victims of theft had a bicycle stolen from a residential location. However, only 3% of people surveyed in the Netherlands indicated that a bicycle was stolen from a garage or shed.

A Belgian study on bicycle theft also found that bicycles were more likely to be stolen if they were parked in public. Meanwhile, those who park their bicycles in private spaces often report that their bicycle was not locked to a fixed point (21%) at the incident of theft. A likely explanation for this is that they were simply unable to do so due to lack of convenient infrastructure.

This issue will continue to grow in importance, as cargo bikes and e-bikes become more popular and widespread and the value and corresponding cost of replacing them increase as a result. E-bikes already accounted for 17% of stolen bicycles in a 2020 survey from the Netherlands and 23% of stolen bicycles in a recent survey from France.

This has an impact on cycling promotion. A 2007 study of university students found a positive association between high safety from theft and regular cycling. In a French survey conducted by FUB and the Académie Des Mobilités Actives (ADMA), 11% of victims report stopping cycling following theft and 23% report cycling less often. This points toward a negative effect of bicycle thefts on willingness to cycle for a third of victims. Similarly, industry research by CIE also found that 13% of respondents gave up cycling after theft and estimates that, when applied to the whole of Europe, theft could lead to a million people giving up cycling.

According to the ADMA, thirty-nine percent of victims of bicycle theft did not buy another bicycle following theft. Of those who did buy another bicycle, about a third of victims bought a bicycle that was less valuable than the one that had been stolen, highlighting the impact on the European bicycle industry. These findings are mirrored in the responses to the Dutch survey from 2020. The Dutch survey also sheds light on the emotional impact: people are emotionally attached to their bicycles and perceive it as highly annoying to have them stolen. These factors deter people from cycling after an incident of theft.

A 2018 systematic review of scientific literature on parking behavior, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behavior found that even in the limited literature on residential locations, the availability of bicycle parking was still found to be a factor influencing mode choice. For public transport hubs and educational and professional buildings, there is strong evidence to that effect. As bicycles spend much of the time parked in residential locations, it seems highly likely that this would apply equally or even more so to residential buildings.

Several studies have shown that the fear of bicycle theft plays a role in people’s preference for bike sharing or leasing solutions over riding private bicycles. A Spanish study from Valencia - where significant gains in cycling mode share have been achieved in recent years - also identified a lack of parking facilities and theft as the main obstacles inhibiting a switch from shared bicycles to private ones. Although bike sharing or leasing is still desirable as they get people cycling, it indicates that the potential of theft plays a role in modal choice and the use of private bicycles would likely increase if there were less fear of theft.

Bicycle parking requirements are a particularly important, but often undervalued, element of cycling promotion. Space must be dedicated to good bicycle parking infrastructure. Here in Brussels, ECF has been working to have bicycle parking included in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. We very much welcome the position of the Commission, European Parliament and Council on mandatory bicycle parking in buildings. If implemented, it would require new and renovated residential buildings over a certain size to have two bike parking spaces per dwelling. Non-residential buildings over a certain size would be required to offer sufficient bike parking for 15% of total (or average) user capacity. The position of the three EU institutions aligns closely with our original recommendations for bicycle parking in the EPBD.

The Energy Performance of Buildings directive is an important piece of legislation that will promote the use of sustainable modes of transport. It has the potential to reduce the energy required to build parking infrastructure in buildings, as it would set limits on car parking requirements and instead require more bicycle parking. Bicycle owning occupants not only consume less energy for transport but also use less energy in total. The availability of secure bicycle parking in buildings is a crucial way to encourage more people to cycle, knowing that they can safely store their bicycles when not in use.

For more information on the EPBD and ECF work on it please visit: https://www.ecf.com/what-we-do/making-buildings-fit-cycling