In Norway, as in many countries, there is a political goal to increase bicycle use. The electric bicycle (e-bike) is a promising tool for achieving this goal, given the hilliness of the country. However, little is yet known about the deterrents of cycling in Norway in general, and in particular how the purchase of an e-bike could be stimulated. In the current study, 5500 respondents from a convenience sample among car owners were asked about their perceptions of bicycling in general, and of e-bikes in particular as well as their willingness to pay (WTP) for an e-bike. Randomly selected participants (N = 66) were given access to an e-bike for a limited time (2 or 4 weeks). A second questionnaire captured the same perceptions and WTP post-intervention. The results were compared with a control group (N = 214). The results showed that those who cycle the least were most interested in buying an e-bike and that prior knowledge of the e-bike corresponded with a higher desire to buy one. Pro-environmental values did not predict interest in e-bikes, neither did norms and attitudes toward cycling. The WTP for an e-bike increased after having experienced the benefits for those who used an e-bike compared to those who did not. Price reduction of the e-bike (e.g. VAT exemption), spread of knowledge among the wider population, and actions to offer an e-bike experience may therefore be effective strategies for further expansion of the e-bike in the transport system and thereby to increase bicycle use in Norway.

Police crash reports are often the main source for official data in many countries. However, with the exception of fatal crashes, crashes are often underreported in a biased manner. Consequently, the countermeasures adopted according to them may be inefficient. In the case of bicycle crashes, this bias is most acute and it probably varies across countries, with some of them being more prone to reporting accidents to police than others. Assessing if this bias occurs and the size of it can be of great importance for evaluating the risks associated with bicycling. This study utilized data collected in the COST TU1101 action "Towards safer bicycling through optimization of bicycle helmets and usage". The data came from an online survey that included questions related to bicyclists' attitudes, behaviour, cycling habits, accidents, and patterns of use of helmets. The survey was filled by 8655 bicyclists from 30 different countries. After applying various exclusion factors, 7015 questionnaires filled by adult cyclists from 17 countries, each with at least 100 valid responses, remained in our sample. The results showed that across all countries, an average of only 10% of all crashes were reported to the police, with a wide range among countries: from a minimum of 0.0% (Israel) and 2.6% (Croatia) to a maximum of a 35.0% (Germany). Some factors associated with the reporting levels were type of crash, type of vehicle involved, and injury severity. No relation was found between the likelihood of reporting and the cyclist's gender, age, educational level, marital status, being a parent, use of helmet, and type of bicycle. The significant under-reporting - including injury crashes that do not lead to hospitalization - justifies the use of self-report survey data for assessment of bicycling crash patterns as they relate to (1) crash risk issues such as location, infrastructure, cyclists' characteristics, and use of helmet and (2) strategic approaches to bicycle crash prevention and injury reduction.

In many European countries, it is a political goal that future growth in local travel should be absorbed by sustainable transport modes. Concerns that increased walking and cycling produce more accidents have been countered by the "safety in numbers" (SiN) argument. According to SiN, the more walkers/cyclists there are in a population, the lower their risk. SiN has been demonstrated in cross sectional and longitudinal studies, but the mechanisms behind the effect have yet to be proven. Previous studies have mostly relied on register data. The current study, carried out in 2013 and 2014 tests the existence of this effect in a more controlled manner. This is achieved through the use of three data sets: (1) roadside survey data with cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers from Oslo carried out at three time points in the cycling season (2) a panel study covering the same time period, and (3) video observations at four different locations in Oslo. By exploiting the natural seasonal variation in cycling frequency, and by using a repeated measures design we can further control for other factors suggested to lie behind the SiN mechanism, such as differences in infrastructure and traffic culture. The results suggest that bicyclists experience a short term Safety in Numbers effect through the season. Each individual cyclist experiences fewer occasions of being overlooked by cars and fewer safety critical situations (near-misses). Video observation data confirm this pattern. However, the SiN effect seems to be countered by another mechanism taking place at the same time: the influx of inexperienced and risk-taking cyclists through the season. Thus car drivers and pedestrians also report to find themselves being surprised by cyclists in traffic late in the season.