“Not by their words — in their deeds shall ye know them …”

A pre-electoral editorial published by Lëtzebuerger Velos-Initiativ (LVI), the largest national everyday bicycling association: as a courtesy for its international readership interested in the active mobility topic, @luxembourgize proposes a translation.

“You do not have to be faithful to be guided by this call at the next municipal elections. What are statements in election programmes really worth, when political reality does speak a whole different language?

On 8 October 2017, local elections will be held everywhere in Luxembourg

The “old” as well as the potential “new” parishioners are currently appealing for the favour of the electorate. The bike is also on everyone’s lips. Statements such as “improvement of active mobility” or “expansion of the cycling route” are included in all election programmes.

Statements such as “improvement of active mobility” or “expansion of the cycling route” are included in all election programmes.

But what to think about statements such as “We are committed to all transport users” or “we want to improve mobility”, without concrete details on priorities in the distribution of the limited public space? If, at the same time, the “additional parking spaces in the center” — for cars of course — are pointed out at the same time, it has to ring a bell for us cyclists.

Talk promising active mobility is cheap

For the larger agglomeration areas, such as the cities of Luxembourg, Ettelbrück/Diekirch, Esch-Alzette, Hesperange, Bertrange or the Alzette Valley etc., there is talk about the need for active mobility. But when it comes down to putting that need into practical realisations, the excuse that there is unfortunately no space for cycle paths is often heard. The plans then make it very clear that the available space is used up in priority for motorised transport, whose rapid progression is required at all times. Infrastructure for motorised traffic is still getting highest priority. And yet, in this choice of priorities lies the most fundamental difference between the current motorised transport and a future sustainable mobility!

The plans then make it very clear that the available space is used up in priority for motorised transport, whose rapid progression is required at all times.

LVI expresses support for the new mantra “move people, not cars”

If we want to increase active mobility to 25%, if we want to improve the air quality (e.g. lower nitrogen oxides) in cities, if we want to create life-affirming inner cities and housing estates, then it is more than just “taking into account bicycle traffic”. Then a general rethinking, a change of priorities, a different setting of course is inevitable. For example, in the censuses of inter-communal traffic at crossroads, not only the cars, but especially the walking and cycling people have to be taken into account. Above specific numbers or target values, the planning must primarily be aimed at the active mobility traffic participants — otherwise, the needs of that group are not adequately taken into account and pretending to support them can in that case be described as a pure alibi!

LVI gives an Oracle of Delphi* like voter recommendation

Every further promotion of the car transport (including the dormant traffic) in metropolitan areas is a brake for a new, alternative, healthy, fast mobility and goes at the expense of active, sustainable mobility. We therefore give out a clear voting recommendation to all cyclists: please do not forget the rear-view mirror and look forwards!”

*) The antique Oracle of Delphi was famous for delivering ambiguous answers, putting some thinking onto the questioner.

Original German text in LVI-Info 107–3/2017, Editorial (page 3), subtitles added by @luxembourgize for contextualisation.