1. Introduction

In the face of pressing transport decarbonisation targets across Europe, cycling has been recognised as a mode with considerable potential to reduce car use, as part of a broader shift towards multi-modal mobility practices. In this context, the importance of developing ample protected cycle networks has been noted as a key measure to increase cycling ridership (European Commission, 2022; European Commission, 2023). While cycling in general has been identified as a valuable means of transport sector decarbonisation within Europe, e-cargo bikes (ECBs) in particular have been proposed as a variant of cycling that could contribute to decarbonisation of urban goods transport (European Commission, 2022; European Commission, 2023). ECBs have equally been considered as potential vehicular substitutes for the private car, a view that is evident in Irish climate policy (Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, 2023) and has been recently supported by sizeable ECB purchase subsidies for employees in Ireland (Revenue, 2024).

Existing research on e-cargo cycling has primarily examined ECBs as logistics vehicles rather than private vehicles (Narayanan and Antoniou, 2022). However, an increasing number of studies have sought to directly investigate experiences of private ECB use (e.g., Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin, 2024a; Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin, 2024b; Thomas, 2022). Our study contributes to this burgeoning area of scholarship, qualitatively exploring how private ECB owners experienced cycle networks on the island of Ireland. Specifically, our analysis provides an in-depth qualitative account of how e-cargo cycling is experienced across varied and developing cycle networks on an island where cycling presently constitutes a very small proportion of total journeys (Department for Infrastructure, 2023; National Transport Authority, 2023) but occupies a position of considerable policy ambition (Department for Regional Development, 2015; Department of Transport, 2022).

We begin our paper by examining how cycling has been marginalised as a transport mode in Ireland and the UK, how e-cycling might offer a way for greater participation in cycling within unfavourable cycling conditions, and how e-cargo cycling might help people feel more secure and safe when cycling on roads while making protected cycle networks more challenging to access and use. Following this, we present our methodology for the study, detailing the process of interview data collection and data analysis, which was informed by previous analysis of cycling experiences in Ireland (Egan and Philbin, 2021). We then provide the findings of the study, outlining how various aspects of local and regional cycle networks (i.e., their planning, maintenance, and design) were uniquely experienced by private e-cargo cyclists in Ireland. In the discussion section, we situate our findings in relation to extant cycling, e-cycling and e-cargo literature, and conclude with several primary implications of our study.

2. Background

Within low-cycling contexts such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, cycling has been an historically marginalised transport mode relative to the private car. This marginalisation presents in two primary ways. First, in the context a dominant system of automobility (Urry, 2004), “cycle traffic” has been largely ignored as an object of transport planning practice and investment (Aldred, 2012; Aldred et al, 2019; Cox, 2020; Egan and Caulfield, 2024; Egan and Philbin, 2021; Hanna, 2015; Parsons and Vigar, 2018). Second, cyclists are routinely disregarded in everyday traffic interactions with professional and private motorists, thereby treated as implicitly inferior road users (Aldred, 2016; Egan and Philbin, 2021; Hogan and Jeffers, 2023; Joshi, Senior and Smith, 2001; Lawson et al, 2013; Mullan, 2013). This disregard can be enacted through close-passing manoeuvres, tailgating, blocking cycle spaces, harassment, and failing to respect a cyclists’ right of way (e.g., Aldred, 2016; Egan and Philbin, 2021). In countries where cycling is prioritised as a form of transport, dense and connected cycle networks are commonplace, cycling is normalised, and motorists have greater legal liability in the case of collision with a cyclist (Pucher and Buehler, 2008).

In the context of this marginalisation, a growing body of research indicates that e-cycling can enable more comfortable “vehicular cycling” (i.e., cycling with motor traffic) compared to conventional cycling, potentially offering a way for people who might otherwise be deterred by hostile cycling conditions to engage in cycling (Dill and Rose, 2012; Johnson and Rose, 2015; Jones, Harms and Heinen, 2016; Melia and Bartle, 2021; Popovich et al, 2014; Thomas, 2022). In particular, e-bikes have been found to assist riders to accelerate more rapidly and to cycle at sustained higher speeds. These improved capabilities appear to help e-cyclists integrate with motor traffic rather than become an “obstacle” to motor traffic (Behrendt, 2018; Dill and Rose, 2012; Dowling and Maalsen, 2020; Jones, Harms and Heinen, 2016; Jones et al, 2022; Popovich et al, 2014; Wild, Woodward and Shaw, 2021). The studies by Wild, Woodward and Shaw (2021) and Dill and Rose (2012) indicate that e-cycling can also facilitate “getting out of the way” faster (Wild, Woodward and Shaw, 2021, p. 10), suggesting that e-bikes enable not only integration with motor traffic but also enhanced avoidance.

E-cargo cycling may further positively reshape the experience of vehicular cycling. In the North American study of Thomas (2022), one participant noted how they felt the sheer size of their ECB led to safer overtaking practices by motorists, as the ECB made their presence amongst traffic so conspicuous that “nobody can miss it” (p. 642); another participant similarly described how “everybody sees you” (p. 642) when e-cargo cycling. Analysing a much larger body of responses from nearly 700 ECB users in Switzerland (87.9% of whom rode ECBs), the study of Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin (2024b) found that 70% of respondents experienced cargo cycling mixed with motor traffic as safe, while 57.7% felt respected by other road users. Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin (2024b) additionally noted that cargo trike riders felt more respected than longtail cargo riders in their study, lending credibility to the claims of the e-cargo riders of Thomas (2022) regarding the positive impact of their ECB size on motorist behaviour.

Despite this early evidence suggesting a potential experiential advantage when e-cargo cycling on roads, several studies indicate that the design of cycling infrastructure can present a major problem for e-cargo cyclists (Melia and Bartle, 2021; Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin, 2024b). In the study by Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin (2024b), the majority of respondents perceived that the current provision of cycle lanes and paths was not appropriately designed for cargo bikes. This finding resembles existing research focused on non-electric cargo bikes (Liu et al, 2020; Riggs and Schwartz, 2018). The North American study of Riggs and Schwartz (2018), for example, found that existing cycle infrastructure provision could be uncomfortably narrow for cargo-cycle users. Liu et al (2020) reported a similar phenomenon amongst cargo cyclists in the higher-cycling contexts of Stockholm and Amsterdam. Cargo cyclists in Stockholm in particular described how overtaking with the cargo bike could be exceptionally challenging on protected cycleways with heavy cycle traffic, with some users even expressing a preference for using bus lanes or unprotected cycle lanes due to the greater availability of space to manoeuvre. Focusing on e-cyclists in the UK, Melia and Bartle (2021) reported that e-cargo cyclists in their study found segregated routes more challenging to access due to gates and other obstructions more easily negotiated with narrow and lighter cycles (see also, Sherriff, Blazejewski and Davies, 2023).

In our study, we explore experiences of e-cargo cycling using existing (and selectively expanding) cycling networks on the island of Ireland, drawing on qualitative interviews with 25 private ECB owners. While the bulk of e-cargo cycling research to date has focused on the logistics applications of ECBs (Narayanan and Antoniou, 2022), this study contributes to the growing body of scholarship that has included (Dowling and Maalsen, 2020; Edberg, 2023; Edberg, 2024; Melia and Bartle, 2021; Wild, Woodward and Shaw, 2021) or centred (Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin, 2024a; Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin, 2024b; Thomas, 2022) the experiences of private ECB users. To our knowledge, our study provides the most comprehensive qualitative inquiry to date exploring how an existing and growing protected cycle network is experienced by private ECB owners in their everyday e-cargo mobilities, building on the survey research of Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin (2024b) and the qualitative e-cycling study of Melia and Bartle (2021). In doing so, our study offers nuanced insights that can inform more ECB-inclusive cycle network planning, maintenance, and design.

3. Study context

Ireland is a country with high levels of private car use and walking, and low levels of cycling. In 2022, cycling was estimated to account for 2% of total journeys nationally, in stark contrast to journeys by car (69%) or walking (19%) (National Transport Authority, 2023). While overall cycling levels are low, cycling participation is even lower amongst women in Ireland, accounting for only 1.3% of women’s total trips in 2021 compared to 3% for men (Central Statistics Office, 2022). Levels of cycling vary considerably within Ireland, depending on context; for example, cycling constituted 5% of journeys in Dublin City and its suburbs compared to only 1% of journeys within urban towns (National Transport Authority, 2023). Overall, Ireland has a low provision of segregated urban cycling infrastructure (Conway et al, 2019), which deters the inclusive growth of cycling (Aldred, Woodcock and Goodman, 2016).

However, increased ambition and investment in developing protected cycle networks is evident at both national (Department of Transport, 2021; National Transport Authority, 2025) and local authority levels (Cork City Council, 2022; Dublin City Council, 2025) to grow cycling mode shares (Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, 2023). In the Cork City Development Plan (Cork City Council, 2022), for example, 100 km of new or upgraded cycle facilities are planned for delivery by 2028. This expansion of cycle infrastructure aims to help increase cycling modal share from 1% of journeys in 2022 to 10% of journeys by 2040. The Dublin City Council (2022) Development Plan, on the other hand, aims to increase cycling/micromobility mode share from 6% in 2019 to 13% by 2028, supported by the longer-term rollout of 314 km of infrastructure for active transport from a baseline of 10 km (Dublin City Council, 2025).

While national cycling participation is recorded in Ireland, specific rates of e-cycling and e-cargo cycling are unknown at the national, regional, and local levels, as these are not measured through official data gathering channels and are instead subsumed as “bicycle” trips. However, e-bike ownership is recorded: 2% of households are estimated to own an e-cycle of some kind nationally, compared to 44% for non-electric bicycles (National Transport Authority, 2023). Irish market data indicates that the share of households in Ireland that own an e-bike of some description is likely growing, with e-cycles constituting 18% of total cycle sales in 2023 (Statista, 2024). The growth in e-cycle sales is likely aided by Ireland’s “Cycle to Work” scheme, which awards a €1,500 subsidy for the purchase of a new e-bicycle and up to €3,000 for a new cargo/e-cargo cycle (Revenue, 2024) as a means to promote greater uptake of cycling for commuting journeys.

As our research has focused primarily on experiences of e-cargo cycling in the Republic of Ireland, our context section reflects this. For more information on the status of cycling ridership and policy in Northern Ireland, we direct readers to the Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland (Department for Regional Development, 2015), the Northern Ireland Travel Survey (Department for Infrastructure, 2023), and the Belfast Cycling Network Delivery Plan (Department for Infrastructure, 2022).

4. Methodology

Our analysis in this paper originates from a broader study exploring how private e-cargo cycling is experienced and integrated as a mode of everyday mobility in Ireland, with attention to competing modes of everyday mobility such as car-driving and conventional cycling. Initial data were gathered with a broad interest in practices relating to ECB purchase, use, and parking. In this paper, we examine how private ECB owners participating in this study experienced cycle networks in their everyday e-cargo cycling use, with particular attention to how these networks might be experienced differently when using an ECB relative to a conventional bicycle or e-bike. Data collection and analysis to investigate this topic were guided by the study of cycling in Dublin carried out by Egan and Philbin (2021). This study identified how the spatial and temporal design and planning of dedicated cycle spaces – and the (insufficient) regimes of maintenance for such spaces – could shape an insecure experience of conventional cycling in the Irish capital, compounded by disregard from motorists and a lack of police protection. This attention to cycle network planning, maintenance, and design is reflected in our findings, where these three dimensions of Ireland’s existing (and slowly growing) cycling network are explored qualitatively, focusing on the perspectives of private ECB owners.

Data for this study were gathered using semi-structured qualitative interviews with adults based in Ireland who owned an e-cargo cycle of any kind. As indicated above, participants were asked about their experiences of accessing and using available cycle networks with their ECBs. Follow-up questions explored the experienced connectivity, condition, and design of these networks as an ECB rider in greater depth. Data analysis involved selectively coding interview transcripts to identify how the planning, maintenance, and design of a given cycle network were experienced by ECB owners, and how the qualities of a given network might uniquely affect e-cargo cyclists relative to conventional (e-)bicycle users. This analysis can be read as an account of how, from the perspective of ECB owners, the (variable) “technologies” and uses of the ECB interact with mobility “environments” designed for cycling (Cox, 2019) on the island of Ireland.

Participants were recruited using an online interview volunteer advertisement. This was widely shared on platforms including LinkedIn and X by the researchers and by the social media accounts of their respective organisations. In addition, the call for volunteers was shared by a prominent cycling news website (Ginty, 2024). In total, 23 interviews were carried out, involving two (heterosexual) couples, and 21 individuals (N: 25). Interviews had a duration of 40 to 73 minutes. All participants provided signed informed consent forms. Thirteen women and 12 men participated in the study. This approximate participant gender balance contrasts with the cycling gender gap in Ireland (Central Statistics Office, 2022). The majority of participants lived in Dublin (N: 12) were between 30 and 39 years of age (N: 12), had at least one child (N: 24), and had years of experience cycling for everyday purposes. There was a reasonably balanced mix of ECB types: 11 participants used a box-bike – which has a cargo box situated to the front of the bike – while 12 used a long-tail bike – which generally has a seating area for passengers situated to the rear of the bike. Only two participants used a box-trike. Table 1 presents various demographic information relating to participants, including interview information. This research was ethically approved by the university ethics committee.

5. Findings

6. Discussion

In pursuit of a transformative “shift” in nationwide transport behaviour, Ireland has undertaken a major programme of investment in segregated cycle infrastructure to enable greater use of cycling for everyday mobility (Department of Transport, 2021). Concurrently, substantial subsidies have been made available for employees to purchase private e-cargo cycles (Revenue, 2024), which have been identified as a mode of transport that could feasibly substitute private car journeys (Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, 2023). In this study, we qualitatively explored how private e-cargo cyclists primarily based within the Republic of Ireland experienced cycle networks in their local and regional areas, analysing the interview accounts of 25 ECB owners. Our exploration offers a unique analysis of how two sustainable transport policy measures – namely, the development of protected cycle networks and the subsidised expansion of the private ECB fleet – may interact with one another. We found that e-cargo cyclists, particularly those in counties with growing cycling networks (i.e., Dublin and Cork), experienced unique effects of cycle network planning, maintenance, and design practice relative to cycling such networks with a conventional bicycle.

First, the piecemeal provision of protected cycle networks by local and national authorities, in which cycle traffic priority and cycle network connectivity are compromised, presented a major problem for e-cargo cyclists in this study – many of whom travelled with child passengers. Being forced into vehicular cycling with children on board the ECB, especially at junctions, was experienced as significantly riskier than cycling without children (see also Melia and Bartle, 2021; Sersli et al, 2020). Being unable to trust in the connectivity of segregated cycle networks was experienced as frustrating. These findings concur with previous studies exploring experiences of conventional cycling in low-cycling contexts (Aldred et al, 2017; Egan and Philbin, 2021; Hogan and Jeffers, 2023; Latham and Wood, 2015; Mora et al, 2024). They also resonate with the work of Sabelis (2022), who highlights how cycleways in the Netherlands offer piecemeal connectivity for longer-distance cycling transport journeys, and the work of Hickman (2016) and Cox and Bartle (2020), who argue that piecemeal cycle networks can limit the ability of disabled cyclists to use cycling as a primary mobility aid.

In this respect, our findings indicate that people engaging in e-cargo cycling experience a similar aversion to cycling amongst motor traffic and desire for protected cycling as people engaging in conventional, electric, or unconventional cycling. This aversion is, however, intensified when e-cargo cycling with child passengers – the predominant function of most private ECBs. Such aversion was widely expressed by participants in this study, who enacted practices of restraint when cycling with their children relative to cycling their ECB alone. These practices included a refrain from “filtering” through static motor traffic; taking circuitous routes to their destinations to avoid areas of heavy motor traffic; sticking to segregated cycling facilities as much as possible; and avoiding travel to certain areas altogether with the ECB. Expanding the provision of (ECB-accessible) protected cycle networks could thereby enable ECB owners to make shorter, safer, and faster everyday child-carrying journeys. This could, in turn, improve wider public perceptions of ECBs as a safe and convenient vehicle for providing child-related mobility relative to the private car.

Second, practices of official neglect – where local authorities failed to adequately maintain cycle spaces – were a major issue encountered by participants when e-cargo cycling. The mass of the ECB compared to a conventional bicycle or e-bike made uneven surfaces much more uncomfortable and potentially destabilising for both riders and passengers when e-cargo cycling. This contrasted somewhat with the study by Popovich et al (2014), where e-cyclist participants felt that poorly maintained cycle surfaces were primarily uncomfortable and hazardous due to the greater speeds achievable with an e-bike. Along with a greater sensitivity to mobility surface quality, cycling over glass and sustaining a puncture on an ECB was considered a more severe risk than with a conventional bicycle. In particular, wheeling an ECB to a cycle shop for repair or attempting to fix a puncture independently could present major logistical challenges. As a result, puncturing the wheel of one’s ECB could leave the rider (and their children) “stranded”, echoing the findings of Cox and Bartle (2020), who explored the experiences of disabled cyclists in a large UK town. With these sensitivities in mind, improving standards of routine cycle network maintenance is required to ensure that existing cycle networks can be safely and comfortably accessed by ECB riders year-round.

Third, what could be described as the “closed design” (Cox, 2022, p. 281) of cycle infrastructures encountered in this study limited where participants could avail of segregated cycle spaces where they – and their children – were protected from motor traffic when e-cargo cycling. Illustrations of closed design included narrow cycleways; tight cycleway turning radii; narrow filtered permeability arrangements (in this study, primarily kissing gates); kerbs, steps, and ramps impeding access to, or egress from, cycleways or cycle parking; and cycle parking designed for the dimensions of a bicycle. These design features have been raised as major barriers that limit the accessibility of public spaces and cycle infrastructure for disabled cyclists, who may use conventional or non-typical cycles for mobility (Clayton, Parkin and Billington, 2017; Cox and Bartle, 2020; Hickman, 2016; Melia and Bartle, 2021), thereby constituting a “disabling environment” with respect to cycling (Aldred and Woodcock, 2008; Cox and Bartle, 2020, p. 10). Narrow cycleway widths have equally been found to compromise the accessibility and comfort of cycle networks for cargo cyclists (Liu et al, 2020; Riggs and Schwartz, 2018), a finding also suggested in the ECB study by Marincek, Rérat and Lurkin (2024b).

In our study, such design features appeared to effectively “close” considerable stretches of already fragmented cycle networks, removing e-cargo cyclists from local and regional cycling networks. This necessitated ECB riders to engage in more vehicular cycling than if they were using conventional bicycles, which presented additional concerns amongst participants when cycling with their children on board, as observed in Melia and Bartle (2021). In this respect, closed design, as articulated in this section, could be seen to contribute to conditions of precarious entitlement (Egan and Philbin, 2021) to the cycle network for e-cargo cyclists in this study. Closed design practices foreclose the possibility of a diversity of cycles, cyclists, and cycling practices that could be enabled through more “open” (Cox, 2022) or “inclusive” (Clayton, Parkin and Billington, 2017; Hickman, 2016) design. To fully open cycle networks to ECB riders and their passengers, cycle networks should be retrofitted to ensure universal accessibility (National Transport Authority, 2022; National Transport Authority and Department of Transport, 2023, p.14).

Although our study offers practical insights into how cycle networks are experienced by ECB owners in Ireland, and how they might be planned, maintained, and designed to enable the growth of this dynamic mode of cycling, there are several limitations. The study was exploratory in nature, involving a relatively small number of participants (N: 25). Future research should aim to gather data from more ECB users regarding their experiences of cycle networks, using methods such as self-report surveys. In addition, the study focused on the anonymised interview accounts of ECB owner experiences of their (primarily local) cycle networks. This limited the extent to which ECB cycle routes and specific cycle route features could be analysed. Future research could explore which types of cycle infrastructure are used (and not used) by e-cargo cyclists, and how, through the use of GIS methods. More detailed case studies of particular cycle infrastructures/routes (e.g., Xie and Spinney, 2018) from a standpoint of ECB-accessibility would also be highly beneficial for research and practice.

7. Conclusion

The key findings of our study suggest that e-cargo cyclists (i) may especially benefit from protected cycle networks due to the common use of ECBs for transporting children, (ii) may be particularly sensitive to network surface quality and clearance relative to non-disabled conventional cyclists (Cox and Bartle, 2020; Hickman, 2016), and (iii) may be excluded from accessing protected cycling networks, due to exclusionary and/or minimalist design practices that fail to accommodate e-cargo cycles. Our study thereby reveals how cycle network planning, maintenance, and design practices on the island of Ireland may produce “systemic sticking points” (Watson, 2013, p.124) to the future growth of e-cargo cycling, in spite of sizeable purchase subsidies (Revenue, 2024). On these grounds, developing integrated and protected cycle networks that are both inclusively designed and intensively maintained is essential to ensure such networks can be easily accessed by a diversity of ECB users, in keeping with broader calls for “inclusive” cycle network design practice (Clayton, Parkin and Billington, 2017; Cox and Bartle, 2020; Hickman, 2016). Alongside these cycle network measures, ECB ownership and use can be further supported by developing an ECB-inclusive cycle parking system (Egan, Julienne and Caulfield, 2025) and by designing grant schemes that enable ECB ownership for care-centred cycling practices rather than solely “Cycle to Work” (Revenue, 2024).

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.