1. The pedelec is embedded in the bicycle's culture and tradition with all related problems but also chances. We still are much fascinated by the bicycle as such. The bicycle is some benchmark for us when comparing new options in traffic in the positive as well as in the negative sense. Vehicles similar to a bicycle tend to be seen as
    1. good because ecologic, safe and easy to handle.
    2. potentially insufficient because at the end a bicycle is "only a bicycle" - not a car.
    In this reasoning it is sometimes overlooked that - apart from slowly mutating to a pedelec - the bicycle itself is changing (new products: cargo biycle, handbike, new materials etc.), so the classic benchmark, the bicycle itself, changes.
  2. A general feeling is that some municipal decision makers get interested more easily into the new techno-topic "pedelec " than into cycling culture as such (despite they state that they foremost need an improvement in cycling culture in their city. E. g. they rather like to delve into technical aspects of the pedelec and charging stations than to understand why for instance the Netherlands or Denmark are so well off in cycling culture and what they could simply copy-adapt from them. Supporting the pedelec as a sole product does not require a deep commitment to drastic changes in mobility culture as it would be the case with promoting and clearly prioritising cycling. Nevertheless, according to the Go Pedelec! survey two out of five municipal decision makers think financial support for cycling should be higher, even if this question did not explicitly refer to cycling infrastructure but rather to dissemination measures. In line with the above not only municipal decision makers but also the other two target groups confirmed to have a positive to very positive attitude towards pedelecs according to the Go Pedelec! survey. Municipal decision makers know that the pedelec market has a great future: about 80% of all municipal decision makers interviewed in the Go Pedelec! survey expect a growing pedelec market. Hence being in favour of the product pedelec when asked is simply betting on a winning horse.
  3. A lot of obstacles relating to the dissemination of pedelecs do not concern technology but are about simple logical thinking and political will: If there is no cycling culture, no atmosphere inviting to cyclists, why should people step on a bicycle or pedelec at all? Accordingly, several barriers are not so much specific to the pedelec but to cycling as such. An example is cycling in winter time which seems to become a growing topic in Europe: As we have learned during the project the pedelec might (based on alleged increased stability on slush due to motor assistance), on the other hand (lower temperature limit for battery charging) it does not support cycling in winter time well. But the basic, larger problem for using a bike in winter are mostly cycling lanes and streets which are not cleared well from slush, snow and ice.
  4. Car industry was successful in lobbying for their core product (though they aggressively enter the pedelec market as well since recently ) and setting topics within the "electric mobility hype": As a result the electric car is found to dominate minds of many decision makers we had contact with when it comes to the topic of "electric mobility" whereas the pedelec is "also nice" but not the "real thing".
  5. On the other hand cycling seems slowly but inevitably on the rise at least in some European countries. Towards the end of the project we heard that in the Go Pedelec! partner city of Naples, the new environmental assessor simply closed a main road along the beach for cars during key day hours. Moreover Naples introduced pedelecs in a pilot for their policemen. In those cases where cities actively go for improving cycling culture and thereby also promote pedelecs these stakeholders need some minimum information on "not to dos", in particular in the area of installing charging stations, and information on todos and on experience what others have successfully done in order to avoid large misspent investments.
  6. Pedelecs are sold in large quantities in many countries. However, the substituting impact on traffic and in particular with regard to combustion engines still seems to be low or at least was not measured sufficiently so far.
  7. The key stakeholders who may get the stone rolling within the pedelec sector which are essentially municipal decision makers, politicians in general, pedelec manufacturers and retailers do not communicate effectively among them or show relevant interaction, in other words: they do not "see each other" but rather are driven by topics thirds create and push. They, in particular politicians, as well at the European level, do not perceive pedelecs (and cycling) as one of the most effective solutions to individual transport, to be preferred over cars, not to speak about the lacking perception of pedelecs as a promising solution to innerurban cargo transport problems - although pedelecs already are there in the shops and on the streets.
  8. The intermodal usage of pedelecs, in particular in combination with public transport, seems to be the most immediate future challenge as well as the most promising opportunity in traffic planning. First highly interesting pilots on this topic have started in Germany.