Learning to cycle is seen as an important milestone in childhood that has important implications for the future (Cordovil et al., 2022). Cycling is globally recognized as a sustainable and accessible mode of transport with supposedly broad socio-cultural, economic, and health benefits (Ardizzi et al., 2020; Cordovil et al., 2022). The European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission included a joint declaration, as part of the green deal on cycling (European Commission, 2023). They contend that cycling improves social inclusiveness and contributes to physical and mental health and well-being of all citizens.

In countries like the Netherlands, cycling is deeply embedded in daily life and is seen as an essential part of social participation and identity (Blake, 2017). However, concerns are projected upon the “next generation” of children who are called “the lost cycling generation” (ANWB, 2021). The number of Dutch children who ride a bike is dropping (Jansen, 2019) and attributed to groups of children associated with low social economic status and/or migrant backgrounds (Jansen, 2019).

Cycling however is not just a mode of transport but also a bodily and symbolic process that influences identity formation (Jordi-Sánchez, 2018; Ravensbergen, 2022). Learning to cycle can be a form of social embedding, where migrant children develop a strong sense of belonging through interactions with their teachers, peers and the physical environment (Blake, 2017). But at the same time cycling can turn into a form of civic integration and disciplining into the dominant culture of society (Ardizzi et al., 2020; ‘S Jongers, 2024). This means cycling projects can also be recognized as instruments of potential neo/colonial endeavours, where power imbalances not only resonate in social and geographical positioning, but also intersect with gender and social class (Ravensbergen, 2022). The meaning of cycling is not the same for everybody, which makes the meaning of cycling unstable in different places and different contexts, for different people in different times. This shows (re)learning to become a cyclist is embedded in discourses about health, citizenship, gender and physicality (Aldred, 2012; Sersli et al., 2022).

As a response to the European call for more cycling, many Dutch communities are now encouraged to implement cycling in their local policies for education (see for instance the policy of “Citydeal: cycling for all” (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2023). Critical studies in Bicycles For Development (BFD) projects (see for instance, lindsayhayhurst.com) warn for the presence of a (not so) hidden curriculum in such projects, that (re) produces inequalities among children through dynamics such as communication, practices of verbal and manual guidance, or selection of desired bodies (Ardizzi et al., 2020; Van Doodewaard et al., 2018). The purpose of this study is to explore discourses that guide teachers in their constructions of health, citizenship, gender and physicality and the possible consequences these constructions may have for the privileging and marginalizing of certain children in cycling projects.

This research was conducted in three local school projects, where Dutch physical educators, general educators and preservice teachers worked together in a 4-week cycling project in their schools for children 4–6-years old from 2023-2025. I used semi structured interviews and video stimulated recall to interview 12 participants about their thoughts and ideas on the importance and meaning of their endeavours. I also gathered fieldnotes and observations in the school grounds. I analysed the data using open, focused and selected coding (Boeije & Bleijenberg, 2023) and looked for themes in the rationalities the teachers used about meaning and importance of the project. Preliminary results show two themes: matters of perceived precarity and matters of pastoral care.

I explain and explore these findings and discuss their implications for the privileging and marginalization of certain children. I conclude that these practices of (re)learning to become a cyclist are not neutral but support a hidden curriculum and agenda that disadvantage and favour specific groups of children.

Aldred, R. (2013). Incompetent or too competent? Negotiating everyday cycling identities in a motor dominated society. Mobilities, 8(2), 252-271. ANWB (2021). Waarom kinderen steeds minder en slechter fietsen. Gaat er een fietsgeneratie verloren [Why children are cycling increasingly less and worse. Is a cycling generation being lost]? Retreived 2025, January 25 from https://www.anwb.nl/fiets/nieuws/2021/maart/de-verloren-fietsgeneratie Ardizzi, M., Wilson, B., Hayhurst, L., & Otte, J. (2020). “People still believe a bicycle is for a poor person”: Features of “bicycles for development” organizations in Uganda and perspectives of practitioners. Sociology of Sport Journal, 38(1), 36-49. Blake, O. (2017). Incorporating the Everyday: Pedalling Towards Citizenship and Belonging (Master's thesis). University of Utrecht. Boeije, H. & Bleijenberg, I. (2023). Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek [Analyazing in qualitative research]. Boom. Cordovil, R., Mercê, C., Branco, M., Lopes, F., Catela, D., Hasanen, E., ... & Estevan, I. (2022). Learning to cycle: A cross-cultural and cross-generational comparison. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 861390. European Commission (2023). European declaration on cycling. Retrieved at 27-01-2025 from: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/European_Declaration_on_Cycling_en_0.pdf Jansen, P. (2019). Eindrapportage fietsgedrag kinderen [Final report on cycling behaviour of children]. Labyrinth onderzoek en advies. Jordi-Sánchez, M. (2018). Social perceptions of the promotion of cycling as a mode of transport for children in Andalusia (Spain). Journal of Transport Geography, 72, 86-93. Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (2023). Dealtekst City Deal Fietsen voor iedereen [Deal text City Deal Cycling for all]. Retrieved 2025, January, 25, from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2023/11/13/bijlage-6-dealtekst-city-deal-fietsen-voor-iedereen Ravensbergen, L. (2022). ‘I wouldn’t take the risk of the attention, you know? Just a lone girl biking’: examining the gendered and classed embodied experiences of cycling. Social & Cultural Geography, 23(5), 678-696. Sersli, S., Gislason, M., Scott, N., & Winters, M. (2022). Easy as riding a bike? Bicycling competence as (re) learning to negotiate space. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 14(2), 268-288. ‘S Jongers, T. (2024). Armoede uitgelegd aan mensen met geld [Poverty explained to people with money]. De Correspondent. Van Doodewaard, C., Knoppers, A., & van Hilvoorde, I. (2018). ‘Of course I ask the best students to demonstrate’: digital normalizing practices in physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 23(8), 786-798.