A new article in Case Studies in Transport Policy examines the surprisingly inconsistent terminology used to describe cycling infrastructure. The study—led by Scott Lieske in SENV and co-authored by former UQ|UP doctorand Weichang Kong, his advisor Dorina Pojani, and UQ colleagues Richard Buning and Simone Leao—reviews 113 policy documents and draws on three rounds of Delphi surveys with experts to assess whether the field can agree on what different cycling facilities should be called. The findings reveal that cycling terminology is far from settled, and this ambiguity has real consequences. Labels that appear clear or progressive on paper often mask significant differences in quality, design, and safety. In some cases, upbeat language is used to signal innovation without delivering meaningful improvements for cyclists. The study highlights how terminology shapes both perceptions and outcomes in urban mobility. It was funded by AURIN. Read the full article here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101682

To cite:

Lieske, S.N., Kong, W., Buning, R.J., Pojani, D. & Leao, S.Z. (2025) Standardising bicycling infrastructure terminology: A Delphi study of Australian experts. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Article 101682. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101682