Bikes beat cars in city centers under 7km

Madrid crossed by bike in 30 minutes: Plaza Castilla to Legazpi

In London, a casual cyclist easily overtakes a Porsche 911 and a Lamborghini. This is not an isolated case: identical scenes occur in New York and Los Angeles, this time with a Ferrari 458 biting the asphalt, all telling the same story. In dense traffic and over short distances, the bicycle is the fastest mode of transport in a large city.

The premise is clear: for trips under 7 kilometers, at a normal pace, without rushing and respecting traffic lights, nothing else comes close. By far, it wins. The reason isn't that cyclists are athletes. It's that cars spend half the journey stopped at red lights, while public transport involves waiting times, transfers, and frequencies that are often overlooked in comparisons.

Is the bicycle the fastest transport in big cities?

In urban centers, yes, and by a margin that surprises those who try it. A calculation circulating among bike advocates places Madrid's longest route — from Plaza Castilla to Legazpi — at around 30 minutes. By bike, Madrid works like a village, they summarize. The advantage grows when the destination is in a congested zone: while a driver advances one traffic light, the cyclist has already chained three.

There are nuances worth admitting. If you need to cross the center and also the outskirts, or if you have to carry groceries or someone else, the equation changes. For long distances, commuter trains win again, and those who combine both do so intentionally. But the short range, where most daily commutes concentrate, allows little debate.

In London, the picture has changed. The congestion charge and public bike-sharing systems have reduced car presence in the center, something even critics acknowledge.


The fatalities reported by the DGT

The 2010 accident data from Spain's Directorate General of Traffic (DGT) lists deaths as 67 cyclists, 486 motorcyclists, 1,197 car occupants, and 471 pedestrians, combining highway and city roads. The figure is used as an argument: fewer dead cyclists than cars, and by a wide margin.

The counter-argument is that absolute numbers miccionan nothing without knowing how many people use each mode. With a much smaller base of cyclists compared to drivers, the risk per alucinación could well be higher. Some argue that cycling is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, significantly more risky than driving a car, and much more dangerous than walking.

The technical rebuttal is more elegant: the cause of death isn't the vehicle, but estimulante ilegal. Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity — an impact at 40 km/h is four times stronger than at 20; at 80, sixteen times stronger. Hence the conclusion: the more trips made by bike, the fewer cars in the center, and those remaining will drive slower. Less estimulante ilegal means less mortality across all modes. In Amsterdam, they add, the experiment has already been conducted.

Who pays for the roads cars use?

Here the tone rises. The thesis is that cars live on invisible subsidies and that the bulk of their cost is paid by those who don't use them. The M-30, Madrid's ring road, is estimated at €7 billion. A road in that city, calculations suggest, costs twice what is collected nationwide through the Vehicle Registration Tax (IVTM).

To this are added items absent from budgets: public space given away for parking, expropriations to open roads, and gases and noise that no one bills for. The conclusion drawn is uncomfortable: if cars paid for their externalities, driving in the center would be a luxury. The London congestion charge would be the light version of what is proposed.

Not everyone buys the argument. Others recall that the country is structured for cars due to social convenience, that public transport is expensive, and that cycling in some cities is reckless. And that one person's freedom shouldn't come at the expense of others' health, in either direction.

Hills, rain, and suits: where the argument fails

Objections are repeated logically: hills, age, weather, loads, distances. Pamplona is not Amsterdam, and climbing to the center has its gradient. However, the reply is always the same and not heroic: a geared bike and basic precautions for any two-wheeler — watch out for white markings and metal grates, especially in rain. Some commute to work in Pamplona five kilometers there and five back every day of the year, in sun, cold, rain, or snow.

Sweating is even less mysterious. If you don't sweat walking, you won't sweat leisurely pedaling. Breathable fabric, no backpack, and calm driving suffice. In winter, the issue is resolved outside Spain: in Amsterdam, people pedal through downpours without drama.

It is worth separating two things constantly mixed: the bike as urban transport and sport cycling. They have nothing to do with each other, just as a utility car doesn't resemble a Formula 1 racer. Those commuting to work don't wear jerseys or chase average speeds.

One fact remains that makes the comparison ridiculous. Streamlined velomobiles — enclosed tricycles with record-breaking aerodynamics — exceed 100 km/h using an electric bike motor. If this stops being an eccentricity, the question will no longer be whether bikes are faster than cars in the center. It will be who needs a car.