Introduction

We surveyed cyclists in Belgrade to understand how they ride, what infrastructure they use (and don’t), how safe they feel, and how open they are to technology and community-based solutions. The results reveal patterns, frustrations and potential levers for change in the city’s cycling ecosystem.

Cycling Frequency and Habits

• A strong majority of respondents cycle at least occasionally: when asked how often they ride, around 38% said they ride “at least once a week” or more.
• A smaller but significant share roughly 22%, cycle daily rather than only occasionally.
• Many cyclists identify commute or everyday mobility (work, errands) as primary uses, rather than purely recreational riding.

From a traffic engineering viewpoint, these numbers show that cycling is not a niche activity but part of everyday mobility for a substantial group, meaning infrastructure planning needs to treat cyclists as regular users rather than occasional hobbyists.

Most Common Routes & Areas

While the survey asked for frequent areas or paths:

• The top-used corridors tend to be major traffic axes or river side routes: at the Novi Beograd or Dorćol or Ada.
• A significant share (about 36%) reported riding near built-up urban zones rather than exclusively in parks or greenways.

This suggests that any infrastructure improvements will need to focus not just on recreational bike lanes, but on intra-city traffic corridors, intersections and commuter-safe links.

Infrastructure Evaluation

• Respondents rated existing cycling infrastructure on an average scale of about 1.74 / 5
• Only about 14% felt the infrastructure was “good” or “very good”.
• By contrast, a large share (around 86%) rated it “fair”, “poor”, or “very poor”.

From the traffic engineering lens, this gap between user perceptions and expectation indicates that the existing facilities may exist in part (for example short stretches of separated lane) but fail in continuity, connectivity, or intersection safety. Infrastructure is not just about bike lanes, it’s about network completeness and functional integration with traffic flows.

Key Issues and Missing Elements

Respondents highlighted several recurring themes in “what is missing” or “what needs improvement”:

• Continuity & connectivity: Many riders noted that lanes or safe paths often end abruptly or go through heavy-traffic intersections with minimal protection.
• Intersection and crossing safety: A large number flagged unsafely designed intersections (mixing bikes & cars), poor signalling, or unclear priority.
• Maintenance and surface quality: Potholes, debris, narrow lanes or uneven surfaces emerged as frequent complaints.
• Segregation from motor traffic: Riders expressed desire for more physically separated infrastructure (not just painted lanes).
• Bike parking and end-of-trip facilities: There is interest in secure bike parking, particularly near transit hubs or workplaces.
• Behaviour and enforcement: Some noted that even where bike infrastructure exists, cars park in bike lanes or the “dooring” risk (parked car opens into bike path) is high.

From a traffic engineering standpoint, this points to the classic “last-mile” or “linkage” problem: having discrete pieces of infrastructure is insufficient unless they form a safe, continuous high-quality network. Also key is the intersection treatment, as the most dangerous segments for cyclists in mixed traffic.

Community Support & Engagement

• About 87% of respondents said they would support local cycling initiatives (such as neighborhood bike-lane pilot projects).
• Roughly 63% stated they would be willing to participate in a pilot program or provide feedback via a mobile app.

This is a strong signal for planners and municipal mobility teams: there is latent community willingness to engage, which means co-design and participatory infrastructure planning are viable strategies. Traffic engineers can leverage this by involving cyclists early in route-design, monitoring, and feedback loops.

Conclusion Part 1

The first part of our analysis shows clear patterns: cycling in Belgrade is growing, but infrastructure gaps remain the key obstacle. The willingness of the community to engage, however, is a strong foundation for change.

In the next article, we’ll explore what these insights mean for traffic engineering, urban planning, and the future of safe cycling corridors in Belgrade.

Stay tuned for Part 2.