Various regression models explaining the differences in bicycle use among towns, demonstrate that the percentage of non-native inhabitants of the Netherlands has a negative effect on bicycle use. In addition ethnic minorities often turn out to live in the largest towns in the Netherlands, with the highest urban densities. And urban density itself proves to be another factor negatively affecting bicycle use in towns. As there is little known about the reasons why to this day ethnic minorities cycle little, this study focused on the reasons why ethnic minorities rarely choose to use a bicycle and how this behaviour may be influenced in favour of cycling. A study was conducted in two neighbourhoods in Den Haag, Transvaalkwartier and Schilderswijk, where 90% of inhabitants are of non-native Dutch origin. These neighbourhoods are also close to the town centre and possess a bicycle infrastructure, making a bicycle a good alternative for short trips. Previous quantitative studies by SCP and Fietsberaad focused on personal characteristics, presence and characteristics of the transport system and in part on personal attitude, in order to provide an explanation for the behaviour. The qualitative studies by Verbeek, Bureau Veldkamp and KIM concentrated on the factors personal attitude, social standard and a little on the factor personal characteristics. The current study focuses on the elements personal attitude, social standard and personal characteristics to provide an explanation for the transportation choices of ethnic minorities, with specific relevance to cycling. Research results Den Haag An investigation into the transportation choices in the Transvaalkwartier and Schilderswijk neighbourhoods in Den Haag demonstrates that a large majority of residents possess the ability to cycle and almost half actually own a bicycle. Broken down by ethnicity native Dutch prove to be able cycle more often, possess a bicycle more often and also cycle more often than non-native Dutch in these neighbourhoods. On the other hand ethnic minorities use bus/tram significantly more often. There are few differences among car use, as only native Dutch and people of Turkish descent use their cars significantly more often than people of Surinamese descent. The reasons to prefer a certain transport modality are mainly practical, like speed, room for luggage and ease of use. In addition a sense of safety in traffic and health are important issues. Image and status are not major reasons to prefer a transport modality, the study demonstrates. This in particular deviates from previously held qualitative studies. The residents who cycle little but do know how to, have been asked for the most important reasons they reject cycling. The two most important reasons not to cycle as far as these people were concerned: - the weather is often bad (rain, windy, cold) - I feel unsafe in traffic when cycling. The sense of danger in traffic may have two causes. A limited ability to cycle may prevent a sense of self-assurance when cycling or bicycle provisions may be insufficient, leading to a feeling of unsafety. The study shows that most inhabitants of these neighbourhoods, irrespective of their ethnic origins, are able to cycle. This however bears little relation to their self-assurance when cycling. Several respondents, for instance, said they had not cycled for a long time and were not sure they still could cycle well. Previous qualitative studies indicate there is quite often a lack of self-assurance in ethnic minorities when cycling. The study clearly reveals that bicycle provisions fall far short, too. A majority of respondents, for instance, feel there are not enough bicycle parking facilities in the neighbourhood. In addition there is often no dedicated space for bicycles in the street, causing cyclists to sharing the infrastructure with other road users like cars and bus and tram. This may lead to a sense of insecurity for cyclists, leading various people to stop cycling. When parents experience this sense of insecurity, they will prevent their children from cycling as well. Previous qualitative studies observed this: children do not cycle because their parents feel it to be dangerous. As few people cycle in their immediate environment, children have no role models and cycling is no longer self-evident. The result is that children develop habitual behaviour for their transportation needs, other than cycling. In addition to a sense of danger when cycling, there are considerable differences between people of native and non-native origins in the reasons stated for not cycling. People of Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese descent felt the factor ease of use (bus and tram will get you everywhere in Den Haag) and bus and tram as meeting place to be significantly more important than native Dutch in their decision to opt for bus and tram. The often stated reason for ethnic minorities not cycling (it is considered a poor man’s vehicle) appears to be hardly an issue. A large majority of inhabitants of these neighbourhoods, whether they be Turkish, Moroccan or Surinamese, feel that successful people may well travel by bike. So it appears to be not true that the low bicycle use among ethnic minorities can be explained by the presumption of a low image of cycling. Moreover the opinion that a bicycle is an inappropriate means of transportation for girls and women hardly occurs among the inhabitants of these neighbourhoods. Recommendations When the results from this study in two neighbourhoods in Den Haag is compared to the theoretical framework, it turns out that the main factors in the transportation choices are presence and characteristics of transportation systems, personal attitude and social standard. In the case of the first factor the ease of use of the extensive bus and tram network and the lack of bicycle provisions play a role in the decision to forego cycling. In the other two factors the social context is more to the front. Here a role is played by environmental influences, travelling together and role models. Therefore measures to promote cycling among ethnic minorities in these two neighbourhoods in Den Haag should focus on two important cornerstones that can be reduced to these three elements. In addition measures should be aimed at disrupting habitual behaviour and prevention of habitual behaviour in the first place where cycling is not an option to be considered in making a decision. The first cornerstone refers to the bicycle provisions in these neighbourhoods. Currently these leave a lot to be desired, which may engender a feeling of not being safe on a bicycle in traffic. The consistent implementation of a specific safe place for bicycles in the street is therefore an important factor to promote cycling. The second cornerstone implies people getting actively into contact with bicycles, gaining experience and knowledge on cycling. It is therefore important in promoting bicycle use that residents are willing and able to cycle. To support this willingness and ability residents should also understand why cycling is attractive for them. To this end cycling campaigns should be launched in these neighbourhoods focussing on acquiring knowledge (making people want to cycle) and providing cycling lessons (so everyone can cycle). It is moreover recommended that these campaigns focus on health issues, not on being an ethnic minority, so health problems in these neighbourhoods can be tackled (people are sick more often and die sooner than in other neighbourhoods in Den Haag.). In this way the appeal is to residents’ own interests and desires and not on their origins, which may be more successful.