Au début de la pandémie de COVID-19, les pistes et bandes cyclables, qualifiées de « coronapistes », sont apparues comme un moyen simple, rapide et peu onéreux de répondre aux exigences sanitaires de distanciation sociale tout en évitant les conséquences négatives d’un report modal vers la voiture. À partir d’une recherche menée par entretiens et parcours commentés filmés dans cinq métropoles – Grenoble, Lyon, Montpellier, Rennes et Saint-Étienne – auprès de cyclistes expérimenté-es ou débutant-es, l’article analyse comment ces aménagements transitoires ont été perçus et pratiqués selon les contextes, les types d’infrastructures et les compétences des cyclistes. L’article revient dans un premier temps sur la réception des aménagements puis questionne les usages liés à une appréciation de la cyclabilité en termes de confort, de sécurité et de sûreté. Un des résultats est que si les coronapistes ont contribué à stimuler la pratique du vélo, une attention particulière doit être portée au développement d’aménagements lisibles, larges, physiquement séparés, continus et entretenus, notamment pour améliorer le sentiment de confort et de sécurité des cyclistes. L’article conclue sur les intérêts et limites de la dimension tactique dans la mise en œuvre des coronapistes.

Tactical urbanism is a modality of intervention resulting from citizen initiatives, involving temporary, reversible and inexpensive material transformation, whose objective is to introduce rapid changes in the use and appropriation of urban public space. During or shortly after the spring 2020 lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, tactical urbanism proved to be a simple, quick and inexpensive way to respond to the health emergency of social distancing. In particular, bicycle lanes and paths, referred to as pop-up infrastructures or in France as “coronapists,” were created in order to avoid a modal shift to the car by people afraid of using public transport. Based on research conducted with interviews and video elicitation in five French cities–Grenoble, Lyon, Montpellier, Rennes and Saint-Étienne–with experienced and novice cyclists, the article analyzes how these pop-up infrastructures have been perceived and used according to the context, the type of infrastructure and the profile of cyclists. Building on the discussion of the role of infrastructure, the aim here is to understand how the contingencies arising from the layout of transitory infrastructure produce a different relationship to space and mobility. In doing so, we examine the potential spillover effect of the coronapists on a population that did not practice utilitarian cycling before the pandemic and the continued practice of those who were already utilitarian cyclists. The purpose is to examine how these new infrastructures may have acted as a facilitator of modal shift or as a learning facilitator, and what particular role coronapists played in the practice of utilitarian cycling. The article first examines the reception of the infrastructure and then questions the uses related to an assessment of the cyclability in terms of comfort, safety and security. The article ends with a discussion of the interests and limitations of the tactical dimension in the implementation of coronapists. The diversity of the territory surveyed has shown the political force of the infrastructures and the effect that these transitional infrastructures have had as a complement to other measures. They promote new uses and encourage new people, including children, to adopt cycling on a daily or more regular basis. This result invites the pursuit of this proactive policy. These promising results encourage the development of these infrastructures in sparsely populated, suburban or rural areas. In addition, we have shown that ridership is highly dependent on cyclists’ assessment of the comfort, safety, and security of the path. This perception varies greatly depending on the context, the type of facility and the experience of the cyclists. In most cases, the coronapists have helped to stimulate more cycling by providing greater coverage and safer or more direct routes. The expectancies and dissatisfaction generated by transitional facilities, which relate to perceived bikeability, inform us of the importance of considering the diversity of uses in their design as well as their physical quality and maintenance. The results of our survey encourage the design of readable, wide, physically separated, continuous and maintained facilities to improve cyclists’ sense of safety. Finally, the results also show the importance of thinking about cycling policy by considering the full range of possible uses and experience levels from the design stage onwards in order to attract new cyclists.