This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There's seriously a lot of work to do here! I just dipped my finger in it. I'm a copy editor rather than a researcher, though can sometimes fit in the latter. A dedicated rider, I can only say I've not been here before by omission. It's on my watchlist now. I'll work on the issues of integration of the various articles on bikes and cycling, some marked for merger. I'll have put my name on the Project list. Look forward to working co-operatively. Best, Trev M~ 13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Can more information be added to the article on the negative effects of regular cycling on health? Does long-term regular cycling of an hour a day permanently or temporarily wear out the cartilage, synovial tissue, synovial membrane or any other part of the knee joints? Cartilage does not heal from damage, so any damage is permanent. Does it make a difference if anyone uses cycling as a high-intensity interval training method? Wsmss (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll need some solid medical/cycling references here. Certainly I've met cylists who have worn out their knee cartilage by very intensive cycling while in their twenties. On the other hand I've been commuting by bicycle for 55 years now (currently 1 hour/day) but there was a 12-year period when it was 2 hours/day) and my knees still seem to be OK. I also cycled John O'Groats to Lands End in mid 2010 (1040 miles in 20 days, carrying all luggage). Murray Langton (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Murray--I actually haven't met a single cyclist who has worn out their knees. I've met people who had aching knees, but they usually fix it by proper cycling (easier gears and more spinning). Anecdotally, I went from creaky achy knees to higher ease of motion by cycling. Again, all anecdotes, so I think we'll have to look for some studies.Davidstreever (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I too suggest adding more information on the health effects, both positive and negative, of long-term cycling exercise. In particular, I think the article needs more information on the following:
Changes to life expectancy
Effects on cardiovascular health and heart disease
Other effects to the male (and female) genitourinary system
"In the United Kingdom, many primary school children took the Cycling Proficiency Test (now branded as 'Bikeability'), to help them cycle more safely." - did they? I was never aware of this when I was at school. Is it something which was true a few decades ago but no longer is? Or which has become common since I left primary school? Or a regional thing? Or just entirely wrong? Hengler (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article needs a revamp for the following reasons!!
First of all, why do we need a Equipment section, cyling has nothing to do with the “material object”, cycling is the “act of riding”
Secondly, why Urban and Utility sections, they are both the same
The lead section (tagged since July 2009) also needs work amongst other inconsistencies that we should look into...
So, if i may, I'll be willing to work on these issues... —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ·
Very disappointed to see the removal of Equipment, Urban and Utility sections, and would like to see them put back in the article in full. How can people properly understand the activity unless they are informed about the equipment needed, commonly used and range of what's available? Urban and Utility are needed not just to understand what different types of cycling there are, but how cycling exists as a cultural activity as well as for transportation and fitness. Wsmss (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe needs a section on bike hire schemes, eg London's Barclays Cycle Hire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It's clear from the two studies cited  at the beginning of the health effects section that the researchers are presenting a false choice: either you exercise by cycling, or you get no exercise at all. They then compare the increased health and lifespan of a non-sedentary lifestyle with the risks of injury and death from cycling crashes and so on. The obvious problem is that it falsely implies that your only choices are either risk getting hit by a car, or stay on the couch. What of the hundreds of other forms of exercise? Obviously this calculation is far more complex, which may be why the research is lacking, but nonetheless, the bland statement, "The benefits of cycling outweigh the risks" is highly misleading. It should be clear you can get the same benefits without most, perhaps any, of the risks.
And of course, the Netherlands is problematic because it's much safer to cycle there than elsewhere in Europe, let alone car-centric America. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)