Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


This article needs to be wikified and needs cleanup to bring it to encyclopedic quality. --Rschen7754 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your comment Rschen7754. It's nice to see someone out there is actually looking at what has been added.! --CyclePat 19:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually going to put this up for transwiki to Wikisource. It doesn't belong here. --Woohookitty 02:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


This article needs a good bit of cleanup. It contains original research (which is prohibited -- read this Wikipedia:No original research), and the original author's personal opinions besides. The portions that aren't original research or opinion are essentially regurgitations of various laws. There may be an article to be had somewhere in here, but I don't think this one is it. Is the original author around somewhere? · Katefan0(scribble) 04:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, would that be you, CyclePat?  ;) Just guessing from the article text. I think you've done an admirable job here, obviously spent a whole lot of time putting this article together. So please don't be offended by my comments, or Woohookitty's either. We're both here to help you. Wikipedia has sort of a steep learning curve, and there are a lot of policies that must be followed when writing an article. I'd love to help you bring this one up to par.
What I just did was remove some of the references to personal opinions of yours, which are never okay for an encyclopedia article (can you imagine seeing that in Britannica?). I've also temporarily commented out some of your reprinting of current laws. While they may be perfectly relevant to the article, what we generally prefer to do in situations like these is place a link to the laws themselves, so they don't clutter up the article but are still available if someone wants to click on a link.
In general, I also think that the article needs some clear direction. What is the conflict here? Is it that these definitions vary? Who are the proponents and opponents on the various sides? I seem to remember some debates like this going on about the American "Segway" device -- about whether it should be classified as a car or not, so people could ride it legally on a sidewalk.

· Katefan0(scribble) 04:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Article has been moved to Wikisource

I moved the original text of this article over to Wikisource. It is here. I did not put it on the transwiki log page, because there is a place on here for this article. It just needs to be heavily copyedited. But just you know, CyclePat, your original text is on one of the other wikis. --Woohookitty 04:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


Actually, in our usage, the stub tag is essentially used to denote short articles that need to be expanded. It is not used like the word can also be used, which is to mean that it's a part of another article. And when I say short, I mean a paragraph or two. This article doesn't qualify.--Woohookitty 11:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And, you might want to read the Manual of Style or choose the "random page" button to take a look at basic Wikipedia format. I fixed a few things just now that gets it a bit more in line with basic Wikipedia format. --Woohookitty 11:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My revert today

CyclePat...Again, the learning curve is steep on here, so don't take my words as criticism. Just trying to help you understand how things work here. Putting every law on electric bicycles on here per country or area is not encyclopedic. Discussing every law on here per every country or area is not encyclopedic. The problem is that it's original research. We can't really add sections on each of our areas. Encyclopedias do not have original research. They take research from other sources. And as I said, it just isn't encyclopedic. This article needs to follow the format of other Wikipedia articles. It needs to be...this is what electric bicycles are...this is the history of them...these are the uses of them...and here are the general principles in law with electric bicycles. The other thing is that you reverted all of the headings back to the incorrect format. The = Format = isn't really used on here. The highest heading we use tends to be == Format == If you want to restore the Ontario section, go ahead. We'll then edit it from there. But please don't revert the copyedits Katefan and I made. Not yelling at ya. :) Honest. :) Just letting you know. If you want a guide as to what I am talking about, the moped article is a good guide. That article is a bit sparse. We could probably use a history section, which they don't have. But otherwise, it has what I mean. --Woohookitty 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Also wanted to say that your research is good. It just doesn't belong in that form on here. --Woohookitty 00:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


I went ahead and fixed the headers and some spelling. Again, we don't use the = = header like it had for Jurisdictional Information. It just isn't used. I took out the laws. They weren't showing up anyway and the laws are at Wikisource already. No reason to have them here. Tonight, I'm going to find a picture to add to the article and I'll see if I can do some editing that hopefully will satisfy everyone. --Woohookitty 15:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and editors names should never ever be in the article. I had to take one mention of CyclePat out. It's considered vanity. No reason for it. If you want that kind of info on your user page, that's fine, but not in an article. --Woohookitty 15:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel?

I see we already have an article on mopeds. Are "electric bicycles" sufficiently different than mopeds enough to have two separate articles? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've been meaning to ask the same thing. CyclePat, is there a real difference? --Woohookitty 15:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between the types of vehicles. Electric Bicycles are a new and immerging vehicle that will probably bring back the nostalgia of the mopeds. There will be much technilogical discusion on the subject as well as social political. The majority of duristictions presently consider an electric bicycle more or less like a regular bicycles and do not require registration, plating, and insurance. However, some juristictions, lacking complacency to change their laws, will consider this vehicle a moped. Again every juristiction has it's own definition. But it all come down to the idea... is it electric and does it meet the federal definition? Now, we could also get into the idea of mecanics. Less parts, different parts, different supliers, different manufactures, social political impact of importing such vehicles, etc... etc... To help you guys out check --CyclePat 17:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


I did some rewriting to make things a bit more readable. Something close to the previous version of the text was pasted at the top of the section afterwards. I reverted this, because it did not appear to add any information that was not already there. I do have a question, though: the text that was added says both "In the Ontario "Highway traffic act" a "power-assisted bicycle"(PAB) is not defined." and "For example, a PAB and a moped are both defined as...". That would appear to contradict itself. Can someone actually explain to me whether or not there are factual errors in the current version, which takes the latter of those two as correct? --Alynna 22:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

see my comment I left on you page --CyclePat 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

CyclePat, you should discuss article content on the related article's talk page. That way everybody involved in editing the article can see your arguments, and the responses to them. I would encourage you to make more and better use of this talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I have pasted the pertinent discussion here so that everyone working on this article has a chance to see it.

You did some nice work. But your information about having a "power-assisted bicycle defined in the HTA is wrong. (a power-assisted bicycle is NOT defined in the HTA) I changed it once. I'm going to do it again NOW and I expect you to leave it as is. --CyclePat 22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you actually fix the information instead of copy-pasting a second version of the section? --Alynna 22:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
First, a general comment. CyclePat, as it says at the bottom of every page every time you click the edit button, If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it. Nobody has ownership of an article -- not you, not me, not anybody. Anyone is welcome to edit, and Wikipedia functions by consensus. That means neither you nor anyone else can say "I expect you to leave it as is." Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Civility. Personally, I agree with Alynna's edits and I prefer them to the information you tried to add back in. Since Wikipedia functions on consensus, the current consensus is for Alynna's version, not for yours. However, I'd be open to hearing your arguments for why it should be changed back. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay! then... prove it! What is you substantiated proof to say that it is in the HTA? Find it and site the section and I'll be happy. Just because everyone believed the world was flat doesn't mean it is!--CyclePat 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I'm open to hearing your arguments. Prove what? What is it you are suggesting is incorrect? I have no idea whether it is or not because you haven't told us what you feel is wrong. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: The Revision as of 22:17, 24 October 2005 found here: [1] had eronious information within the article stating that:

"...the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) defines both a power-assisted bicycle and a motor-assisted bicycle..."

This information is false. I had original written some information on the subject that was mis-construed. I have re-writen it to be cristal clear. I hope. Now my argument is simple. The afformentioned statement is false because it has not been proven. Prove it if you wish to keep it (the old version) as I believe you had previously indicated... or move on to the new stuff like I just posted. --CyclePat 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for fixing inaccurate information. But it appeared to me that you had done much more than just fix one bit of inaccuracy. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe that's a question of personal tast and critizing my methode or work, but explain? --CyclePat 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that what you're trying to convey here is that the HTA does not define a PAB, but it defines a motor-assisted bicycle in a way that sounds like a PAB? If so, I misunderstood the first time around, but it's still not clear. --Alynna 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Having received no response to this question, I've assumed this is in fact the correct interpretation and tried to make things clear accordingly. If it's still wrong, please explain it on this talk page. Thanks. --Alynna 05:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. The HTA does not define a PAB but a motor-assisted bicycle. good deduction. --CyclePat 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A question from my talk page

Hello, Actually... I have "the book of knowlege" encyclopedia right in my basement. I will say again. The encyclopedia does have a copy of the entire US constitution as well as a facimile URtext. So what is the problem in incorperating the entire section of law.--CyclePat 23:20, 24 October 2005

Two things. First, and I don't mean to be flip, but laws on electric bicycles are not the same thing as the U.S. Constitution. Also, read What Wikipedia is not. One of those items is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Wikipedia is also not the "Book of Knowledge" encyclopedia; it is Wikipedia, and it has its own policies and guidelines. The text of a law is not appropriate for an article here. It would only serve to clutter the article, particularly when placing a link to where the law can be accessed is easily achieved. Think of it another way -- would you expect to see the text of laws on an article on electric bicycles in Encyclopedia Britannica? · Katefan0(scribble) 03:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's start arguing simantics. What is the difference between provincial statues and regulations vs federal legislation? Are they not laws made by man? Now how many articles out there require the definition of the laws to be incorperated? how many articles do you know that summarize sections of the law that are pertinent to it's content? (sumarize: in this case was enumarating and "copying" the major sections that pertain to the article) I do however understand that having to much factual info. can cluter the article and leave people thinking and developing their own opinion on the subject. Is that so bad? perhaps in a world that is already so confused, yes. So... Anyway, I suggest you guys check out my friends webpage at --CyclePat 04:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
b.t.w.: If I haven't said this already, thank you for all the help guys. I'm stuborn but I see what you guys are doing and it looks like we're moving forward. I feel we're going to have a few more bumps in the road though. But that only my personal opinion and well... like I said, I'm stuborn. Cheers.
We can summarize laws where it's important to do that. I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to go into all that detail unless there's some inherent conflict. But anyway, where it's deemed necessary we can summarize the pertinent details. As Woohookitty said, it's just too much needless clutter particularly when those laws can be easily accessed through a link. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem. It's what a collaborative encyclopedia is for. :) To answer your question, again, encyclopedias generally do not publish full laws. And the problem is that if we make an exception in this case, it would open the door to lots of articles with source material like this and that's just simply against policy. Wikipedia is around to have lots of information in it, but not so much so that it's cluttered. We're not going for highly technical articles here. We're going for articles that people can follow. The problem with including the law is that the reader will lose interest and that kind of defeats the purpose of having a general encyclopedia a la the Brittanica. If this was a transportation wiki or a law wiki, maybe the policy would be different. But as it is, the purpose of not including information like full laws is to make the encyclopedia as general as possible. Don't get me wrong. We're not "dumbing down" anything. We just have to make sure articles are as specific as possible without losing readers if that makes sense. --Woohookitty 06:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This isn't about a law, but here's an example. Compare Deanna Troi to Memory Alpha's article on Deanna Troi. It's the difference between a general encyclopedia and one specifically for a subject. There's quite a bit of detail in the wikipedia article but it's not overwhelming. If you look at the memory alpha article, unless you are a Star Trek fan, that's too much information. Unless you deal in electric bicycles, detail on the specific laws is just too much information. And wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. It's not meant for all possible information. --Woohookitty 06:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

question about the citation in the United States section

Is there an established standard for how to include information like "in thus-and-so-section" in a way that's clearly distinguished from the surrounding text? Should it be a footnote, or italicised, or something? --Alynna 15:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Personally I don't think it's necessary; I removed it. Anybody can plug "electric bicycle" into their browser's search box and find it in a few seconds. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric bicycle in Ontario

The MTO specifically indicated to me via a telecom on the 21st of Oct that they are refering to the PAB as described within the picture. (reference to the link someone keeps removing) I have added that information and someone keeps removing it. --CyclePat 16:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I keep removing the link because it already exists later that sentence. We don't need multiple copies of the same link. --Alynna 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps not but we need to describe the type of vehicle and because you removed that link you have inherently labeled all PAB's as not being able to be driven on ontario road. That is not the case for I can legaly drive and operate my electric bicycle in Ontario. But I've said that already how many times now. The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) .
Should I also remind you how many times you've been enjoined to be a little more civil? We're all here to make the article better; being so combative is less than useful. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Wait, were you saying that it was just the PAB in that picture that's not legal on Ontario roads? I'm sorry, I thought from what you said that it was any PAB and that the picture was to demonstrate what a PAB looked like. Okay, we do need to include that information, but not as an extra copy of the same link... Is there a name for the type of PAB shown in that picture? --Alynna 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it to read "certain types of PAB", to be more accurate. If someone wants to change that to a description of which types, awesome. --Alynna 17:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 :::: Yes, there is a name... I not 100% sure though. I believe it's a currie technology drive. (not sure what the web site is. I'll add it up later. But we should say something like "similar electric bicycles." or what you just said seems good "certain types of PAB" (two thumbs up!) --CyclePat 17:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Alynna: You are correct. ALL PABs are illegal in Ontario. Only mopeds are legal. THe PAB that is shown is not allowed, and all other PABs are also not allowed. It seems CyclePat managed to convince someone that his bike is a moped, even though it doesn't meet any of the motor-vehicle requirements for limited-speed motorcycles/mopeds whatever and managed to get moped registration. An extreme case. Not "certain types of PABs" are not allowed - but ALL PABs are not allowed - with the exception of CyclePat who seemed to register his.

(this conversation is continued further down in this discussion page) 19:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources cited

There is some discrepencies that seem to occure when Mari edited the sources in this article. I have edited this 2 times already. and it keeps getting changed back. The names of the sources quotes are correct as of a few minutes ago. The Canada Road safety code doesn't exist at the URL that was beeing provide... (Heck I don't even think it exist's at all) if you want to refer to canada... It's called the Motor vehicle safety Act. The Url that was beeing provided is for Quebec.

Same for Ontario's Highway Traffic Act. The name of that law is called "Highway Traffic act" and not "the Ontario highway traffic act."... For God sacks it's written on the top of the source. And often it's written within the law on how it should be titled.

--CyclePat 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Highway Traffic Act

Is the Highway Traffic Act the only thing by that name? i.e., if I'm in England or Chile or New Zealand, am I going to know that the Highway Traffic Act is something in Ontario? Or is it possible there is another jurisdiction that has also passed a law called the Highway Traffic Act? If the latter, we do need to specify Ontario. --Alynna 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my point... In music, we might talk about "Handel's Messiah". The title of the piece is just "Messiah", but it's considered appropriate to specify which one we're talking about. --Alynna 17:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we should follow the proper source writing such as the Chicago style or Turabian style bibliography. That would mean, putting the others name, the title, etc. This is a standard that is widelly excepted and used in many publication. If we met for an informal talk in person I would agree with you afformentioned comments (ie.: handel's messiah) --CyclePat 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Constant Editing! Wow! (personal Opinion on how the edition is going and where I am comming from)

Stress is a killer right? All this constant editing feel like a stress load of back stabing. I'm also quite cinical to critical comments and even more to critical changes that happen without very much discusion. Think about it. You know something is wrong in your heart. The government is feeding what might be construed as misleading propaganda. you're trying to convince the world on a fabulous idea/inovation that is being restricted because of the lack of complacency of the Ontario government to changes it laws. (ie.: insurance discrimination article I publish in the Ottawa citizen, the petition I'm organising for the "proper" legalisation of this PAB... so it doesn't have to be considered a Moped (like in Quebec)(and hence wouldn't require plating, insurance, etc..)

Think about, it feels like, almost everyone you talk to doesn't believe you. Then you finally have a place to put down your "research" /summary of laws, and etc... to try and explain the current political situation but it is edited like crazy. To the point where it no longer makes sense. there are errors. And when they finally undestand the truth they don't even believe it themself's. (I have trouble digesting the entire scope of the situation)(ie.: Personal experience with the financial service commission of Ontario, Ombudsmans, lawyers, 2 1/2 years of experience, my personal insurance company, facility insurance, Mpp's, etc... (almost a full time job when you think about it on how to legally operate a PAB on the road.) It's a, no wonder I feel like a need to bold... and I think someone did say be bold in your edits. --CyclePat 17:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Pat, don't be stressed. Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, there are many ways to fall afoul of policies that you didn't even know existed. The bottom line is that I'm glad you're here to add information to the encyclopedia that someone else might come along and look for. I would just caution you to be openminded about working with other people here, and try to check your ego at the door -- your prose is going to be edited. That's just the nature of a wiki. You should be willing to listen to others' constructive criticism -- at the risk of seeming immodest, I've been editing here for quite some time and am an administrator, as is Woohookitty. That doesn't make our opinions any better than anybody else's, but it does mean we know our way around here pretty well.
The full iteration of the guideline is Be bold, but don't be reckless. And there are many other official policies that override that guideline, such as No original research and Neutral point of view. If there is something more you'd like to get at here -- i.e., some inherent conflict with electric bicycles -- we can discuss how to add it. What is the conflict? You briefly mentioned "the current political situation," but I have no idea what that is. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Katefan. The conflicts that exist in the political situation are being researched by my budy Juergen. I have a draft petition that I have worked on. I will add that into another section of the discussion. In the mean time give me some time to properly formulate a prosal answer to that. (as you might have noticed... I tend to write in a point form technical

format)(with some autographical mistakes) --CyclePat 18:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ontario Petition for PAB's

here is a draft copy of my Petition (as of august 29th) --CyclePat 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Power-Assisted Bicycle (PAB) Petition WE the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

WHEREAS in 2001 the federal government introduced a new class of vehicle, Power-Assisted bicycle (PAB), which defines an electric-assist bicycle as a distinct vehicle classification, different from a moped or motorcycle;

WHEREAS we request the Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (H.T.A.) recognize this new vehicle classification. The H.T.A. does not currently recognize, nor allow the "per-say" operation of this new class of vehicle;

WHEREAS currently in Ontario a PAB must be registered, plated and insured as a Motor-assisted bicycle (MOPED). Though it is possible to register, plate and insure as a MOPED there are still many unresolved issues and obviously higher costs associated toward it's use.

WHEREAS British Columbia and Quebec have already modified their provincial legislation to reflect the federal definition for electrec-assisted bicycles and hence a PAB may be used on the road without the need for automobile insurance;

WHEREAS we request that the Ontario Government review and amend its current legislation and Insurance Act which results in discrimination against all MOPED owners.

WHEREAS paying for automobile insurance in Ontario to ride a PAB is not an option for most people and as a result, forces them into facility insurance and the failure to properly insure such a vehicle can result in fines ranging from 5000$ to 10000$;

WHEREAS the modern electric bicycle is a realistic alternative to the automobile for commutes of 30km or less and making electric bicycles more accessible in Ontario will encourage people to rely less on their motor vehicles and to use bicycles much more;

THEREFORE modifying the Ontario H.T.A. to allow the operation of electric-assisted bicycle or PAB's will reduce the number of cars on the road and help us meet our Kyota targets. WHEREAS the city of Ottawa, in April 2005, pasted a legislation to encourage the provincial goverment of Ontario to change the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (H.T.A.) pertaining to use of PAB's;

--CyclePat 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. But please remember that Wikipedia is not a blog or a place to push agendas. Stuff like that belongs on personal webspace or blog or possibly a forum on bicycles. Wikipedia is none of those things. Please keep that in mind. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
PS - I will add that it would be permissible to mention the conflict in the article if the language is neutral (not favoring either side) and then you'd probably want a link to a discussion on the topic...hopefully a discussion by a mainstream news source. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
How about old news paper clipping? I have a few articles from my local news papers. There a little old but we'll have to make a bibliography. There should be a news article comming out in the Hamilton area by a news reporter that has spoken to me last week. (dunno when?) But... I don't understand how this research through old newspapers will work?--CyclePat 10:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

How old are we talking? If it's from the last few months, I can try to find the online version for you. Otherwise, as long as you can document it, you can use it. I mean if we couldn't use offline content, we'd be in a world of hurt considering that most books aren't available online. Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style has a listing of how to cite things. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a video and some pictures. What do I do now!

I have 3 small videos of approx. 3 megs. and some pictures of a PAB that legally operable in Ontario as a MOPED. What do we do now? How do we upload? --CyclePat 10:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For the uses of this article, I'd go with pictures. It depends on the source. Here is where you go to upload files. it's pretty simple...pretty self-explanatory. Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial is a very good article on how to put images into an article. I'd follow that. or you can go to an article like moped and see how the picture is set up on there. Either way works. If you have any issues, let us know. I'd suggest just one picture in the article for now. A picture of an electric bicycle would be very good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Consentual or Not? I am the artist/photograph that has taken these pictures and videos. However, what is the sugested source? How should someone go about's to publish a picture that he didn't take? (ie.: a picture from the local news paper or a book) or to publish a picture that he took or does have consent to publish? (ie.: a manufacture such as CyclePat, Ecolo, Wilderness Energy that has agreeded) Does this agreement need to be published? More specifically, wouldn't it be an infringement to copyright laws if someones "work of art" (in this hypothetical case, a picture of an electric bicycle taken from the wherever) was placed on the wiki without his/her(the publishers) consent or without acknowlegement of his or her consent? And finally, does all this mean there are many articles that are currently using illegal pictures? --CyclePat 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
If they are photographs you took yourself, you can upload them and tag them with one of the licenses you prefer, such as {{GFDL-self}}. If you didn't take them, you are not allowed to upload them unless they are: public domain images (mostly government photos), or unless you have permission from the image's copyright holder to use them under the fair use license. Each article is evaluated for proper licensing; mostly, our photographs are either public domain, used with permission or are considered fair use (like a DVD box). Some aren't, but if source information isn't provided they can be summarily deleted. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

It looks like a new anonymous editor has made a number of changes. Does anyone know who this is? Should the changes be reverted? There have been changes to factual information, with no explanation... I'm going to leave hir a note about using edit summaries and talk pages, but could someone with more expertise (CyclePat, i'm looking at you) take a look? --Alynna 20:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll revert the changes, since there was no edit summary given for any of them and it did remove some facts. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay! I'm going to play the devils advocate here but first Thank you guy for the revert. There where to many changes that destroyed to many facts and made the article quite bias. Never the less, the changes done by the IP dude raises the question: "Should we not be presenting the key facts in essay form?" What I mean by that is, currently we are stating examples in the intro and further on we repeat them. Is that enought of an essay format or is it to much? (ex.: Intro: Juristiction... plating in Ontario, then Quebec, then USA, etc.?)(I'm all for keeping it as is, but maybe IP dude was trying to say we're repeating ourselfs?) Then again, IP dude did remove alot of factual information --CyclePat 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the only repetitive bit is having examples in the top of Laws By Jurisdiction when they're covered later... The intro of Laws By Jurisdiction doesn't need examples, I think. --Alynna 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, essay form isn't really used. We don't want alot of repeating, but on the other hand, this isn't a research paper or a narrative. I hope that makes sense. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks like whoever the anon is did some good edits tonight. It's definitely looking more encyclopedic. Still some kinks to work out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

comment moved from next to the bit about case law

Is this original research?

Comment was by IP Dude/Anon - I moved it here b/c it seemed more appropriate in talk. --Alynna 07:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ipguy: I think the line about case law ("is bicycle a vehicle?") is really misleading and should be removed. I put comment to flag that this appears to be unsubstantiated opinion (that a bike is not a vehicle). It clearly is a vehicle - this isn't even something that is in dispute. I think the line should be removed entirely. It isn't relevant to the subject and offers nothing useful IMHO.

I must be perfectly honest. I read through many case law's and jumped at the first oppertunity I could find where a judge indicated that "The idea that a pedestrian can walk up to and assault children on bicycles because they might brush up against them and get his clothes dirty or because they come within the definition of a vehicle in the Highway Traffic Act or some nonsense like that is just that, nonsense." However it is all within context and within interpretation. (Perhaps this case law might be of importance to someone that is facing various charges, the traffic court of Guelph vs. Joseph comming up this Nov. 7th). Case law is always a gray area.--CyclePat 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong

It looks like electric bicycles are essentially regular bicycles but they include a small battery-powered motor that assists in pedaling. Is this correct, CyclePat? The main difference between it and the moped is design. Here is a picture. It's from MSN, so we probably can't use the picture, but it gives Katefan and others some help as to what the difference is. It definitely helped me. :) I will ask you though, Pat. Is it completely necessary to have a separate power-assisted cycles article? I mean according to the definition here, they are essentially the same thing. I don't see a need for 2 articles. Electric bicycles do look different enough from mopeds that I can see a separate article, but another separate article on top of this one? I think that's stretching it a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ipguy: correct - bicycles with a small electric motor other differences with mopeds are performance - most mopeds are allowed at least 50km/h. PABs operate at bicycle speeds - typically up to 20mph, but lower in europe. Check this for a good comparison [2]

The MVSR, (in canada) defines a "power-assisted bicycle" as beeing a diferent vehicle classifaction and specifically indicated that it is not a motorcycle or a moped. So, yes it is necessary to have a complete different section for an "electric bicycle" (such as the article that we are working on) seperate from MOped. The reason I called this article "electric bicycle" is because it seems to encompass the many various jurisdictional definitions that exist. This being said, I would hope that "power-assisted bycle" should be incorpareted within "electric bicycles." (as you might have infered from the discussion section of power-assisted cycles)-- 19:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged info from power-assisted cycles

I merged info from the power-assisted cycles article and made that article a redirect to this one. I did that because this is all under the same house, so to speak. Power-assisted cycles looks like another name for electric bicycles in which case, we don't need 2 articles. One is enough. Don't worry. I didn't alter any facts...I just merged it into this article. I added the references from that article into this one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ipguy: The two pages - one for power-assisted cycles, and one for electric bicycle were actually appropriate. This is because an electric bike is one version of an assisted bicycle, but not all power assisted bikes are electric.

Historically any bike with any kind of motor added (gas or electric) was "power-assisted". These bikes were known, early on, as "cyclomotor" or "autocycle" or other by other similar names. They were common in Europe pre-dated the term "moped" - the vehicle they developed into (see moped). Bikes of the second kind (electric) are a class of power-assisted bike. Yes - modern electric bikes are power assisted, but they are not mopeds. Because of this common confusion it would have been appropriate to maintain the page on power-assisted cycles, especially for the European connection. I don't know how to "un-merge" your edits though. By combining the info you have introduced a number of factual errors. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

First, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. I see that you're sort of identifying yourself, but standard practice here is to use a name, time and datestamp, which the tildes fill out for you automatically. Second, I see your point. Maybe the solution, then, is to merge electric bicycle into power-assisted bicycle, as certainly every electric bicycle is power assisted, while not necessarily vice versa. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)ipguy OK How do I change an editing comment? I want to replace the word (power) with the word (petrol) that I had intended for the last change.

If you are talking about edit summaries, you cannot alter them. Anyway, I unmerged the info. I'll stay out of it at this point. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this subject should be brought up again! I agree with 64.230.etc... Electric bikes, power assisted-cycles should have their own page. (They could be linked to from a main page such as motorized bicycles, however each vehicle but then, give the reader the oppertunaty to click back to the a seperate article on the subjet. (for example... I search for electric bicycles... it redirects me to "motorized bicycles" (essentially a stub) which then has a link go every appropriate teminology. Kind of just like someone said about bicycles having their own pages for different types... (recumbent, mountain, etc) --CyclePat 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


All you need to do is to click on the page history link. You will see a listing of every version of the article since it was created. You can compare versions, look at old versions, etc, etc. That's why edit summaries are important. Otherwise, it's difficult to track changes. I readded the section on types of electric bicycles for you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

new merge suggestion

Would it be appropriate to merge this article, power-assisted cycles, and power-assisted bicycle? If so, would the name power-assisted cycle or power assisted bicycle be more correct? All the others could remain as redirects to the merged article. --Alynna 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for power-assisted bicycles. And yes, they need to be merged. We don't need multiple articles for things that are roughly the same. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Something needs to be done! (as I commented a few months ago in the discussion of power-assisted cycles --CyclePat 19:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC) The first one, power-assisted cycle is appropriate. Most of the stuff on that page deals with European cycle issues, and the definition includes any type of motor including gas. It is reflective of the development history of powered bikes and the history they have in Europe. The term "cycle" is appropriate in this context. Choosing power-assisted cycle also reduces (though does not eliminate) confusion with the term Power Assisted Bicycle (PAB) which is used in Canada to define an electric (only) assisted bike.

Hm. I never would've made that distinction; thanks for chiming in, anon. In that context, probably Power-assisted cycle is more appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
At this point, I'm just confused. :) But that sounds good, anon. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Power assisted cycles .... on wheels! · Katefan0(scribble) 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hua Whata? :) I've learned something today. Electric bicycles are not mopeds. Now...being facetious...they don't have enough warm days for those in Wisconsin. How do they have enough warm days in Canada. I want to know! lol I've never seen an electric bicycle around here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget Ontario, Canada, hey! The odd ball exception which seems to be becoming the norm in Ontario is people registering their PAB as a Moped (motor-assisted bicycle). IT is possible because I currently own a PAB registered as a MOPED. humm... and for the warm vs cold days... well all I have to say is "have you ever seen the michilan tire man?" "where do you think he comes from?" LOL (just kidding!) (Maybe that would be an interest part of the article... "Winter driving" (I know here at Ottawa University we have some seminars on that) --CyclePat 20:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So to clarify... does power-assisted cycle cover electric bicycles, PABs, and whatever else we're talking about here? If so, that sounds best. --Alynna 03:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put suggested merge tags on both this and power-assisted cycle. Question: if we do end up merging both to power-assisted cycle, can we start from the framework we've already got here and merge the information from power-assisted cycle into it, and then move the merged article to there? Because, well, this article is a lot prettier at the moment... --Alynna 04:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd support using this text as a skeleton and merging the rest into here. But we might want to give it a couple days after you placed the merge tag on the other article to make sure we won't be ruffling any feathers over there. When was the last time that article was actively edited? (Goign to check) · Katefan0(scribble) 04:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope noone minds, but I've taken pretty much everything except the intro from power-assisted cycle and copied it somewhere here, because it seemed like it was relavent to this article as well and wouldn't be a problem. Whenever it's okay to actually do the merge, all that needs merging is the intro paragraphs (and adding the two external links immediately below the intro paragraph of power-assisted cycle to the external links section, if that's appropriate). --Alynna 04:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think merging would be a mistake. Electric bikes are a new, emerging vehicle class. There are millions in use in China, and they are just coming out in North America. It is important to recognize the differences between these, and mopeds, or other bicycles that have over the past century been motorized with all manner of gas motors. There should be a page dedicated solely to electric bikes. The real question should be: Is there a more appropriate title or name for the other page (power-assisted cycles)? Perhaps "motorized bicycles" as a more general class, or something like "early mopeds"? Perhaps rename "cyclomotor" and move the electric parts to this page, and the gas stuff over to the moped page?

It is important to draw the distinction between clean, green, environmentally friendly and silent electric bikes, and stinky, smelly, noisy gas powered contraptions. 05:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem...there just aren't enough differences between the different forms of electric bikes right now to warrant 3 separate articles. There might be at some point (which is why once the articles are merged, redirects are made instead of just deleting the articles), but right now, there just isn't enough, especially since electric bikes are listed as also being called power-assisted bikes/cycles. I don't think mopeds should be in the discussion, btw. From what I see, electric bikes are a different animal. No real comparison. Mopeds are more in the motorcycle class. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 05:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)There really are only two major categories of electric bikes - pedelec, and power-on-demand. In many ways these differences in how the motor is activated (pedals vs. throttle) really aren't all that important. Much less important than the point you made that they be distinguished from mopeds and other gas powered bikes. One page for electric bikes is enough. Part of ongoing confusion is that they are known by many names, and some of these names are unfortunately also used for gas powered bikes. Let's get rid of the power-assisted cycle page, or at least re-name it something less ambiguous, like motorized bicycle or something.

I think that's the problem Kate, Alynna and I were having. It's just confusing giving all of these names to what are basically the same. I mean they are all regular looking bikes that have battery powered motors attached to them to help pedaling. The exact specs are different, but the actual bikes seem essentially the same. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 06:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)We are almost ready to get rid of the power-assisted cycle page if we want to. Almost all of the content has been moved either to the electric bicycle page, or the moped page. This page could remain as a core for developing the huge area of motorized bicycle that have been built over the past hundred years. (see [3] and [4]. Or we can delete it entirely.  ???

So then, should the main page be called something like Motorized bicycle? · Katefan0(scribble) 19:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I checked again and that was what the anon up above suggested, so I'm going to move these pages over to that article. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Ergh, all the double redirects. -slog, slog- · Katefan0(scribble) 19:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


I found a picture we can use. Added it to the article. It is from the US Department of Energy's website. Public domain. If we do merge this into power-assisted cycles, the picture can be taken with. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool! :) --CyclePat 03:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric bicycle

Some IP guy changed the intro.... I fixed it... I changed the main intro (still has many typos'). Removed factual errors. An electric bike doesn't necessarily have to have a small electric engine. (what does the sized have to do with things) (perhaps the wattage of the motor, but that depends upon jurisdictional regulations... and if you want your electric bicycle to be conform to various standard. (ie.: canada's motor vehicle safety regulations) there is nothing that says an electric bicycle couldn't meet the definitions of various juristictional definitions of other vehicles such as a motorcycle, moped, an off-road 3 wheeler, a dirt bike. Etc.

That is why I also changed, further down in the article, the various names to which in Ontario an electric bike is. By law it is considered a Moped... (In ontario, we could even twist the law a little more and sugest that it could be a wheelchair? but we won't go there yet... or will we?) All this to say... every juristiction will have it's definition of an electric bicycle. I think we should keep the article on "electric bicycles". Most people when they think of a bicycle with a electric motor think... electric bike... electric bicyle? No? --CyclePat 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

PAB are considered moped's Ontario

I contacted the engeneer in charge of the safety regulation. RObert Monster. I have iterated that a PAB is registerable as a MOPEd. Someone keeps changing and mis-interpeting the information provide the MTO web page. I personally own a PAB that is registered as a Moped. The article has been changed and is now bias. Can someone revert the change? --CyclePat 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back to the appropriate definition for Ontario (But perhaps we could put the source information somewhere else.... it seems a little combursome to be incorperated in the text like I did.... foot note? ANyone know how to do that?)
Wikipedia:Footnotes. there ya go. Good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that if you need something, look it up. :) IN this case, if you search for "footnotes", it gives you the article on it with a link on how to do them. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC) has made some interesting edits. Some are nice. good job on the intro. Thank you. Some are not so nice. My question is? If a PAB can not be registers as a MOPED, anymore, who said so? What are the dates? Can you get a me a copy of the letters? (through access to information?) (what are you're sources - name of the individual or technician from MTO) I have quoted that in my article sources, but that was a while ago. I'll call him back up to make sure. I have double checked my information with MTO via special inquiries unit. Again, what are your sources ??? --CyclePat 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Why not just call any Ontario registration office and ask them if you can register your electric bicycle as a moped? That would be an easy way to find out if they allow it.

tell me which one. The name of the individual, the tel. number, etc... If he said no or yes to you. I guarantee I will have him convinced if you are having trouble registering your PAB. (B.t.w. did I also mention that because you are self-manufacture, you don't have to wait in line like everyone else... you directly to the dealer ship booth) --CyclePat 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I must say

I'm pleased with our progress so far. This is the first dispute I've had in awhile where people are cooperating and I appreciate that very much. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)