Talk:Cycling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sports (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Cycling:


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : undiscussed external links
  • Expand : Statistics on ridership around the world

Lot of work to do here![edit]

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)

Negative health effects of cycling?[edit]

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
PubMed is a good place to start. ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I've found a 2004 research study on how cycling damages the urogenital part of the body, causing numbness, E.D. and infertility and other problems, by Ilan Leibovitch and Yoram Mor. It can be read here, http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(04)00562-7 Wsmss (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cycling proficiency section isn't clear[edit]

"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)

Article needs a revamp[edit]

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 143.252.80.100 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Health benefits[edit]

It's clear from the two studies cited [1][2] 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)

I do not think it's misleading to say the benefits outweigh the risks. The researchers found that the risks of the activity are less than the benefits of that activity. Just because they are the options studied does not mean or even imply those are the only available options. Yes, there may be other ways of obtaining the same benefits at lower risk, but that does not invalidate the findings. If it is that important to you, go ahead and add that.
I looked for information on comparitive risks of different exercise types. I couldn't really find anything. Emergency room data and fatality data can be found, but little exposure data. Therefore, rates can't be calculated.
Only one of the cited works is from the Netherlands. The other lists a number of studies from various parts of Europe and North America.
My opinion as a licensed engineer practicing in the field of road safety is the perceived risk of cycling exceeds the actual risk, and other sports, such as American football, have lower perceived risks yet actually have higher injury and fatality rates. I'll look for some citable information on this. --Triskele Jim 02:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Cycling safty in the UK[edit]

The article has two definations

  • In the UK, fatality rates per mile or kilometre are slightly less than those for walking.
Then
  • In the UK for example the fatality and serious injury rates per hour of travel are just over double for cycling than those for walking.

So which one is it ????

--Steve Bowen 18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Both. Cycling speeds in the UK are, on average, over twice as fast as walking speeds. Qwfp (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Neither relevant or helpful. I believe, that these two statements are “intended” to be metrics or a simplistic ways to measure cycling safty. To the overall detriment of this section of the article, they enumerate different conclusions using differing units, to give opposing answers’ with one being about double the other, so are confusing & misleading. So which one is right or should I care ? Steve Bowen 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Australia post motorcycles - no reference[edit]

Where is the reference regarding australia posts "uncomfortable motorcycles" , I've never heard of this (I've ridden them and they are pretty good for what they have to do) and am interested in following it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.197.211 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Images of bad behavior[edit]

Cycling woman wearing miniskirt.jpg

Per this removal of an image of someone biking while on the phone, without a helmet, in a skirt with flip flops, because it's "not best idea of Encyclopedia".

I put the image back because encyclopedias don't exist to give advice or set an idealized example. Our primary audience isn't children. Even if everyone agreed on what is and isn't safe or acceptable cycling, we would still need to show an accurate image of what life looks like, not a cleaned up version with all the bad influences censored, per WP:NOTCENSORED. This issue has come up with images of motorcyclists doing similarly "unsafe" things, as with Motorcycle safety#Attitudes about risk or Motorcycle personal protective equipment. People do these things. If this behavior was not happening, it would make little sense for Wikipedia to have such long and detailed articles about safety issues.

A significant portion of cycling advocates say that helmets, special shoes, spandex shorts and all that limits the number of riders on the road, and increasing the presence of riders has more safety benefits than any helmet or other gear.[3] See Safety in numbers#In road traffic safety.

I don't necessarily agree with all o this but I do think articles are better, and inspire more trust, when they are frank with readers. There's nothing wrong with citing the opinions of those who disapprove of this degree of casual riding, in an appropriate place, and describe all the relevant points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

CP 133 2019 Group 17 Proposed Edits[edit]

Proposed edits - expand "Health Effects" section

  • Further research into the claims of the Dutch study in the introduction paragraph, possibly comparing studies from different countries
  • In exercise, add relevance to AHA guidelines for heart health and ADA guidelines for diabetes health
  • Add estimated caloric use of traditional cycling and stationary bikes
  • Update WHO reference and information to more include recent statements by WHO
  • Fix "failed verification" regarding knee injury and biking
  • Expand on stationary cycling in knee rehabilitation programs (or any rehab programs) and add citation
  • Improve upon the utility biking section by researching more about which countries have police cycling as a transportation. Also help find the citation for, "Even the car industry uses bicycles. At the huge Mercedes-Benz factory in Sindelfingen, Germany workers use bicycles, color-coded by department, to move around the factory" to replace the "citation needed" part
  • Add a new study showing the health benefits of cycling especially for patients who want to lose weight
  • Add a new study regarding mental health benefits with relevant citations
  • Consider adding examples of policies in different countries to help promote safe cycling and any relevant statistics
  • Add a section on a study in Taiwan focused on improving the environmental quality in bicycle tourism which improved recreational benefits in bicycle tourism.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Connie.chen2 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 

Michellelzhao (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 128.218.42.75 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Soondubuson (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CP 133 2019 Group 16 Peer Reviews[edit]

Overall, I believe Group 17 were successful in making significant improvement of the article and accomplishing the edits they set out to make. Improvements ranged from simple citation updates/additions to adding whole sections regarding studies that display the benefit of cycling in various populations, which provides added relevance to this article. To my knowledge, I believe the edits are also formatted in the appropriate Wikipedia's manual of style. One thing I would suggest is changing up the wording regarding the Taiwan study under the "Recreational" subheading: I would change the word "better" in "this resulted in more and better bicycle routes" into something more descriptive/less opinionated. Perhaps "safer" would be appropriate? Overall, good job! Etang1 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I also think Group 17 did a great job of improving the article! I liked that there was a range of suggestions made including studies, statistics, and even a new mental health section. My suggestion would be to include the more impactful edits you made in the lead section so that the reader knows that it will be discussed. For example, even though the health section is listed in the table of contents, the lead section could also include a brief summary of the various categories of health that cycling affects. The edits made by the group maintained a neutral tone, and overall, they achieved their goals and made a substantial improvement on the article. Great job! I like that you incorporated health-focused aspects of cycling in this article. Awyeh (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Group 17 were very thorough in their edits for the article. Overall, I was very impressed with the quality of the article. I really liked the connection of cycling to improvements in mental health. The added section is very beneficial for readers to learn about the benefits of exercise, which are both physical as well as mental health benefits. The mental health benefits of exercise are often downplayed and I really like how group 17 was able to incorporate that into the article. I believe the group's edits substantially improved the article as described under the "guiding framework". The group maintained a neutral and unbiased tone for the edits while keeping things informative for the readers. The points included in the edits were verifiable with cited secondary sources. Great job! Apharm (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

→Thank you to group 16 for providing feedback! We agree with the recommendations you've made, and will add them in to improve the article. Michellelzhao (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Group 16 for your feedback and recommendations to improve our edits! Soondubuson (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)