Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

A request for mediation was filed... and it appears that the discussion is happening on the main mediation page. --CyclePat 18:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


We have a clearer picture

Actually, I found many more hits on google when I looked up "motorized bicycle" as opposed to "electric bicycle". If anyone can find a picture of just the motor that is public domain, that'd be great. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

More removes

I removed most of the "See Also" links. I either incorporated them into the main article or just removed them. Apparently, the links for emergency vehicles, vehicles for hire and for OC Transpo were basically attempts by the anon and CyclePat to promote electric bikes for those purposes. here is a petition formed by CyclePat and others that specifically mentions that OC Transpo does NOT currently allow PABs (electric bikes) in their Rack and Roll program. And I saw 0 google hits for motorized bikes as electric vehicles or as vehicles for hire (a la a taxicab). --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that it is not permissable to do "something" (ie.: putting an electric bicycle on OCtranspo's rack and roll) denny the fact that it exist? Analogy: It is illegal to smoke marijanua. Are you going to delete this fact? I question your edits and bias toward this article. --72.57.8.215 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Woohookitty deleted the OC Transpo link because electric bikes on Rack and Roll are illegal. The question is not whether it is legal, but whether it is relavant to the article. If someone in Poughkeepsbie, NY rides an electric bike (legally or not), does that mean we should add Poughkeepsbie to the See Also? --Alynna 20:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
NO, but if that person has developed a new or undiscussed method (within the encyclopedia) of transporting or using his vehicle, it would be worthy to include. (Like we say in french: "Les moeurs de notre société.") For example, how cars are transported oversea (freight, etc)? Or, the same as cars can be towed by a tow truck? Or perhaps the same as an idea that a car might change their tires for winter driving. This is a log of society and the cultures of using an electric bicycle.--72.57.8.215 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, from the comments about an "edit war," I also question the method this article uses for discusing changes to an article? What happened to the thingy on top that said this article does not necesarily represent a world view? Is it not better to have a concensus? (ie.: like the idea of keeping motorized bicycles, but putting the article of electric bicycles back, seems to have been agreed upon with a curent vote of 3 to 2) Are you taking owner ship of this article? What happens if your methode of research, which appears to be only based on internet "googling," is flawed. Generally there is a concensus from academia that books have a significant importance in research. The last I recall, it was highly recomended that you obtain at least 5 book sources when handing in a project. This article seems to constanly be removing reliable "book sources" information and other important links toward the developement of the article. --72.57.8.215 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the {{globalize}} tag shortly after a rewrite was suggested, because one of the reasons stated was that there was too much about Canadian law. Since all the laws have been moved to a separate article, that issue is no longer present. So I removed the tag. Is there something about the current article that you think represents a geographically narrow view?
I don't think it is appropriate to count "votes" based on comments about a much different version of the article. If you think it still makes sense to break electric bicycles out to a different article and you want everyone's current opinion, bring it up here again and ask.
I don't see anyone taking ownership of the article (are you accusing me or Woohookitty of this, anyway?). I see some bold edits, but I don't think that's a problem, especially when there was a movement to completely rewrite the article. I think the article is a lot better now.
You're welcome to use books as references. However, Wikipedia is not a book report, and the fact that this article uses internet sources is not in itself a reason to disparage the research that has been done. If you think a particular link is not a reliable source, please bring it up here and explain why.
--Alynna 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this article is very narrow minded in the description of a motorized bicycle and essential has a on point of view describing them as mostly electric bicycles. It even goes on within the article refering to motorized bicycles as a list of different electric bikes. A motorized bicycle however is described as having a motor. (includes mopeds)(moped are generally defined as a modified bicycle) --CyclePat 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Done with my edits for tonight

Compare this to the current version of this article. I think it's much better. There's more we can do but it's more readable now and it has fewer unneeded links. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Motorized bicycle or Electric bicycle

Does this article talk about motorized bicycles or electric bicycles. It seems to state that it will discuss what an motorized bicycles is... but as soon as it goes into detail: ie. history, etc. It talks solely about electric bicycles. --72.57.8.215 21:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't about motorized vehicles

Hey folks. Does anyone know enough about other motorized bicycles to write about them? I don't think that electric bikes are necessarily the most common/important sort of motorized bikes. I've seen bicycles powered by small internal combustion engines, and I'd hazard a guess to say that they're more common than external combustion engines.

I think that the people who've been working on this article have been doing good work, I just think that as it is, this article is really about electric bikes. In order to make it fit logically under the name motorized bicycles, it would need information about other types of motorized bikes.

My suggestion would be to rename this article (with a couple minor edits) to Electric Bicycles, and put a disambiguation page here, directing people to the electric bike page and uncreated pages about internal combustion motorized bikes, and others.

As I'm new to Wikipedia though, I don't know what the conventions are about this sort of thing. Is it done to leave incomplete articles like this until someone knowledgeable comes along to fix it? I suppose if there are strong feelings about structure this might make sense. Can anyone enlighten me?AdinaBob 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! How about we set a date. Tuesday the 8th of November should give enough time for everyone to voice their opinion. I agree with the change. (b.t.w. check out my user page and company page CyclePat --CyclePat 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)  :)
Because of all the changes we made back in september... The french version of this page needs to be re-written. Or we could simply turn back the article to electric bicycles. --CyclePat 03:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
No. CyclePat has a major conflict of interest here. He sells electric bikes. He has a court date on Monday involving electric bikes. He has a petition online about Electric bikes. "This article is about electric bicycles". No, actually it's about motorized bicycles. The thing is, many jurisdictions do not call them "electric bicycles". They call them power-assisted bicycles or PABs or whatever. We came up with motorized bicycles because it's a good general term for them. It covers all of the various terms. This is what this article looked like when it was basically about electric bicycles. Isn't it ugly? The problem is that if we rename this into electric bicycles, Pat is going to decide he "owns" this article again and turn it right back into what it was. No. I've run out of patience with you, Pat. it's obvious that you want to turn this into a pro-electric bicycle article. Considering, you had links on here to things that don't even exist yet. There were here to promote your ideas. No. It stops here. I'm removing the "attention" tag. People are already looking at this through the cleanup tag. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
And let's not pick an arbitrary date ok? For one thing, I can do research on this. Any of us can. You have to give us more than basically one day since that's how long it's been since we got the laws out of here and started to make this a real Wikipedia article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The decision about whether there should be a article for electric bicycle separate from this motorized bicycle article should be made from a NPOV. The argument against based on the supposition that a non-NPOV person will take over the electric bicycle article is not an NPOV argument itself. Whether they should be separate articles should be decided independent of any considerations regarding who will be doing what if they are or are not separated. Now, it seems to me that an electric bicycle is a unique type of motorized bicycle with a separate history and completely unrelated technical issues, and, thus, warrants having its own article, period. However, any issues common to all motorized cycles should be covered in the motorized bicycle article, and appropriately referenced from the electric bicycle article. --Serge 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that such a decision already had been made, and that there was a clear consensus to merge. But whatever. My view is that the scope and subject of the article as it stands is valid: the legal position of electric bikes is generally similar to that for IC assistred bikes, as far as I can tell, and the two have many more similarities than differences. For the record, I have no competing interests. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what the relevance is of having a similar legal position to the decision of whether there should be separate pages. I think the decision to merge was wrong, and appears to me to have been made mostly for non-NPOV reasons having to do not with whether there should be two articles, but with what a certain person would do, sprinkled with irrelevant rationalization like , "they have similar legal positions". I too have no competing interests. Just disappointed in what has appeared to have transpired here. --Serge 07:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Propoganda

This article is Propoganda. This is because it presents one point of view for motorized bicycle; that is being an electric bicycle. --CyclePat 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs much attention and should present more than one side. --CyclePat 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Great! Then start contributing to the article instead of A) bogging it down with links Or B) Insisting that we switch it back to electric bicycle. After just saying that this should be switched to electic bicycle, now you are complaining that this article is only about electric bicycles? You're not exactly helping yourself, Pat.
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)You are putting word in my mouth.
We try to assume good faith here, but contradicting yourself to desperately try to get the article back to electric bicycle is not exactly good faith. And as I said, the last version you worked on had links to things that don't exist. Electric or motorized bikes are not being used as emergency vehicles...
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)please read http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/newscenter/releases/pr_052405.html


nor are they used in the OC transit system you had it linked to.


--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Yes they are! a PAB is essentially like a bicycle. It can be placed easily on on rack and roll OC transpo device.


It's hard to trust you when you talk out of both sides of your mouth and then link to things that don't exist.


--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)If it doesn't exist how can I link to it?


It feels like you want the article to be a promo for your electric bikes. It's felt that way since the start, since at one time, you had a "contact me if you are interested" type link on here.
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Feeling don't really have it's place in hear but... No I think I was citing my sources. (and I was new to wiki so I simply put the name of my company: CyclePat, which b.t.w. I now have a place for on the wiki here. So why would I want to do that now?
You are welcome to contribute into making this a readable article, but Katefan, Alynna, I and others are not going to let this become promotional material.
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) I am trying to creat an article on electric bicycles and you keep deleting it. You are, (or we have) deleted an article about electric bicycles and massacred it. Essentially, the title was changed but the material within is still propoganda for "electric bicycles" (Which I don't really mind, except for the fact that it's plain wrong because it doesn't belong there) As I have mentioned time and time again "Electric bicycles" are a sub-class of "motorized bicycles." (A different beast all together) Lets me make this clear from what I might have said in the past. I don't agree "removing" electric bicycle page and replacing it with a broader term such as motorized bicycle. I am all for creating a page on "motorized bicycles" but keep "electric bicycle" seperate. I am going to bring this up further (once I figure how to, LOL!) (since I'm so new at wiki... and since you seem to have such great experience perhaps it would please you to take this to arbitration) Or I'll figure out eventually... that is how to ask wikipedia for a fair evaluation of the subject.
We're here for encyclopedia articles, not promos. Read Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine. We're actually anti-propoganda.
Is that why you are putting propoganda about mostly electric bicycles (constantly attempting to place narrow minded progandic material (either by negligence or on purpose) within the article of because of the poor perception of these anti-capitalistic, gasoline free vehicles with the terminology "motorized bicycles" (that can be easily confusing)

We want this article to encompass everything that is considered a "motorized bicycle". We're using that term because jurisdictions use all sorts of terms for what is essentially the same thing. It shouldn't be "electric bicycles" because many jurisdictions don't call them that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop

I stopped your attempt to make a separate electric bicycle article. By consensus, this was to be all under one roof so to speak and you actually agreed to that, remember? Stop being disruptive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has recently gone and re-reverted electric bicycle to the exceedingly ugly version that was there before you re-redirected it... I'm going to go redirect it again, since that seems to be consensus and the revert to the ugly version was not discussed. I hope that's okay. --Alynna 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, that was both unclear and inaccurate. User:Benjamin Gatti reverted Katefan's version of electric bicycle, and I reverted it back. I think that was how it was supposed to be while up for RFD - I hope I haven't done anything too horrible. --Alynna 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
You did just fine. Ben is someone that Kate and I are dealing with on another article. Anyway, you did fine. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


I trust if the article is reverted back enough times, or if people keep trying to put stuff there... eventually you/we might decide to do something (write a new one or put back the re-direct) (considerering the beautiful history I just wrote about motorized bicycles, (*blush blush) (seriously though) It seems we are moving along good. --CyclePat 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I opened up a request for comment on this article

If outsiders think this should be electric bicycle, fine, but in any case, we're not going to let this become a promotional article. Here it ison the RfC page. I'm going to flesh out the non-electric bicycle part of the article tonight. I asked for the rfc because obviously, we have a dispute and this is close to degenerating into an edit war and I'd like to avoid that. I deal with enough of those already. Don't need another one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not say this should be an article for "electric bicycle." I think the vote should be on bringing back "electrci bicycle" (consenquentially lightening up the present article) (That was the point I was trying to get by with the strawman I had put up earlier) --CyclePat 05:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And btw

In the research I have done, DMVs in the US use "motorized bicycles" as often if not more than "electric bicycles". They seem rather interchangable in the laws, in which case, I don't understand the hubbub here. I think we should be going for as general of description as possible given all of the different names given. In fact, I think that should be the main point of the article, i.e. that these all describe a type of bicycle that we can call a "motorized bicycle" as a general term but that everyone differs in terms of their definition. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Humm? DMVs? what? Hum... well I did (I think a good start on the history)... I think we're getting to that idea, that is that everyone differs in terms of their definition. (a good example for that is what I did for History of the bicycle. One bicycle had 4 names. --CyclePat 06:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The right way to do it!

after much edit war I was finally able to get something that resemble a little bit of an article for electric bicycle. So we can officially argue about this (which was never really done / considered when we merged to "motorized bicycle" I've added the consideration for deletion of electric bicycle (This way we can place our debates in the write spot) --CyclePat 06:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the "way to do it". I asked for a request for comment on this page. That means that others can come in and comment on what they think. Putting electric bicycle up for deletion is NOT the answer here. That's not how to settle a dispute. Here is a description of how to resolve disputes. Putting an article up for deletion is not part of that. Besides, you did not properly add it to the articles for deletion page. I did that for you. Again, we created this article so it encompasses all of the fractured articles we had. Making an article on electric bicycles is just silly. It's already in this article. Plus, you are putting it up for a vote so it loses, which is against the spirit of afd. You are supposed to put articles up that you want deleted. That's why it's not part of the dispute resolution process. Also, you are asking for a redirect to be deleted, not an article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
No, this article motorized bicycle is mostly about electric bicycles. It is proganda for "electric bicycle" and most of the information should go back to the appropriate article. I believe electric bicycle was improperly merged with motorized bicycle. After the merger everything at the electric bicycle page was moved to motorized bicycle (essentially deleting everything or the article of electric bicycle). During the discussion we had talked about using the "electric bicycle" article as a stencil for "motorized bicycle." However opinions quickkly changed after the merger. This is because we utilized essentially the same article, changed the a few words (ie,: electric bicycle to motorized bicycle) but not the definition. Currently there is some arguable fact that exists for the various other names that exist to define a "motorized bicycle" (ie.: = pab, = motor assisted bicycle, = e-bike,) Trully these are all types of electric bicylces. Again, there was no real vote for mergerging, just a concensus by a few individuals that we should make another article. And what does a vote have to do with things when someone can easily "make a sock puppet." Electric bicycle, is a sub class of motorized bicycle. Just like "Pot pie" is a sub category of Pie. Or how motorcycle is a sub category of motor vehicle. Each one should have their respective article. You are right. I want to ask that the re-direct be deleted, however, because the article was merged it was essentially deleted. I am asking that the article be brough back seperate. --CyclePat 06:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, that isn't what the afd page is for. The afd page is to ask that articles be deleted not kept. So if people vote for keep, they are not voting to keep the pages separate. They are voting to keep the redirect. Which is why it needs to be on the redirects for deletion page. The electric bicycle page was never deleted. It was redirected to here. That is an entirely separate thing. I just don't get it. You call this all "electric bike propoganda" but then say that electric bicycle should be its own article. That makes no sense. I'm moving the afd to the proper place and making the electric bicycle article a redirect again. And I also don't get this...well we should do a vote but people can manipulate votes so...why bother with a vote? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying about deleting the redirect, but in your last edit (adding that delete the redirect) you removed some arguments that where currently happening concerning this article. I added it to your edit. (perhaps we could take those conversations / vote and save them somewhere else?)--CyclePat 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Opps! Acted to hastelly. I see you put in the redirect "debate." Sorry. However, before I go and hastily revert back to what you just had, should we not have something people can compare to? So they can have an idea what the electric bicycle article would look like?--CyclePat 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute here. You put all that information on the redirect page. Anyone who reads that will think that I am in for keeping the redirect. Bah! I'll make it clear. I'm sure anyone that votes will read this discusion. --CyclePat 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Next time, try to follow procedure and this won't be an issue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

naming and legal status

Wow! It's comming along. However, I think we should put in the section of "legal status first" the paragraph (Generally motorized ....) and then (Electric bicycles...) --CyclePat 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that there are still some sections that need an extensive analisys to ensure they are not totaly biased toward "electric bicycles" and that we develope some more on the other vehicles. --CyclePat 08:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Aside from my lack of knowlege on how to properly proceed in some wikipedia element, to which I appology, I think we are all doing a very good job. (with an article well writen like this, perhaps electric bicycle will not have such an important place) (however I still believe it should have it's own spot defining what it is, if not for that, at least for dissambiguation) --CyclePat 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you think the article is coming along. I will say, though, that disambiguation pages are really only for things that multiple definitions (like America for example). This really only has one definition. But yes, I was actually wondering that myself. Most articles would put the naming part first. I'll switch it to that and see what others thing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything out there on laws in Europe and Asia? I would like to see it integrated into what we have, i.e. maybe 2-3 sentences on the law in other parts of the world with links to the sites the info came from. I can't seem to find a darn thing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Low emissions vehicles

I really don't think internal combustion motorized bikes can be considered "low emissions vehicles". They usually use simple two stroke engines (often lawn mower engines) with no filtering at all. This means that although less fuel is used, these vehicles are very dirty - rivalling or _surpassing_ cars minute per minute, even though they use less fuel! Here are a couple of links to back this up: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Lawn-Mower-Pollution.htm http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98532&page=1 AdinaBob 16:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Oops! Sorry for not commenting about my edit! I added information about the environmental effects of lawnmower powered bikes. AdinaBob 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we don't talk about internal combustion bikes. We mention EXTERNAL combustion bikes. The only mention of internet combustion is that motorized bicycles had them at one time. Nothing says that they have them now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh. They still exist. I've seen them. I'd bet that external combustion bikes are way less common than internal combustion, if only for the reason that it's so much easier to make an internal combustion engine. It's fairly common for kids to have access to a lawnmower and a bike and decide that they'll put the two together so they don't have to pedal anymore. I'll fix this. 69.159.190.117 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Um. There's nothing to "fix". The article doesn't say anything specific about internal combustion engines. It doesn't say that they do or do not exist anymore. Nothing to fix. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand. If the article is inaccurate, and implies something which is false (IC engines are not used as much as jet engines/external combustion engines) doesn't that mean that there's something to fix? That was what I was trying to say. AdinaBob 18:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I won't argue because I'm tired of arguing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It is preciselly this type of attitude that make this article progandic material. (One point of view: though we migh know this, the lower ranks probably dont)--CyclePat 20:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You know, Pat, it actually takes someone with a vested interest in a subject for them to create propoganda. I had never even heard of some of these types of bikes before we got into this. I think you are confusing personal views with trying to make Wikipedia as neutral and tidy as possible. It's not as if I'm doing this all by myself. I haven't even done 1/3rd of the edits to this article. I'm a tech support geek from Madison, WI. I cannot create propoganda on this topic. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Woohookitty, I guess you're right. What I meant to say was complete. (Unless you think my understanding about IC engines is false? In which case, please say why! Maybe I am wrong...) I'm sorry to have caused you more stress when you've obviously been working very hard and doing good work on this article, despite being attacked. Thanks for your work. AdinaBob 22:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I was being too harsh and I apologize for that. I understand what you were trying to say. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better!

Good work everyone. I think this page now has enough content about many types of motorized bicycles that it works. I'd like to rescind my request to move it to electric bikes. I'm sorry if I inadvertently got on the wrong side of some people for asking that. I'm new to wikipedia, and I didn't realise how quickly the article could be completed to more accurately describe all kinds of motorized bikes. AdinaBob 22:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


With the fear of beeing considered hypocritical, I must agree. There is good work that has been added since AdninaBob gave out some critical comments (to which I agreed with). Some edits appear to be very nice. This article is great. However it is still a work in progress. I'll get back to fully helping out (after my 6 hour trip for a court date tomorow in Guelph)(providing sugestions and working them in user:CyclePat/sandbox my sandbox before incorparation), and of course providing any typo mistake corrections and small changes in the order. Again, I think we need to make sure this article is broad in covering the different types of "motorized bicycles" and not specifically meander mostly about "electric bicycles." --CyclePat 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How about we all pick a section to add?

So woohookit, I could try and find some laws in Asia! I'd love to do that. Anyone else want to add something? Dunno, Political, Technical Aspects (I could upload a picture of my hub motor from wilderness energy (I had trouble last time but uploading a small video but I wouldn't mind uploading a picture... someone could write about the brushed motor vs the brushless motor (or should that be in another article?) (electric bicycle motors?) Dunno, just brain storming here. Hum.. Anyone want to pick a section (invent or elaborate on a section)? --CyclePat 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not talking about sections. In the case of the Asian law, it would be 2 or 3 sentences to add to the existing paragraph. I just feel like we have to be careful here. I really don't want to see this turn into a bloated article. Frankly, I don't see how much more needs to be added. We have to stay out of speculation, which would eliminate stuff like "it could be used for this" or whatever. I dunno. I can see fleshing out a couple of sections, but I just don't want this article to be unreadable again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Emerging laws section

64.230.90.10 06:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC) What happend to my discuss comment here? I has asked (approx): "why remove this new section" (besides reason that some of the info is on a laws page I see now) and "intro material is sound - many of these laws pertaining to electrics are new (1-5yrs) and specific to electrics, not to gas power laws that have been around for decades"


I removed it for a bunch of reasons. #1 it was speculative. #2 I see no citations as to where this information is from. #3 I really don't see where we need another legal section. I think that if any information is added, this article is going to be basically a law article and I think the consensus has been that we don't want that. Alynna moved the laws section into its own article and I didn't see many complaints. In fact, we've received praise from a couple of people that the article looks much better. Now, I'm not going to assume anything, but the anon's changes look alot like CyclePat. Please don't try to "sneak" anything in if it is CyclePat or one of his friends. Whether you like it or not, it's obvious that the consensus is to keep this article on its current path and not to return it to being highly technical and law driven. I know you think I have some sort of "personal crusade" against you, but I don't. My #1 job as an admin is to keep Wikipedia as tidy and as readable as possible. I've never personally been on a motorized bicycle. I have no interest in them, to be honest. I'm just interested in a well written article. The thing is, if it wasn't me, it'd be a different admin.

I think I'll take a look at what I removed and see if I can integrate it into the article, but we need sources here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, there is nothing to salvage. The first paragraph is a rehash of things we already have in the article. Most of the rest of the section contradicts what's already been said. To the anon who did those edits, actually no, we do not have uniform laws in the United States on motorized bicycles. We don't have uniform laws on *anything*. If you look at the research I did or do some yourself, you'll see that every state has different definitions for motorized bicycles. As I've said before, I think that should be one of our main points. Some states lump them with mopeds. Some don't. This is just my opinion, but I think that contrasting the areas is good enough. I don't think we need specifics unless they are necessary. So for now, I'm leaving that section out. I just don't see anything that is useful. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This is the same issue we have been debating since the start of the article; The laws. Actually, the definition per jurisdiction. The idea that we can replace the entire article of electric bicycle(when we first merged) with the title "motorized bicycle" does have it's point. However, simply changing a few words to then say a "motorized bicycle" is an "electric bicycle" is plain wrong (reference to previous discussions: Universe vs galaxy vs solar system). That is why I believe this article has a type of propaganda (a one point of view)(or at least it did yesterday in some sections). We seem to have overlooked the inclusion of motorized gas engines into this article and I believe this is because we simply don't want to take the time to merge that already "well written article." When I first started out this article, I began with quoting, a citing every law section in the book that I could find (pertinant to electric bicycles). I believe we might have some confusion, or possibly accidently mix some of these laws up with the general term motorized bicycle. So why is it now... being suggested there are no more links to the laws? (rhetorical question) Again this page is full of double standards, on one hand we merged electric bicycles with motorized bicycle, yet on the other hand we refused to merge "moped" with "motorized bicycle." On one hand we separated the laws section to it's own page... What shall we do with the other names of "motorized bicycles" (ie.: "power-assisted bicycle," "power-assisted cycle," "motorcycle"(is a type of bicycle), etc...) I understand the clarity of the article is at risk when we begin incorporating to much information. Hence, following with this principal perhaps we should begin making sub pages for our main article? --CyclePat 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


64.230.90.10 06:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Woohookitty: Seems we are editing each others edits too quickly here. My info is sound. If you wait a few minutes before removing the new section perhaps you would allow me an opportunity to add thos references? Request revert. I can clean it up with a link to laws page, and with your other comments in mind.

It had better be a *marked* improvement. I just don't see where we need yet more law in this article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I did the revert. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


64.230.90.10 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Thank you. It may take me a few minutes but I will clarify, remove speculation, and provide references.


64.230.90.10 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your patience. I am going to look at the section above now to try and reconcile what is there with what I added so that there are no conflicts. Hopefully they can become one clear section, or a chunk on motorized laws in general with a chunk that can be moved to the electric bike law page. Much of the conflict arose when we tried changing the article to motorized bikes form the original electric bikes. Motorized bike laws have been around for ages. Electric bike laws are largely new.

I read what you added. You mentioned clarifying. I'll give you some more time, but honestly, I still don't see anything to salvage, but I'll probably keep it up to give others some time to give input. I think I'll at least try to combine it with the existing section we have. Otherwise, it still sticks out like a sore thumb to me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


64.230.90.10 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I incorporated most of it into the electric bike laws page, and combined the rest.

Well I reverted some of your changes, but honestly, what you ended up with wasn't alot of different from where we started. I did keep the changes you made in the power source section. We probably should have some spacing in there. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


64.230.90.10 15:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Your reversion re-introduced a bunch of the errors that I worked so hard to fix. Why?

I"ll go back to it. Please read Wikipedia:Revert, so next time, you can do all of this yourself. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I reverted somewhat. I went back to the original version of Legal status/Regulation because the version the anon put up had links to nowhere and such. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)