Talk:Segregated cycle facilities/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dutch investment in motoring infrastructure

This sentence had been placed in the evidence section as a counter point to the figures on cycling numbers during the period of operation of the Dutch bicycle master plan.

However, monetary investments in the road and public transport networks during the same period were many times that spent on cycle provisions in the same period, and car ownership did increase by 49% in the same period without a reduction in cycle use.

However, it seems clear that several (if not all?) prominent Dutch cities had active traffic restraint programs in place from the late 70s on. It seems to me that for the sentence above to stand as a counter point - then it must be shown that the investments in motoring infrastructure took place in urban areas for the purpose of facilitating and promoting motorised traffic in competition with other modes such as cycling. Otherwise the investments might just as easily have been for the opposite purpose of diverting motor traffic around, and excluding it from, urban areas - and hence promoting cycling. --Sf 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Article lacks adequate references

This article needs to have citations added for each presented fact and for each synthesis (see WP:CITE and WP:NOR) to allow readers to verify the article's accuracy easily. It is not acceptable to expect the reader to read through the thirty or more references that are cited, to look for the source of an unreferenced sentence. An example of an unreferenced fact is in the Post motorisation (Pre World War II) section:

By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring.

From which published source can the reader verify that indeed this did happen in the UK?

An unreferenced synthesis is in the Urban roads section:

Accident analysis suggests that on arterial routes with few junctions, providing segregated space for cyclists ought to minimise the number of collisions.

Whose research provides that conclusion?

Please do not remove any of the fact or or tags until the references have been clarified. -- de Facto (talk). 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the article does not need to have specific references for every fact or synthesis. That is a ridiculously extreme interpretation of wikipedia policy. The Encyclopaedia Britannica does not bother going that far. This is a short summary of a complex subject, nothing more - it is not a thesis. If you wish to challenge a particular assertion or fact because it genuinely seems wrong to you, fine, but otherwise please dont undermine others' good faith input by demanding they provide proof of every dot and comma! Trust wikipedia's contributors! Jameswilson 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, states "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article". It also states "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". The fact tags are all next to such edits.

The Wikipedia:No original research policy is very clear about what is excluded. Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? specifically states that an edit is considered original research if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" or if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". All the or tags I placed are against such edits.

For those two reasons I have reinstated the tags. -- de Facto (talk). 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with de Facto. I know of no evidence supporting that assertion. It should not be tagged, but removed. --Serge 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article has excessive verification banners

Resolved

 – Moot; sourcing problems fixed.

There are two banners at the top of the article which are created by instances of Category:Citation_and_verifiability_maintenance_templates Template:Refimprove and Template:Original_research. Both templates are in the Citation and verifiability maintenance templates category. The banners both point to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and both ask editors to add references to this article.

Since improving the references for this article will allow us to determine which material is original research, and having these two similar banners impeds (IMHO) the usability of the article to some extent, I'd like to propose that the Template:Original_research banner be removed from this article while leaving the Template:Refimprove banner as is. --Wiley 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Severo^TC 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of apparent original research in the article, I think the original research banner is necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV problems with this article

I was directed here from a blog post that pointed to this article as a good "source" to use for making arguments to oppose the construction of bikelanes. I can see why. The article is devoted almost entirely to a very harshly critical argument and is almost devoid of description. It is not encyclopedic at all. Whether or not the arguments made are correct or adequately supported by research is frankly irrelevant at this point; the problem lies in nature of the article itself, which is, on the whole, not an encyclopedia article but rather a polemic. That is not what wikipedia is for. I would like to suggest revisions to the outline of this article:

1. History -- this section currently makes two main points--that segregated facilities were put into place in the early 20th century at the behest of motorists and motoring advocates, and that there has been a surge in bicycle facilities since the 1980s due to environmental "dogma" (not an NPOV word). If it is true that these facilities have been constructed largely since the 1980s (or perhaps 1970s, as I would think) then there needs to be a lot more discussion of the history from this period. As large a phenomenon as this cannot be dismissed in an encyclopedia article as merely due to environmental "dogma." There has to be more to the story, and it has to be told in an NPOV way.

2. Types of facilities -- this section, which does not currently exist, should be the main focus of the article. Around the world there are many different kinds of segregated bicycle facilities, and they should each be discussed in turn. I am familiar with on-street bike lanes, cycle paths, multi-use trails, mountain bike paths and shared sidewalks. There are probably many more. The introduction to the article names a few, and this can be used as a starting point for the facility types section.

3. Safety -- a perfectly legitimate section to have, but only after the facilities themselves are adequately described. A number of the references are problematic because they point not to research but to opinion articles or anecdotes that may not be universal; these need to be cleaned up, and I would suggest moving essentially all of the detailed parts of this section to cycle path debate, where they can be dealt with separately from this main article.

4. Road traffic legislation -- I am not sure how important this section is to the article, which needs to deal more with the facilities and less with policy. I suggest moving it to cycle path debate for now.

5. The design vehicle and design users -- again, most of this should just be moved to cycle path debate, although a paragraph might be appropriate here. The language used in this section is not very NPOV right now.

6. Maintenance -- needs to be shrunk a lot. Worth a mention, but the endless detailed references to maintenance practices in one country don't belong in an encyclopedia article. If it's really controversial then move it to cycle path debate.

7. Transportation cycling -- seems to me this section is really at the heart of the cycle path debate, so -- move it there.

-- Planetcs 12:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the project - I would suggest a good starting point would be to get yourself a user Id. As it happens - some of us around here seem to be operating under our actual identities. --Sf 23:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime you could point out to your blog poster that it might be more accurate to say that the article is a good "source" to use for making arguments to oppose the construction of cycling facilities that are inappropriately conceived or designed and/or are proposed for use in unsuitable contexts. Or alternatively you might say that it sets out a useful set of criteria under which interested parties can assess a proposed cycling facility and ensure that it matches with best international practice. As regards your other comments it is accepted that there are obvious gaps in the article - see the "to do" list above. So of your list of concerns 1-7 which do you want to start with? --Sf 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response November 7th 2007

Ok I'll start then -

Point 1. This is addressed in the to do list time permitting this section needs expansion as and when reliable sources can be found. If you don't like the term dogma feel free to suggest an alternative.

Point 2 (Types) We already had to split out a seperate article on different types see Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation as you suggest the issue needs expansion and that would be the place to do it. Any help you could offer with that would be welcome. The main article itself explains the main categories as per CFI etc

1. On carriageway

2. Off carriageway but within highway

3. Away from the highway

Point 3 Claims regarding safety are the overwhelming argument used by their proponents to justify the construction of cycling facilities - Therefore in my view these claims must be explored in sufficient detail to allow the reader to grasp the various issues. Which references are problematic?

Point 4 In my view and the view of others you cannot separate out the issue how cycle facilities work and the legislative and other environments in which they operate. Nor can I conceive of any justifiable reason for wishing to do so.

Points 5 and 6 these are only controversial if you choose not to mention them. choosing not to mention them or play them down would invite conclusions of bias in my view. Denmark is a frequently cited model for cycle track construction therefore examples of Danish practice wuld appear to be an obvious way of illustrating the point if you don't like Denmark feel free to offer a similar example from elsewhere.

Transportation cycling: After safety this is the other major argument made for cycle facilities (the arguments are usually combined - i.e. cycle facilities are needed for the safety and promotion of utility cycling). Are we supposed to have an article on the topic divorced from proclaimed purpose of the devices discussed?

--Sf 12:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Response 17th November

I've changed "central dogma" -> to "article of faith" I'll assume that's the main issue sorted for the moment. --Sf (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Neutral Point of View. The page "Segregated Cycle Facilities" should at the very least be renamed to "separated" as the term "segregated" in commonplace usage invokes negative images of racial issues which is irrelevant to the discussion of bicycle infrastructure. There also seems a desire to create a bias in using the term "segregated" as it implies it is bad, and the inverse, "integrated" being good which creates a non-neutral point of view. I do prefer renaming this page to "Bicycle Infrastructure".(Arnold James-ower (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)).

Lack of NPOV

The entire article reads like an advocacy piece rooted in the vehicular cycling ideology. It is almost entirely one-sided. The section on safety needs a major rewrite. The references provided are also problematic: much of them are exhibiting severe defects such as unverifiable or poor quality data, advocacy tone in what is presented as research, undocumented conclusions, etc. Much of the data is also outdated. Universal-777 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to do better than that - I have paper copies of most of the documents cited - if you are saying that the data presented in any of them has been disputed then you will have to provide a published source for that assertion. Also how can accident stats be outdated? --Sf (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition left by User Universal-777 1 June 2008

Much of the data is also old. For example Wardlaw 2002, referenced as number 57, is a position paper rather than an objective review and analysis. The author, M. Wardlaw, demonstrates taking an a priori conclusion --that cycling is safer than other means of transportation-- and sets out to interpret the data to support his position. He also argues both sides against the middle, by writing in one section that the risk of cycling decreases with increased usage, but in a different section he states that the risk of cycling, which he agrees is much higher than for driving cars, by unit of time, is mediated by low cycling usage. In addition a significant portion of the data Wardlaw relies on is from an unpublished and unreleased study dating back to 1988 and not available from public sources. The data is therefore unverifiable. And there are many more defects in this referenced document.

In the section titled "Indirect Safety" the article states, "The "safety in numbers" argument has also been used to explain the apparent success of cycle facilities in some cities. In most cases, the most prominent examples of "successful" cycle networks were implemented in towns that already had significant numbers of cyclists.[22]"

Reference 22, in addition to providing a comment on the "tasteless American tomato" is pure advocacy with no attempt at being a serious study. When time permits we will contribute many more examples. Universal-777 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC), with addition dated June 1, 2008.

Reply by SF 02 June 2008

With respect I think you need to reread Wardlaw's paper again. You appear to be confusing the arguments about the inherent risks of cycling with the the overall risks faced by cyclists while cycling and which in terms of serious injuries are imposed primarily by motoring not cycling. Also it is clear that the use of the reference numeral (3) in the paragraph on the National Travel Survey data is likely in error. My reading of the paper indicates that all data is sourced from public sources. If you want we can ask Malcolm for confirmation.

As regards your objections Jeremy Parkers' comment about the Food Science and Botanical Activities at the University of Davis I fail to see the relevance. It is an uncontroversial observation that university towns tend to have lots of cyclists. If you feel a better source is needed feel free to offer one.

Finally it might be best if you keep your comments in chronological order so that people can actually see what it is you are or are not disputing without having to trawl through the page history. --Sf (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition left by User Universal-777 6 June 2008

The article fails to review the quality of the referenced material, focusing on points or conclusions it almost always takes at face value. Universal-777 (talk) 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Does reviewing the quality of referenced material not count as original research?

Your more recent edit, seems to negate the meaning of a sentence, and conflicts with the rest of the paragraph. I think the phrase "should be easy" does not belong on wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE quality of the reference material. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to use any Wikipedia article to discuss the quality, or alleged lack thereof, of any source material. However, it would seem to be entirely reasonable to discuss such matters here on the talk page. In this regard, I view it as noteworthy that despite making their allegations on the 31st of May, user Universal-777 has so far been unable to substantiate his or her, rather sweeping, claims. Either there are issues with the material or not - if so please state them - if you please with reference to specific documents. If there is counter evidence from the literature please state what it is and clearly show where it can be found. In my view it is telling that while Universal-777 has purported to cite a report in favour of his or her contribution to the article, no properly dated or attributed citation has been provided. There is an apparent inconsistency --Sf (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Struck out comment re citation as this has apparently now been provided --Sf (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Motorized vehicles

I mean seriously man, the laws are ridiculous. Where does it state I should use the main road? What if theres a bike path on a side road? Do I use the side of the street or hold up 50 mph traffic. Thanks.

How do these laws make sense? Where is the part about bike path markings on public streets? So I e-bike my way to the grocery store next door in heavy traffic? Where is the e-bike??? LoL. BTW that last comment was sarcasm, I am going to 'ebike' in heavy traffic every chance i get, even in rush hour. I am going to use one lane, not the bike lane, to my self as well. Thats what you get for making shitty laws that dont make sense.

no really, these laws are brought from some texas garage or what? What next barnyard science? oh wait...What next, 16 year olds with a license? I know psychology well, btw, GO MEANS STOP FOR SOME PEOPLE, a majority of them@ least. Really though, you need to fix the law there, private government guy. Watever, just change it....its that easy

--69.255.42.105 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rail trails

The mention of rail trails in this article has given at least one Wikipedia contributor the impression that rail trails are segregated cycle facilities (see Talk:Rail trail). I know of none that are; can anyone here name one? Else, I suggest removing all mention of rail trails from this article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, it is your view that any mention of the use of old railway alignments should be removed from discussion of the use of roads dedicated to cycle traffic? --Sf (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that segregated means separating an individual from others on the basis of a grouping or a classification, then facilities which exclude one or more classes of travel (motor, foot, etc.) while allowing cycling apparently fall within the scope of this article. Another POV is that a facility which restricts or bans an activity on the basis of posing an extraordinary danger to the public (such as motoring) isn't segregated since the basis for the restriction is an attribute of the individual (they're driving a vehicle which is so dangerous to others that a license is required). --Wiley (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article defines segregated cycle facilities as designated for the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists. Most rail trails do not meet that definition. I'd like one example of a rail trail that does meet that definition. --Una Smith (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition has been reverted to pretty much the original version - does this solve the issue? --Sf (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because the new definition defines a non-motorized multi-use facility (ie, almost any trail, path, or road closed to motor vehicles), not a segregated cycle facility. The problem was not in the definition, but in the statement that a rail trail is a kind of segregated cycle facility. Most of them are not. --Una Smith (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok must be a US thing, in Europe most of them are open to cyclists so we'll stick with European examples thanks for that. --Sf (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in my experience as a bicycle commuter, the US and Europe are much the same. I think the problem is this: "open to cycles" is not a synonym for "segregated cycle facility". A segregated cycle facility is something designated as being principally or exclusively for use by cycles. Example: in New York City's Central Park there is a loop road used by police, emergency, and maintenance vehicles, and by thousands of walkers, joggers, inline skaters, wheelchair users, skateboarders, and bicyclists. Bicycles have a designated lane, a "segregated cycle facility" where other users must yield to bicycles; outside this lane, bicycles must yield to other users. Most multi-use trails are not segregated cycle facilities; one evidence of this is the fact that on such trails bicycles must yield to other users. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that on this side of the Atlantic "open to cycles" is a synonym for "segregated cycle facility" and the concept would be taken to include roads shared with pedestrians and also shared-use footways (sidewalks) and similar features. --Sf (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about citing a reliable source for this synonym? Here are some sources that explain the difference between shared and segregated bicycle facilities (lanes, etc): US, Scotland (although this source uses "segregated" in two senses, the second sense equivalent to "separated" as by distance, grade, vegetation, fencing or other barriers). Then there is the apparent oxymoron "segregated shared route" but here what is shared is the easement; the route is a collective multi-use trail that consists of two or more parallel, segregated trails/lanes/etc.[1] --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Irish Road Traffic Act 1993

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0068.html

68.—(1) In this section "cycleway" means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

( 2 ) ( a ) A road authority may construct (or otherwise provide) and maintain a cycleway.

( b ) Where a road authority constructs or otherwise provides a cycleway it shall by order declare either

(i) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists, or

(ii) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

Also if you go to the Warrington Cycle Facility of the month you will see various examples of devices that are shared with pedestrians. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/June2008.htm

Simlarly if you look up the same topic on the German wikipedia you will see a range of options for rights of way that are shared with pedestrians. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radweg

I can assure you that the concept is well established in law in various countries and that in the mind of the general reader the concept segregated cycle facilities includes such treatments - as you have discovered yourself on the rail trails page. --Sf (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In the UK there is no such thing as cycleways segregated from pedestrians. A path may be marked and signed as a route for cyclists, but pedestrians have as much ROW. Where a path is marked with one side for cyclists and the other for pedestrians, then pedestrians still have the same ROW as cyclists on the cyclist side. Martin451 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The point being is they are closed to motor vehicle traffic.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality of the research cited by Universal-777

Universal-777 has made allegations as to the quality of the published work cited in this article. By way of providing evidence in support of their position, Universal-777 has provided the following quote:

A 2006 report concludes that "bicycle safety data are difficult to analyse, mostly because bicycle trip data (and thus accident probability per trip) are hard to uncover" (see NCHRP Report 552, 2006, "Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities", National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation research Board of the National Academies, page F-1

This is the full quote from Appendix F User Safety Benefits:

In the end, bicycle safety data are difficult to analyze, mostly because bicycle trip data (and thus accident probability per trip) are hard to uncover. As more research and conclusive findings become available, it will likely be possible to understand the safety benefits of bicycle facilities in more detail—at such time, a model could then be developed and incorporated into the guidelines.

It would seem that the NCHRP authors wish the reader to conclude that such research is not available at present - a claim which in my view is false and which there is good evidence that the NCHRP authors knew to be false. On page 34 the NCHRP authors provide us with this.

There is evidence to support the notion that collision-type crashes are lower on off-road paths (120). Using before and after analysis, Garder’s research (121) found raised bicycle crossings to be more appealing and safer for cyclists than at grade crossings. However, there exists an equal, if not greater body of research suggesting no relationship or a relationship in the opposite direction.

Lets take the last sentence first. The NCHRP authors clearly had knowledge of a body of research suggesting that segregated cycle facilities decrease safety but they then apparently fail to refer to any of it in detail or explore the findings. Instead for the remainder of the page they refer to work showing that certain facility designs are no less safe than unmarked roads or offer safety improvements over other facilities - without exploring the fundamental issue of the comparative safety of roads versus cycle facilities.

Let us now consider works cited above by the NCHRP authors: There is evidence to support the notion that collision-type crashes are lower on off-road paths (120). Reference 120 in the NCHRP document is to the paper: Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates by Aultman-Hall, L. and M. G. Kaltenecker. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 1999, p. 675–686. This paper is based on survey data from 1196 cyclists that specifically included information on the cyclists' routes thus allowing the authors to calculate relative exposure (and accident rates) depending on environment eg roads, sidewalks, off-road paths. What follows are direct quotes from the Toronto paper:

If one considers the various event counts on different types of infrastructure, it might seem that roads are the problem for falls, injuries and collisions. However, inspection of the rate data indicates that events on sidewalks and off-road paths are the more frequent events per kilometer traveled. Thus diverting cyclists from the road to sidewalks and paths as might be suggested based on count analysis could be expected to increase overall event rates based on this analysis that accounted for travel exposure.

This study has found statistically significant differences between the collision, fall and injury rates for bicycle commuting on-road, off-road and on sidewalks in the Toronto study area. In general, these relative rates suggest it is safest to travel on-road followed by off-road paths, and finally, least safe on sidewalks. While the same analysis undertaken in Ottawa resulted in the same pattern of relative rates, the magnitudes were different. The rates per distance are all higher in Toronto suggesting that urban form, traffic levels and the attitudes of drivers and cyclists can affect bicycle safety. The Ottawa relative collision rates were approximately 1.0 while the Toronto ones were 3.5 and 2.0 for paths and sidewalks versus roads.

This analysis by Aultman-Hall and Kaltenecker would seem to be diametrically opposite to the interpretation of their findings that is portrayed by the NCHRP authors. To return to the next sentence the NCHRP authors tell us that: Using before and after analysis, Garder’s research (121) found raised bicycle crossings to be more appealing and safer for cyclists than at grade crossings. However the NCHRP authors neglect to explore what was driving Garder, Leden and Pulkinnen's research. Here is a quote from the original Garder, Leden and Pulkinnen paper: Bicyclists have a higher risk of injury along “conventional” bicycle paths (along collector roads and arterials) where junctions are delineated by painted white rectangles than they have if sharing the roadway with automobile traffic. [A recent comprehensive analysis of “all” available studies indicates, on average, a 1 percent increase in the number of injured bicyclists as a result of constucting bicycle paths through intersections (12).] In my view, There is no point in the NCHRP authors telling the reader that safety can be improved unless they also explain what the safety issues were in the first place. Garder, Leden and Pulkinnen cite other research into the safety of bike paths as follows (a point to note is that two of the articles below are cited in this Wiki article)

Gårder, P., L. Leden, and T. Thedéen. Safety Implications of Bike Paths at Signalized Intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1994, pp. 429– 439.

Linderholm, L. Signalreglerade korsningars funktion och olycksrisk för oskyddade trafikanter—Delrapport 1: Cyklister. Bulletin 55. LTH, Institutionen för trafikteknik, Lund, Sweden, 1984.

Wachtel, A., and D. Lewiston. Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. ITE Journal, Sept. 1994, pp. 30–35.

Thus, the NCHRP authors must have known of the existence of this research and were in a position to follow up on it themselves. Despite this, they make no direct reference to its existence, nor do they provide any citations that would allow their reader to follow up directly. In my view, the authors of the the NCHRP document cited by Universal-777 are open to the accusation that they are being economical in their portrayal of the findings of other authors in the field. It is my view that, the so far unsubstantiated, accusations of bias made by Universal-777 might also be said to applicable to his or her preferred source. --Sf (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a Neutral Point of View

The article is poor in NPOV - The removal of edits is showing a lack of concern for a balanced point of view. The writer who seems to be the main author did not provide a valid explanation to counter that it lacks a NPOV. We maintain that the entire article reads like an advocacy piece rooted in the vehicular cycling ideology. It is almost entirely one-sided. The research cited is of extremely poor quality and as time permits we will provide more examples. In the mention of Wardlaw 2002 above, the contradiction is between "increased usage" and "low cycling usage." [[Universal-777 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I asked Malcolm for a reply to your allegations regarding his paper which I append.

--- On Wed, 9/7/08, Malcolm Wardlaw wrote:

> Subject: RE: Query for Malcolm from Shane Foran

>

> Date: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008, 7:01 PM

> Shane,

>

> The reference to Morgan's paper is irrelevent to the

> findings in my paper, which are all derived from published

> papers or else from public sources like the National Travel

> Survey. The central finding of the paper is that the average

> risk per cyclist varied from country to country, but the

> variation was within the same band as the variation for

> driving populations. None of the evidence on which that

> conclusion is based is unpublished or not available to

> public access.

>

> It is true that much of the evidence in the paper is now

> getting a bit old, but I doubt the result has changed

> materially. If you look at Chart 3 you see that driver and

> cyclist fatality rates in the UKhave fallen by similar

> amounts over the last 30 years or so. Surprising, but true.

>

> The risks being discusse in the paper are all risks, that

> is risk of a fatal fall (very low for cyclists) plus the

> risk from traffic (the main risk for all road users).

>

> I guess if someone does not want to believe it, there is

> not a lot I can do about it.

>

>

> Kind regards,

As to Universal-777's accusation that the article is "an advocacy piece rooted in the vehicular cycling ideology" in my view this suggests at best an ignorance of the field. Some of the concepts explored in the article, such as the role of collisions in arterial/rural situations and the "safety in numbers" hypothesis are anathema to John Forester and his followers. Indeed, in my view, the fact that Universal-777 chooses to focus their attacks on the work of contributors such as Malcolm Wardlaw, serves to invite suspicion that Universal-777 is in fact a Sockpuppet for individuals associated with the hard core of the US VC lobby. --Sf (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the neutrality of this article, but referring to those who who largely agree with John Forester as his "followers" and referring to an alleged VC "lobby" are quite revealing of a bias in and of themselves. Are those who appreciate the work of John Franklin "followers" of John Franklin and members of the UK Cyclecraft lobby? For the record, I support the right of cyclists to ride on the road in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, on pedestrian facilities in accordance with the rules of the road for pedestrians, and on segregated cycling facilities in accordance with whatever rules may apply there. --Serge (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

bike route redirect to this page - why?

Why does bike route redirect to this article? A Class III bike route is not a segregated cycle facility. To the contrary, it is an ordinary road with no bike lane or any other designated cyclist facility and on which cyclists and motorists travel together in an integrated fashion. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the term Class III bike route applies to structures constructed within one "state" i.e. California within one country i.e. the US. If I am in error, and the term is in fact used uniformly in all other countries and sub-jurisdictions then your observation has merit. --Sf (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I an now looking at a Transport for London local cycling guide (nearest thing to hand on bookshelf). Their definition of a cycle route includes all manner of roads both with and without cycle facilities and off-road routes through parks etc. --Sf (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved

I'm moving the following comment from the first paragraph.

The use of segregated facilities has been a source of a great deal of controversy since the 1930s. Some commentators inaccurately use various terms interchangeably. In some cases this is done out of simple ignorance but in other cases this may result from deliberate attempts to confuse matters that involve serious accusations related to [[Death|fatality]], [[injury]] and legal [[culpability]].

Is it in or is it out? JIMp _talk·cont 08:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave it out for moment, first sentence stands, the second also, the third is defensible but probably not in a wikipedia article. --Sf (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen Style Bike Lane

In Melbourne, Australia they have what they refer to as a "Copenhagen Style" bike lane. It would be good to incorporate this style of lane in the article... Barrylb (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that different from a side path? FWIW, in American nomenclature, a "bike lane" has to be part of the roadway - and cannot be physically separated from the road. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This Copenhagen style facility is part of the roadway - it is physically on the road but in a different configuration to normal. The footpath (sidewalk) is off the road. Then on the road, bicycles are the outside, then there is a divider, then parked cars, then the moving cars. More at http://melbourne.vic.gov.au/rsrc/PDFs/WalkingSkatingCycling/BikeFactSheet.pdf -- Barrylb (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of analysing the safety/dangers of such a structure, this is essentially a sidepath with parking outside it. This is potentially more dangerous than other designs in terms of junction conflicts and conflicts with crossing pedestrians (accessing their cars). On page 41 of the EU Commission document Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities there is a diagram showing why such treatments can be dangerous. --Sf (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Roadside/on road versus away from roads

Much of the discussion in this article particularly under safety, relates specifically to roadside or on-road structures. There is little distinct discussion of the safety and role of cycleways (roads dedicated to cyclists) or cycle paths away from the "shared" roads network. this is a gap. For the moment my instinct is to start a dedicated section for this type of treatment and include the safety/promotion issues there rather than trying to rewrite the existing sections to draw the distinctions. Thoughts?? --Sf (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree- I actually found this article frustrating as a reader, since it is unclear what type of segregated facilities are specifically being discussed. Clearly, long bike paths (dedicated biking areas fully divorced from roads) have different safety issues than many of the facilities discussed here (which apparently include cycle tracks, bike lanes, and various other permutations of these facilities) . In my experience in the US (especially Minneapolis and Madison) one can go for miles on bike paths without encountering motorized vehicles (see for example Midtown Greenway). When the paths do intersect, they tend to be highly controlled and thus less likely to lead to an accident (and certainly less dangerous than covering the equivalent distance along city streets with intersections occurring every block). In general, there is a feeling in reading this article that there is a bias against segregated facilities, and that the evidence for this is generated by making the definition of "segregated facilities" a moving target. Clearly if the article was discussing only entirely segregated bicycle paths it would present a different picture of safety than if it was discussing on-street bicycle lanes with no physical separation from the roadway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.155.96 (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep there is a plan to insert an expanded section about this. --Sf (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to start this yourself, you could start with looking up some of the research Lisa Aultman Hall has published on cyclist accident rates on Canadian off-road paths. --Sf (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Regime in the article?

I am sure there are more irrelevant subjects that could be added to this article but what the Nazis did to cycling is up there on the scale of nonsense. I mean really? That tidbit might be relevant on an article about Nazis but in case you haven't noticed the Nazis have not been in power in Germany for some time now and the entire infrastructure of Germany was demolished during their tenure (WWII), so whatever they did to promote or repress cycling ended when all their freaking roadways were bombed and/or burned. So how about we remove the Nazi trivia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was one of their more decisive contributions, a shift in policy which, though it reflected what was happening in other motorising countries, was more coordinated and more conspicuous in Germany under the Nazis. It is not "Nazi trivia", and nor is our article on the Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. After 1945, Germany's roads were reconstructed by people who believed in the dominance of cars, because that ideology had already spread among the victors, and its economy by people who thought that smoking was a harmless way of relaxing, because the Nazis had been more or less the only group who'd been against tobacco. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's law - "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Given that a country like the Netherlands already had extensive cycle paths in the 19th century, long before the Nazi regime, and that they had fought vigorously against the Nazis, and that many other countries who also fought the Nazis have more recently begun to build extensive cycle paths suggests that raising the spectre of Nazism is spurious name-association meant to incite irrational fear for cycle paths. Nubeli (talk)

POV issues

The Nazi section is absurd and ridiculous. According to this German anti=cycle-track page,[2] the Nazis looked to the Dutch with envy:

"Holland hat an Stadt- und Landstraßen ein ausgedehntes, systematisches Netz von Radfahrwegen angelegt."

and indeed to other countries:

"Die Reichsgemeinschaft für Radfahrwegebau wird sich bemühen, alles zu tun, damit der Radfahrwegebau in Deutschland voranmarschiert und recht bald der Vorsprung, den unsere Nachbarländer Holland, Dänemark und Belgien uns voraus haben, eingeholt wird."

So why is this absurd piece of propaganda used to suggest that the Nazis invented cycle tracks, when in fact they were trying to emulate their non-Nazi neighbours' cycling facilities? The Nazis were followers, not leaders on this issue, there is unambiguous intent here to smear those in favour of separate cycling provisions by association with the Nazis.

It continues, claiming that the Nazi policies caused cycling journey share to fall from 50% to 5%, without comparison to what happened in other, non-Nazi countries.

The section on 'Evidence' is also absurdly partial, claiming "the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels stayed practically the same". The more recent, and more comprehensive, Dutch Bicycle Master Plan[3] contradicts this, saying:

"between 1978 and 1988, the length of bicycle paths increased from 9,300 km to 16,100 km, a 73 per cent increase. This significant expansion of the infrastructure for bicycle traffic is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the revival of bicycle use since the mid-1970s."

and adds, specifically with reference to the 1.5 billion period, that the goal was not to increase kilometres cycled, but to increase bicycle usage for short journeys, where cars are less appropriate and more damaging: "The question at the centre of decision making was therefore: "Which mode of transport is the most efficiënt for which type of trip?"

It is no wonder, when the goal was not to increase kilometres cycled, but to discourage city driving, that there was no huge increase in total distance cycled over the 4-year period.

Current figures show: http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf 1980 9.9b bike km, 2001 13.1b km, 2005 14.4 b km.

The claim "A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety" (re Delft) is also contradicted, by reference to the same study:

"Although the total number of victims among cyclists did not decline, the percentage of fatalities and severely injured did drop dramatically."

It's well-known that Holland has the highest rate of bike usership in the world, and Dutch policy is very clear on segregated facilities, for instance noting that: "Most people believe half an hour’s travelling time to and from work is acceptable. Cyclists can certainly cover some 7.5 km in this time." "However, more and more interlocal commuter routes are being designed with few obstacles and sometimes even real bicycle motorways. In the framework of the Fileproof project, five such routes were constructed. All over the country, there is interest in cycle routes for longer distances. As a result, distances of up to 15 km are achievable, with cyclists able to reach speeds of 25-30 km/hour. This means that cyclists are not much slower than other modes of transport and in congested areas they may be much faster." It adds later "The emphasis In Dutch bicycle policy has always been on improving the road infrastructure for cyclists. For many people, constructing cycle paths is also synonymous with bicycle policy."

It is quite absurd to talk about the country with the greatest bicycle usage, and the best off-road bicycle infrastructure, and then use it to say 'The Netherlands shows us segregated bicycle facilities don't work'.

"In a number of new towns from the 1970s, 80s and 90s such as Lelystad, Almere and Houten, an entirely segregated traffic system has even been used as the starting point for the urban development structure. The effect on traffic safety has been unsurpassed. These are the safest cities in the Netherlands." Sumbuddi (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad english. About "The Nazi section is absurd and ridiculous. According to this German anti=cycle-track page,[4] the Nazis looked to the Dutch with envy"

You should tell that the cited article from 1935 is based on lies. It lies about accident cause and tries to move to guilt from the cardrivers to the bicyclers and makes only the bicyclers to a problem of traffic and a problem for motor traffic. Segregation was a goal to push the motor traffic ("Die Förderung des Kraftfahrzeugs ist das vom Reichskanzler und Führer gewiesene Ziel, dem auch diese Ordnung dienen soll."). And so "the Nazis looked to the Dutch with envy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.152.34 (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

Segregated cycle facilities... is this a joke? Propose a move to Bike lane. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

or bike path? cycleway? (and bike lanes aren't often segregated by anything more that a line of paint, so barely qualify). Unfortunately, this article has to cover a multitude of sins. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the United States, the most common name used for this topic is "bikeway". A "bike lane" is just one kind of "bikeway" (or "segregated cycle facility"). --Born2cycle (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a vote nor a conventional move request. Segregated cycle facilities is a bad topic name, period. Bikeway would work. Anything but the current title - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is the common name in British parlance for the concept. What is your objection to segregated cycle facilities? --Born2cycle (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me when people refer to the bike paths through parks, they call them segregated cycle facilities? I've never heard anything even resembling that term before, and I'm a training civil engineer. It also assumes that they are segregated, which isn't always the case. It's an aweful and totally non-specific title. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When is a bike path through a park not segregated from motor traffic? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedestrians are traffic too. Regardless of whether they are a facility made for cycling that is segregated from a public right-of-way, its a very oddly constructed descriptive term. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course, pedestrians are traffic too, and bicyclists are often not segregated from pedestrians on these facilities. But the "segregation" with respect to cycle facilities means segregated from motor traffic... That's not obvious? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is implied, yes. However, when we actually get down to the term, how many occurances outside of recreational bike/pedestrian pathways are there of bikeways which are segregated from regular traffic. Its much more common for there to be only markings on the pavement. Is there not some term that can better represent bike paths than "segregated cycle facilities"? Cycle facilities suggests buildings, not pavement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A white stripe intended to separate motor traffic from bike traffic constitutes just as much segregation as does some kind of physical barrier... the distinction there is physical segregation. Segregation does not have to be physical... it could be suggested by a stripe as well. In other words, bike lanes are segregated cycle facilities. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

They're also a bikeway. A much simpler term that doesn't lead to several assumptions based on the title alone. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would favor a name change to "bikeway", but I suspect it will be opposed as a distinctly American term. "Cycleway" is the British equivalent, I believe, and I think "segregated cycle facilities" is the compromise, akin to fixed-wing aircraft being a compromise for airplane/aeroplane. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support either use to get rid of the current title. Fixed wing aircraft is just as rediculous. Cycleway isn't distinctly non-American, so I don't see why there would be huge opposition to it over bikeway. Niether term is that common, but certainly more so than segregated cycle facility. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Another consideration would be to fork the article into the content covering on-road facilities, and another dealing with recreational trails (or mixed-use paths). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, could you fix your signature Mr. box box o box box i a box? Thanks! :-) Ashanda (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably don't have a unicode character set on your computer. Even if I were to change it, it wouldn't alter existing cases of it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this current name is poor and should be changed to something more common. - SimonP (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

More studies

I have added a few studies, both recent and not so recent, that clarify the sections on Safety, particularly for the urban context. This will hopefully broaden the variety and scope of the research addressed in this article. Nubeli (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Even More Studies

I've added some of the most recent studies - Aultman-hall, Wachtel, Jensen, Agerholm - and their basic conclusions, which were not included in any depth. Also, added some basic and well-known criticisms of studies and reviews by Moritz, Reynolds, Lusk. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more studies. Be careful not to add original research, such as "well-known criticisms" (Wikipedia:No_original_research). It's better to find credible sources that provide criticisms of research. For instance, I added a note about Lusk et al. re-analyzing Wachtel's data as a part of their study to come to a different conclusion.

By the way, there were already references to Jensen and Lusk in the article. Nubeli (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge with bicycle infrastructure page?

How come this page hasn't been merged with the bicycle infrastructure page? How does one do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightybeancounter (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The first step to a merge is to propose it, as described at Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger.

But I can tell you right now that the relatively large size of this article makes any proposed merger with it unlikely to be supported by consensus. Besides, that article is a superset of this one, and it already has a section on this topic (I just changed its name to be consistent with this article[5]) with a link to this article, as described in WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for links Born2cycle. I think from previewing the guidelines that this article is too large to merge, and the content can stand it's own. Best to take the approach of having a summary in Bicycle infrastructure and link to this, much as it has now. --Nubeli (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

POV problem dealt with?

I believe most of the point of view problems have been dealt with. Overall the article seems to be more balanced in most sections. There is no way it can equally represent all camps in all cases but it now covers a much larger number of studies and tries to weigh the different results. Should we remove the POV flag from the article? --Nubeli (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2