Talk:Utility cycling

message: Moved material accross from Urban cycling to merge here. Can't get my head around how we can discuss both in two separate articles without massive overlap. 
--Sf 13:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to be bold, and I understand the overlap problem, but there is a substantial difference between the two.  Utility cycling is not necessarily urban, and urban cycling is most definitely not necessarily utilitarian.  I think utility cycling should be a short but separate article that refers to urban cycling, vehicular cycling, etc. --Serge 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I accept the overlap arguments.  However, in global terms, the overwhelming majority of cycling trips by adults happen for utility purposes.  This means the article on utility cycling will be a keystone article within the cycling project and must be comprehensive if it is going to reflect this. --Sf 11:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I found no discussion on Wikipedia of Transportation Cycling, which is what I've always heard it referred to. Transportation cycling encompasses commuting by bike, but also using a bicycle for all errands associated with daily city life.  Usually, transportation cyclists have bikes equipped with panniers or that are modified through attachments like the "Extracycle" to facilitate carrying heavy loads, or trailers to carry children or pets. I'm working on a short article about this.  Transportation cyclists (at least in the US) are also usually strong cycling advocates and are typically motivated by environmentalist or political beliefs. Any input? -- User:Velokitty 02:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 6 Sep 05 

message: Object to this phrasing <BLOCKQUOTE><I>
In addition, cyclists can cause disruption when there is no cycle lane available and no way for other road-users to move past,</I></BLOCKQUOTE>
The description of cyclists legally cycling in traffic out of a "cycle lane" as "disruption" is a highly biased piece of writing.  This, and unsupported statements about how any of the proposed measures do anything are non-factual. Jumble 19:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Phrasing problems, General lack of evidence 

message: I just wanted to request that someone clarify these two sentences:
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>In Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany, this approach not
restricted to planning guidelines and is also supported by a ban on
below cost selling.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>In 1990 the Dutch adopted the "ABC" guidelines, it especially limited
developments that are major attractants to locations that are easily
accessible by non-car users.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>
I also have to second Jumble's objections.  Thanks. 
--Shafferl 22:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications please? 

message: I have started a section on Town planning it may be that someone with internet access and an interest in this article could Google "ABC" guidelines Netherlands and start filling this in.  ;-)  --Sf 11:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re ABC Guidelines references thereto 

message: Wow, I really like what you've done with this article Shane - good direction, and a nice fresh start after some other dead-end articles. I've put in a few minor fixes already, and I think I'll try to make some more extensive edits over the next month or two. I'm thinking of starting with the one-way street example, which is currently a bit confusing. "One-way streets" encompasses a wide range of types of streets: high volume multilane one-way arterials, high-volume single lane streets, and quiet residential streets. I think the solution would depend on the situation - the first two are highly disadvantageous to cyclists, but the last type is more suitable for conversion to "one way except cyclists".
You've phrased a lot of this article in language like "It is argued that..."  It would also be nice to establish which of those is controversial (and need to retain the "it is argued that...") and which is uncontroversial and can be simplified.
I may take a look at the ABC guidelines too, although I've only read two or three articles on the Dutch system. I know the Canadian/US context (i.e., minimal regulation to allow multimodal access to retail) but not the UK context, and only a little of the continental European situation.
-- Drpritch 21:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-way streets and more 

message: The "clothing optional bike rides" link seemed gratuitous to me. First, I think it's likely that fewer than .001% of regular utilty cyclists deliver goods, pull rickshaws, etc. while naked. Second, even if there are those that do (eg people on large private reserves, farms, etc. who ride naked while towing, say, a load of harvested tomatoes,) that in itself doesn't qualify "nude bike rides" for inclusion in the links list. It'd be akin to adding "costumed bike rides" as a link in this article; it just doesn't fit. 
--Anachron 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Clothing optional bike rides" link. 

message: Seems to be pov pushing to me.  Gerry Lynch 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative retail policy

message: :Some governments, wishing to promote private car use, have organized and funded publicity designed to discourage road cycling.
That's a fascinating claim if true. Can it be substantiated with a reference?--Malcohol 11:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm on reflection, that wording might be difficult to defend.  To my knowledge, it is certainly true that the accusation has been made by cyclists reps that such an agenda has been at play in some Governmental interventions.  Finding clearly expressed examples of the state explicitly acting out of such motives might be harder, but I suspect not impossible, to track down. A good place to start might be 1930s Germany or the recent shenanigans in Shanghai.--Sf 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another obvious place to look would be at the arguments used to justify banning, or trying to ban Cycle rickshaws in various places.  --Sf 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Found interesting discussion doc here http://zerocouriers.com/workbike/research/calcutta.html, and here's one that discusses the "war" waged by the Jakarta city authorities against the "becak" http://zerocouriers.com/workbike/research/Becak.pdf, thats enough wiki research for today. --Sf 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact? 

message: "Alternatively, the low-density, non-circular (i.e., linear) settlement patterns characteristic of urban sprawl tends to discourage cycling"  Umm, I often pedal out to the suburbs, or unfold the bike in a suburban rail station and go through several suburbs because, linear or circular or not, bicycling there is often more pleasant or interesting than back home in the inner city.  I'm not the only one; bike clubs based in the central city often organize tours out in the land of lawns.  Perhaps some citation or clarification can be provided for this alleged discouragement, if not in this article then in one to which this one links.  Jim.henderson 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure if you want we can provide sources.  However, your observations appear to relate to recreational cycling "bike tours" etc.  This is the utility cycling article isn't it? --Sf 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linear sprawl

message: I've just noticed that much of the 'Factors that influence levels of utility cycling' section in this article is (or was prior to recent edits here) almost identical to the 'Bicycle-friendly' article.  I propose to remove the common content from this article and link a brief summary of it to the other article, there's little point having such a huge overlap.  Any comments? -- de Facto (talk). 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree - see above discussion re infrastructure --Sf (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that the content of the Bicycle-friendly article was originally copied directly from this article, and that that article is now widely linked to, why doesn't it make sense to you to also refer this article to that one, rather than have a virtually identical copy here of practically all its contents? -- de Facto (talk). 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  At some point there may be a case to be made for splitting some material out. I don't believe that case has yet been made and in the normal turn of events would require prior discussion.  The fact that some-one just took it on himself to split material out does not of itself make that case.  As you yourself indicate it makes no sense to have two virtually identical copies of the same material and it imposes redundant effort on those maintaining the material this suggests that for the moment, the best solution is to put a redirect on the "bicycle friendly" page to point to this article.  --Sf (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  I would also add that if, after discussion, a consensus is reached on splitting out some material on infrastructure management then an article with the title "bicycle friendly" would not seem to be an intuitive place to put it.--Sf (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of material common to the [[Bicycle-friendly]] article 

message: Sf commented-out the comment concerning the role of separate cycling facilities in achieving increased cycling rates, that I had added from the Pucher and Buehler paper, with the edit summary: "Not actually in print till July 2008 and is already the subject of a formal complaint to the editorial board".  I have just reinstated a slightly modified version of the original point, accomodating Sf's reservation about publication status, but would be interested to know who has made the formal complaint to the editorial board, and on what grounds. -- de Facto (talk). 09:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually there are two complaints in progress, by me, among others. A colleague sought clarification from Prof. Pucher regarding apparent discrepancies between his paper and what we are reading in the German literature. The Professor's response was a series of ad hominem attacks, wherein he demonstrably failed to address the issues being raised.  The Professor's behaviour in this regard is now the subject of a formal complaint to the editorial board of Transport Reviews.  As to his paper, I have indicated to Prof David Banister (the Editor) that I have concerns regarding the content and that the last version I saw had an apparent error of fact. A formal document on that matter is in progress. --Sf (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little late into this... and maybe it's already published... but, published or not Pucher is a pretty well known advocate and I think the source can be used as an advocate source if not as an academic one before it's formally published in a journal (if it is). gren グレン 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pucher and Buehler paper 

message: There's considerable overlap between Vehicular Cycling and Utility cycling.  Vehicular cycling reads more like an essay than an article, with most citations being from one book by a proponent of the term.  Utility Cycling is more neutral in coverage.  Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge: [[Vehicular cycling]] into [[Utility cycling]] 

message: "Bicycle Training," as written here, should be shifted to the "Vehicular Cycling" page. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move: Bicycle Training into [[Vehicular Cycling]] 

message: The sub-section "Cycle lanes and cycle tracks" should either provide references or be
removed as Original Research. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycle lanes and cycle tracks 

message: Hi there, the picture is pretty, but it's too dark. Can someone please correct the gamma or something? Thanks 121.102.40.109 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, just one step lighter — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amsterdam picture 

message: So, the discussion above about commuting has spawned a proposal to convert Bicycle infrastructure from its current status as a redirect, to a full article.  I agree, as the present article is too long and disjointed, thus ripe for WP:SPLIT.  Some parts are indeed about this class of use, while about half is about infrastructure, thus not exclusively relevant to this class of use.  Questions of merging other class-of-use articles can await completion of the utility / infrastructure split.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. From my point of view, that is the most sensible starting point for a new article, and then a possible merge (for which discussion I initiated here) can be reviewed at a later stage. --Heb (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off [[Bicycle infrastructure]] 

message: The Rise of Urban Biking by Ben Adler September 27, 2011 in The Nation  99.56.123.210 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential source 

message: I propose merging Cycling mobility into Utility cycling (maybe merging the positive and negative aspects into the general article Cycling), and making a redirect. Reasons: the differences are too vague to justify two articles where the same aspects are repeated. In all other languages, and in Commons, these subjects are combined in one article. Dovaere (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal [[Cycling mobility]] into [[Utility cycling]]