Talk:Cycle path debate

message: Remove merge tags for the moment.  The Cyclecraft/Effective Cycling/Cycle path debate  issue  is about much more than the isolated issue of Segregated cycle facilities.  The issue covers the totality of how cyclists are best catered for including other issues such as education and enforcement, general road design, urban planning and the whole gamut of spatial/traffic management policies.  Some of the material at cycle path debate may end up going back into the segregated cycle facilities article but it is likely that much of the relevant material will still require it's own treatment.  In my opinion it is best in the meantime to clean up and expand Cycle path debate article and then make a decision about what should be merged or kept. 
--Sf 13:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's been a year and a half, why are there still redundant articles about the same issues? 65.210.78.98 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyclecraft/Effective Cycling/Cycle Path Debate

message: I'm not aware of a "cycle path debate".
Even John Forester does not oppose utilitarian paths for cyclists.
The debate about bike lanes, however, or cycle lanes, is quite real.  I'm thinking about starting a separate entry on that, because it is something else again, and most of the points on this page do not apply to it.
-- Serge Issakov, April 26, 2005
:There are those who oppose spending money on bike paths, arguing that the money is spent better elsewhere because bikes should ride in the street. Anyway, this article seems to pertain mostly to the idea of a dense network of sidepaths like a few European countries have tried, with separate traffic lights and all. It also pertains to rail-trails that lie right next to a road (usually because next to the railroad was a good place for the road). Though I wouldn't oppose a move to Cycle facility debate. --SPUI (talk) 01:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But a "cycle facility debate" is still substantially different from a bike/cycle lane debate.  A bike lane is a specific type of cycle facility, and has many characteristics that are peculiar to it, upon which much of the bike lane debate is based, and has nothing to do with the pro/con arguments that apply to debates about bike facilities in general.  --Serge Issakov, 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cycle path debate is not bike lane debate

message: The opening sentence is confusing terms, I believe...
:A cycle path or bike lane is a track or road designated for use by cyclists that is generally segregated from roads used by motor vehicles. It may be built for the purpose, or it may be an existing path marked as a cycle path. In some countries cycle paths are shared with pedestrians.
I believe the correct term here is not cycle path or bike lane (or bike path for that matter), but is bikeway (or segregated cycle facility).  Bike/cycle paths and lanes are distinct types of bikeways.  
There is a cycle path debate, to be sure, but this is different from the bikeway debate (the apparent topic of this article) and the bike lane debate.  An article titled Cycle path debate should address the debate concerning, well, cycle paths.  Yet this Cycle path debate article addresses bike lanes as well as paths.  
I think the title of this article should be changed to something like Bikeway debate  or Segregated cycling facilities debate, or the content should be changed to address only the pros and cons of cycle paths, and not cycle lanes, leaving that topic to bike lane debate.  --Serge 00:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cycle path is not a bike lane 

message: -- Dpayne1912 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against cycle paths 

message: WP:WEASEL frowns upon the use of weasel words such as "Many advocates...".  Specifically who "advocates" needs to be stated, with citations of sources to allow verification. -De Facto 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: So no one has touched this discussion page in the last 2 years.  I am reading the arguments against cycle paths and it looks like a hit piece written by select cyclists who detest the concept.  I see a lot of opinion and personal preference being written up as fact.  I think a significant degree of work is needed on this article and to remove the POV. Alyeska (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of progress on POV issues 

message: I have incorporated some of the text and references from here into Segregated cycle facilities, and I suggest that the rest is valueless. I'll leave this for a few days and then plan to replace with a simple redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep I agree. This page has probably gone beyond its sell by date. --79.97.130.200 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment above was left by me --Sf (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace with redirect to [[Segregated cycle facilities]]