Talk:Segregated cycle facilities/Archive 1

message: This article focuses on segregating cyclists from motorists, largely ignoring the issue of pedestrians. This seems relevant to the topic at hand. 129.2.211.72 20:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedestrians? 

message: Remove cycle path debate 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 13:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclecraft/Effective Cycling/Cycle Path Debate 

message: Some parts of the article seemed to be biased against cycle lanes, for instance "In Helsinki, it is now proven categorically that cyclists are safer cycling on the roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km of cycle paths." To state something to be proven 'categorically' is a rather extreme statement to make, backed up with no evidence, and I highly doubt that it is possible to prove such a thing categorically because of the nature of the issues involved. -- Joolz 23:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Agree 100% with comments made by 'Joolz'. There are a number of claims made in the article with no supporting references. Moreover, several landmark studies done in the US are not mentioned at all. It is as if someone lifted an inane flamewar thread from a Usenet cycling group and turned it into a Wiki article. 
Other problems:
1. It is never clear as to whether the entry is talking about Class I or Class II facilities -- there is a huge difference.
*Class I is a cycleway/bike trail; Class II combines cycle tracks/sidepaths with cycle lanes/bike lanes. Class I facilities are only possible where a corridor exists, like an old railroad, and can be treated as a road that prohibits motorized vehicles. Class II seems to be overly broad, including both sidepaths (which have major problems at intersections) and bike lanes (which have fewer issues, though they have an issue with parking). --SPUI (talk) 12:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bike Lanes

message: While everything presented in wikipedia articles should be sourced from reliable material this is not the same thing as stating that every statement should include inline references or links to named sources.  See debate here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#References_vs._Footnotes
There are readability issues at stake here.  In this case the it is a matter of historical fact that some cycling groups fought, and continue to fight, to resist the imposition of cycle tracks.  It is a matter of historical fact that in many case they were orginally (and in some cases are still) intended to benefit motorists not cyclists.  It is a matter of historical fact that there have been long standing concerns about the safety of such devices.  It is a matter of historical fact that various studies in various countries have confirmed serious safety problems.  It is a matter of historical fact that remedial measures have had to be developed.  These facts are only a matter of "controversy" for those directly involved in the accompanying debates.  For those outside the debate they are merely part of the story.  However, for those who wish to advise themselves regarding the safe use of roads while cycling or the safe design of roads for cyclists - they are essential parts of the story. --Sf 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline references - really necessary for everything??

message: The article still fails meet NPOV standards.
There are numerous problems in the article, but the one that jumps out the most is the contention that spending on bike facilities does not increase bike mode share.
: It should be reworded to state that there is no /proof/ that spending increases bike share mode then. - Jumble 
For example, the article misinterprets the data from the Netherlands. During a time when virtually every other western country saw precipitous declines in bike mode share, the Netherlands was able to avert such a decline by maintaining high levels of investment in bike infrastructure. In fact, the data show that went up several percentage points. Now, if you think a few percentage points is not significant, consider that the amount of money being spent was still miniscule relative to train and auto, so we are talking huge bang for the buck (note, by the way, that tens of BILLIONS have been spent on various rail projects without having any measurable affect on mode share).
: In order to talk about whether or not something is significant requires specific statistical measures to be applied.  If the trend shows fluctuation of more than a few percentage points then you can't make inferences such as the one that you wish to draw. - Jumble
And when one looks to places like SF Bay Area, the results are quite dramatic. The SF Dept. of Parking and Traffic has measured 50%(!!) increases in bike traffic on key routes after installing bike lanes. Oakland measured a 3X drop in accidents after striping a rather minimal bike lane on Telegraph Ave.
-EM
East Bay Bicycle Coalition
: You need to show that cyclists weren't merely diverted from other routes onto the bike lane routes if you're trying to prove that spending on segregated facilities increases /bike mode share/.  The Dublin data cited in the article fly in the face of your contention. - Jumble
 
-- It also talks about "robust growth" in Germany and Ireland with no investment in infastructure, but it doesn't say what type of growth it was (number of bikes purchased, % of journeys done on bikes, % of commuters using bikes etc), I know in the UK at the moment around 2% of journeys are completed on bikes (Source: BBC News), which is a very low figure compared to other countries in Europe. -- Joolz 10:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, round 2 

message: To quote Mr. McCaughrin  "Netherlands was able to avert such a decline by maintaining high levels of investment in bike infrastructure".  If this is meant to suggest that the level of cycle use in the Netherlands is primarily attributable to the precence of segregated cycle facilities then I and others would reject this as a gross over simplification.   For example in the Netherlands and Denmark figures for up to 35% of train journeys starting by bicycle might be seen in some areas.   The key ingredients for this are.  
 
*1) an efficient, attractive and affordable train service 
*2) secure bike parking at train stations 
*3) a town planning policy that results in a sufficient density of population (eg 35%) living/working within a reasonable cycling distance of these train stations.  
There is no way that segregated cycling facilities could be argued to be logically necessary to the equation.  If of a high quality they might be nice but in my opinion they can not be argued to be necessary.  However, (to deal with Mr. McCaughrin comments re funding rail) it can be argued in relation to this aspect of Dutch or Danish policy that ongoing investment in rail services is vital to maintaining the levels of cycle use.
* Yes! Obviously the ability to cycle from your front door to said bike park without having to use any roads shared with cars is irrelevent. Please try to learn about realities of cycle use, and culture, here in the Netherlands. oh and the Dutch think their train network is rubbish (it´s not, but popular opinion here is that it is).  --EasyTarget 15:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  4. Netherlands investment in bike infrastructure 

message: Are people strongly opposed to an article title of "Bicycle paths and lanes" ?
Monk127 18:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd prefer "Cycle paths and lanes", but I think either's an improvement on the current one. -- Joolz 19:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'd prefer either as well.  But I think "bicycle" would maybe be better since "cycle" can mean many different things whereas "bicycle" is exact.  Also, the wikipedia article on bikes is "Bicycle".  --Monk127 19:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you allowed to use tricycles on cycle lanes? ;) -- Joolz 19:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah, you're right, there's all those other wheeled things... trikes, recumbents, skates, skateboards, training wheels...  hmmm... :)  --Monk127 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In all seriousness, bicycles is acceptable to me, because we can always mention in the article whether or not other stuff is allowed to use the bike lanes -- Joolz 23:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The use of the term "segregated cycle facility" is standard in formal/official discussions of the topic in the UK and Ireland and is generally understood to encompass the following concepts.
*Bike path (redirect page) 
*Bicycle path (redirect page) 
*Cycleway (redirect page) 
*Cycle lane (redirect page) 
*Cycle path (redirect page) 
*Segegated cycling facility (redirect page) 
*Cycle-path (redirect page) 
*Bicycle paths (redirect page) 
*Bike lane (redirect page) 
*Bicycle lane (redirect page) 
*Multi-use path (redirect page) 
*Segregated bicycle facilities (redirect page) 
*Sidepath (redirect page) 
*Multi-use trail (redirect page) 
*Bicycle lanes (redirect page) 
*Bicycle facilities (redirect page) 
--Sf 10:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I had a look at both versions and hopefully I've worked out a good comprimise between the two. I agree that we shouldn't use the word 'city' because here in the UK (where the weather is not so good!) there is a strict definition of 'city' - I live in an urban area but it isn't a city. On the other hand, hopefully I've managed to tone down the rather lawyeristic language that was employed previously. -- Joolz 23:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name

message: ...and edit comments of 11:41, 12 Apr 2005.
Hi, here it's a beautiful spring day, the sun is out, and it's a great day for a human powered destination facilitator ride.  Objective considerations of current phenomena will compel the conclusion to head on out to the closest segregated cycle facility or maybe just on down the interurban type situations.  But geez, they all have urban characters around here with high junction density.  If I roll down the path and I have to pee, I can go in the bushes or utilize the medium density human waste disposal management systems.  Seeya.  --Monk127 20:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at both versions and hopefully I've worked out a good comprimise between the two. I agree that we shouldn't use the word 'city' because here in the UK (where the weather is not so good!) there is a strict definition of 'city' - I live in an urban area but it isn't a city. On the other hand, hopefully I've managed to tone down the rather lawyeristic language that was employed previously. -- Joolz 23:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the revert of 11:14, 12 Apr 2005

message: The title of this article is NPOV! Segregated sounds very pejorative because of the racial usage and because cyclists are also a minority powerwise like many third world countries inhabitants are (in the past with blatant violation of human rights and now with more subtle north-south pressure such as the Debt, industrial neo-colonisation etc. ). Because of global warming cycling should be prised, not segregated! Not everybody is living in the US with a public transport anemia, a global worshiping of cars and a rejection of the Kioto protocol! By the way, cars after a rational analyse could probably be counsidered as the worst plague that ever happend to human kind linked to : polution, accidents, obesity, heart attacks, bad mood and many diseases linked to the lack of movement, among them some prying directly on the brain, making any reconsideration of old habits impossible!
** Move to end of page - this appears to be a rant/diatribe by a non-native speaker of English who 1) hasn't actually read the article 2) doesn't understand the typical usage of common English words 3) has various other (geo)political agendas.  (Indeed the historical facts presented in the article could be used to support this person's apparent position if they had chosen to read it!).  While I didn't delete it, I am sympathetic to the view that it should be deleted on grounds of irrelevance to the article in question  --Sf 10:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregated ... !!! 

message: The included ´Look how dangerous the junctions are´ diagram is part of the NPOV problem. It looks designed to give the impression of reckless cyclists jumping the junction and hitting cars. In reality (at least in the UK and Netherlands) the cyclepath is still legally part of the main road, and has priority over the cars turning in and out of the sideroad (think of it as a dual-carrigeway) i.e. the cars should be stopping to let the cycle past. Maybe you could add some policemen arresting the car drivers? --EasyTarget 14:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: What is the evidence behind this sentence:
:"Although such treatments are often proclaimed as safety "improvements" in many cases the actual intent is to restore the level of safety that existed before the marking/construction of the segregated cycle facility."
I find it rather tendentious. 
For the rest, an interesting read, though counterintuitive. It does not say anything about why these segregated cycle facilities are so unsafe, except for the rather obvious point that it's due to intersections. Two possible causes that I can think of is that cars don't see the cyclists and that cyclists feel safer. Does any of the sources speculate on this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent of remedial measures 

message: Bicycle lane is not the same thing - a bicycle lane is a lane dedicated to bicycle use, but on a road designed for motor vehicles.  Segregated cycle facilities, on the other hand, are facilities completely separated (and protected) from motor vehicle roads.  222.2.109.55 10:37, 10 Jun 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle lane 

message: An article on Bike lane debate was AFDed, and the debate can be read here. Although there was a strong majority to delete, there were two who hinted that something in that article might be worth adding to this article. The last revision of that article can be reviewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bike lane debate AFD 

message: Stepping aside from the somewhat contradictory (or absent) statistics that support integration or segregation (if I can refer to the two sides of the debate in those terms), it seems that something 'useful' might come from taking another look at the issue from the conceptual point of view.  If we accept that segregation involves creating 'two streams of traffic' where previously there was one, then we create the opportunity to apply a 'mathematical' approach.  If we accept that in a segregated cycling 'world' the risk comes (generally) from two things (1) errors in driving where cycling and motor vehicle traffic streams cross (collision), and (2) crossing into the 'other' traffic stream in error (encroachment).
If we are looking at segregated cycling, the greater the number of intersections, the greater the risk of collision.  Furthermore, the less consistently and clearly the separate traffic streams are demarcated, the more likely there will be encroachment.
A 'mind game' will prove the logic.  In the situation where there are two traffic streams  that are demarcated by an obvious physical barrier and never cross there is unlikely to be any collisions between vehicles in each of those traffic streams.   Conversley (and this is a real word observation), in an urban environment with many road intersections we are likely to see a very high number of instances where motor traffic and bicycle traffic streams cross, and we are likely to observe that the demarcation is not consistent (it is interupted at each intersection) and often not clear (in an already visually cluttered urban environment).
The usefullness of this observation is that it allows Segregationists and Integrationists to agree that there are some circumstances where segregation is acceptable to all parties.  Essentially that is in cases where there are relatively few intersections.  In that case there are relatively few points where traffic streams cross, and it is possible to use a consistent (largely uninterupted) demarcation that will have relatively few other visual road information indicators to compete for attention with.  Essentially we are saying that segregation introduces an additional degree of complexity in the driving environment, as well as a degree of inherent safety.  In some cases however (and it is more likely in an already complex - often urban - driving environment) the additional complexity involved in segregation raises the overall complexity of the driving environment beyond a threshold where not only is that inherent 'safety' negated, but in fact overall road safety is prejudiced.
If it was possible to agree on this we might create the opportunity for folk on both sides of the debate to acknowledge that they agree on some things without the risk of appearing to 'concede' ground 'illogically', or worse still, not concede anything (however 'obvious') because it might detract from other folk's perception of the 'weight of their conviction'.  Segregationists and Integrationists can then focus on discussing the best way of handling cycle traffic in complex driving environments.   
Another 'mind game' might illustrate what we have 'traditionally' done in this area.  Imagine separate streams of traffic for bicycles, cars, motorbikes, buses and trucks.  Possible on highways, but in urban areas?  Could it be managed in urban areas?  Yes possibly, but it would take considerable planning and investment.  In practice we compromise, we have lanes for buses, and 'truck routes', but generally we 'share'.  There are visibility issues and driving issues, generally we manage them.  Some history on how we reached this 'arrangement' might illuminate the current debate on segregated (vs integrated) cycling.
I'll see if I can find some sources to 'prop' this case up, and move it into the article if warranted.  Regards, Tban 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts 

message: The Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation article seems to me to be a natural sub-section of this article.  It only has one article linking to it - this one, and a lot of its content is duplicated here.  Is there a good reason to have it separate? -- de Facto (talk). 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SIZE - articles shouldn't be much longer than 32KB - this article is already 36KB. So the page needs some splitting - and I don't see much duplicated material. What is on this page should be a summary of the child page: it seems fit for purpose. So I oppose a merge. --Mk3severo 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose It was split out precisely because the article is getting quite long and this child page will also have to grow to take in Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc etc  (SF Not logged in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.178.4 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in of [[Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation]]