From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

As of now we don't have a page on Bicycle infrastructure, but the subject is handled a number of various places:

There could easily be more "out there", but personally I find it rather confusing with all these sources and currently this page redirects to Utility cycling#Cycling_infrastructure (because I just created it). There seem to be a huge amount of information about various types of bicycle infrastructure on EnWiki, but I don't think it is very easy to find. Furthermore some points are sourced some places, other on other places, and unfortunately quite a few are not sourced at all, but this isn't very obvious right now. Therefore I suggest that the above pages/sections be merged into this page. -- Heb ( talk) 08:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Not to mention the underpopulated Category:Cycling infrastructure. I think it's a good idea to have a page for cycling infrastructure but I don't think we need merge tags everywhere: Segregated cycle facilities at the very least will remain a stand-alone article due to it's length and comprehensiveness. Bicycle infrastructure (or, as I'd prefer, Cycling infrastructure) would then group together what we already have, as summaries if we have too much, and fill in any other areas that we are missing. Severo T C 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree regarding segregated cycle facilities. Wither it should be cycling infrastructure or bicycle infrastructure or bicycling infrastructure for that matter I have no preferences (I'm not really sure what the difference regarding cycling and bicycling is - I've always assumed that the former is American English and the latter British English, but never dived into it...). -- Heb ( talk) 15:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Merging anything into this article makes no sense since it's a redirect. Also the arguments presented in Talk:Utility_cycling#Proposed_merge:_Vehicular_cycling_into_Utility_cycling are valid against expanding that article any further. So, the two main alternatives I see are creating a whole new article here instead of just a redirect, or moving the relevant content into bicycle friendly. Jim.henderson ( talk) 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
...and why don't we have a page on Bicycle infrastructure??, Bicycle infrastructure is just too long to be inside Utility cycling, it should be a separate page, it takes away the Real Meaning of Utility cycling, and makes for a totally unbalanced article. Segregated cycle facilities and Bikeway should be part of a separate Bicycle infrastructure article, and definitely Bicycle commuting shoud be merged into nto Utility cycling· — Moebiusuibeom-en ( talk) 16:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC) · reply
Utility cycling should discuss how infrastructure can promote or discourage utility cycling. Everything else should be in a separate article. -- Triskele Jim ( talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

So, I did the split, except it's to Cycling infrastructure. I hope nobody thinks this an overhasty action. Next few days will be busy for me, what with a Metric Century tomorrow on North County Trailway and connecting greenways, astronomy seminar Friday, Wikipedia: The Musical and telescopic observing in Central Park Saturday, and Tour de Bronx Sunday, but my other hope is that others will look into moving material around among the now existing articles, deleting duplications or things the encyclopedia shouldn't be saying even once, etc before I get a closer look next week. Jim.henderson ( talk) 23:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I somewhat agree with the merge because the Bikeway page is a one-liner, my main concern is that the term Bikeway is sometimes used for dedicated trailways, (e.g. Edgar_Felix_Bikeway, a rail-trail), while the infrastructure page is all about public roadways, any merge should take this into consideration. DCwom ( talk) 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I like the Bicycle infrastructure page now. It is a superset of segregated cycle facilities and bikeway so should likely be separate from the other pages simply to provide a broader overview. Segregated cycle facilities has a lot of material so wouldn't easily merge in. If anything bikeway is a sub-set of either Bicyle infrastructure or segregated cycle facilities and should be merged into it, particularly since it's a stub. -- Nubeli ( talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

In an extended move of above, I've moved the content of Bikeway to Cycling infrastructure#Bikeways and created an redirect. I've also moved the {{Merge to |Bicycle infrastructure|discuss=Talk:Bicycle infrastructure#merge|date=September 2011}} from Segregated cycle facilities and WL'ed to Cycling infrastructure several places. Thus the merge-suggestion above should now be concluded. Thank you for your input and a special thank to User:Jim.henderson for his split and sequent actions :) In kind regards Heb ( talk) 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Segregation

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". ( Mightybeancounter ( talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)). reply

for Segregated cycle facilities: maybe so, but that should be proposed at the relevant talk page. For this one, I disagree, as the facilities are for the activity of cycling, not for bicycles as objects. Severo T C 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Or perhaps Separate Development though I like to hope we've grown up somewhat since the 20th century and need no longer fear words that were used then as euphemism. More to the point, I just noticed that we've been using the wrong forum. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling would be more appropriate to these discussions.

Merger/split of Bikeway

I think that this type of infrastructure is notable enough it should be split back into its own article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

SolaRoad, world's first PV bike path

Calling PV enthusiasts and interested eds, please expand SolaRoad! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Recent merge and jumbled terminology. Restore Segregated cycle facilities?

Is there a discussion somewhere about the merging of Segregated cycle facilities into Cycling infrastructure? Or was this a unilateral effort?

Right now Segregated cycle facilities redirects to Cycling infrastructure#Bikeways, but that's inaccurate. Not all bikeways are segregated. For example, bikeways are divided into 3 classes: bike paths, bike lanes and bike routes. Only the first two are segregated. Class 3 bike routes, or sharrowed lanes, are bikeways that are integrated - shared between motorists and cyclists. Even bike lanes are only partially segregated.

At least in the Segregated cycle facilities article there was years of input from many people, lots of discussion and corrections. Seems like much of wisdome got lost. I'm tempted to restore Segregated cycle facilities. -- В²C ☎ 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I took another look at Segregated cycle facilities and decided to revert the change to a redirect. There is too much great information there, without jumbling of terminology. -- В²C ☎ 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I disagree with your reversion. None of the information was lost. Everything was standardized with the Cycling infrastructure page and the links to different kinds of cycling infrastructure. All the information was captured and either incorporated into Cycling infrastructure or into other pages.
Now by reverting you haven't improved anything, instead we've now got duplicates all over the place. Instead of reverting you could have created a section on Cycling infrastructure to refer to any category of "segregated" versus non. I just don't think it's such an important categorization that it actually deserves a whole page that duplicates a lot of the same information as Cycling infrastructure. Instead just improve this page. Nubeli ( talk) 15:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Traffic Calming Not Bicycle Friendly

Traffic calming is not bicycle friendly. To continue to argue this when there is a strong opposition to that is misleading and wrong.

Nantucketnoon ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply 

Nantucketnoon (
talk) 20:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
We would need good sources, used as the basis for coherent arguments. I look forward to what you may produce. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Since traffic calming includes a wide range of techniques, I don't see how a generalization like that can be supported. Some applications, like those used along bicycle boulevards to slow motor vehicles to bicycle speeds, can be beneficial to cyclists.-- Triskele Jim 02:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply


It is pretty obvious that speed bumps designed to slow cars down would not be beneficial to bicycles or bicyclists.

"The researchers also found that speed bumps were dangerous to bicyclists, motorcyclists and firefighters who ride on the backs of fire trucks. [O]ne of Fogarty's students who researched the speed bump found the speed-control devices have created problems ever since they debuted in St. Louis in 1958." http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1988-04-28/topic/0030400066_1_speed-bumps-higher-speeds-speed-control-devices

"However, evidence from the 23 papers reviewed (eight that examined intersections and 15 that examined straightaways) suggests that infrastructure influences injury and crash risk. Intersection studies focused mainly on roundabouts. They found that multi-lane roundabouts can significantly increase risk to bicyclists unless a separated cycle track is included in the design." http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-47

I have been at the meetings where traffic calming is called for, it is one or two hysterical people crying about the children. The government an eager dupe to show how concerned they are about safety.

Their time is gone. Speed bumps discourage bicycling. Bicycling slows cars down better than speed bumps.

There was a lot more, newspapers articles, mostly, with some studies, about various people & groups wanting to rid the roads of this dangerous nuisance. The recent elections were partly about rebuking condescending politicians, too~smart engineers, who think that making the roads more dangerous makes them safer~ even as the traffic engineers in government acknowledge that they do not deter speeding cars & are dangerous to cyclists, that they, themselves, are eager to move away from them. The people that stir up their neighbors with sensational stories~ either not true, an exception, or, from another time altogether~ need to be confronted & put down.

Design the roads properly, control development, do things right in the first place, & such ludicrous, divisive stop~gaps as speed bumps will disappear~ & rightly so!

Nantucketnoon ( talk) 05:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Your first reference says that road humps do effectively slow motor traffic, but if motorized traffic goes too fast over them, this can cause problems. Also "speed humps pose little hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians because the rise is much less abrupt."
Your second, a useful academic review, summarizes its findings as "They found that multi-lane roundabouts can significantly increase risk to bicyclists unless a separated cycle track is included in the design." - this points out that high-speed turbo roundabouts are unsuitable for cyclists, but a separate track is a good solution. That seems to be indicating that suitable infrastructure is indeed associated with better safety. Is anyone seriously suggesting that high speed "turbo" roundabouts are cycling infrastructure? They are classic examples of areas where separate cycling facilities are needed.
And in "studies of straightaways... the presence of bicycle facilities (e.g. on-road bike routes, on-road marked bike lanes, and off-road bike paths) was associated with the lowest risk." Again, not very surprising, indicating that good-quality facilities (unlike bad ones, see http://warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month) probably do help safety. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Departmental engineers of the DOT admit that speed bumps are dangerous to bicyclists and fail in slowing cars down significantly on roads. The government is aware of the issues brought up. Nantucketnoon ( talk) 00:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you have a source for that? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 21:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Other Languages

I wanted to add en:cycling infrastructure to the "andere Sprachen" (other languages) list of the German article de:Radverkehrsanlage. Unfortunally some languages have multiple articles about cycle paths and cycling infrastructure in general. Since I can only use a automated translator to check what it is about, I want somebody else to check the languages she/he is able to understand.

I will remove most articles from wikidata:Q221722 and add it to wikidata:Q5198662. I will repost this in the diskusions of involved articles. -- Draco305 ( talk) 11:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cycling infrastructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cycling infrastructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Cycling_infrastructure&oldid=1195100567"