Talk:Cycle path debate

This redirect was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Cyclecraft/Effective Cycling/Cycle Path Debate

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)

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)[reply]

I note that this page continues to be poor and the Segregated cycle facilities seems to be very good. I'd suggest merging. Richard Keatinge 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

cycle path debate is not bike lane debate

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)

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)

A cycle path is not a bike lane

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)[reply]

I went ahead and made the few changes necessary to clarify that this article addresses cycle paths, and not cycle lanes. --Serge 00:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against cycle paths

-- Dpayne1912 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC) The following points may be quite valid, but they are not immediately obvious, even to an experience cycle-path rider like myself. I would recommend that either more explanation be added, or these points be removed. (I'm hesitant to remove them myself, as I may just be ignorant of their veracity.):[reply]

Cycle paths and car parking spaces do not mix well.
Cycle paths and bus stops do not mix well.
Cycle paths and pedestrians do not mix well.

--- I've removed the 'parking spaces' and 'bus stops' points, as there are neither along cycle paths (which are not cycle/bike lanes). On the other hand, pedestrian traffic can be found, at least occasionally, on most cycle paths (even if travel by foot is officially prohibited). Bruce Rosar 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly-constructed paths causing injury

I removed the following point against cycle paths:

* The majority of injuries to cyclists are not caused by collisions with motor vehicles; moving cyclists from well-constructed roads to poorly-constructed paths may result in more injuries.

I don't have any figures to back this up but I would be surprised if more injuries are caused to cyclists by poorly-constructed cycle paths than accidents involving collisions or avoiding collisions with motor vehicles. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though.

The general figure is that 85% of cycling injuries occur due to falls or collisions with roadside objects. Collisions with motor vehicles account for the remaining 15%. However the average injury severity and risk of fatality is higher in the latter case. --Sf 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Personally I feel that the original point was scraping the barrel somewhat but if it's reinserted I won't remove it.

Weasel words

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)[reply]

cycle paths offer superior riding comfort

Removed for 2 reasons: 1) opinion stated as fact. Can the author prove that ALL cycle paths offer superior riding comfort? 2) "isn't forced to constantly concentrate on potential dangers" -- this is incorrect. Off road cycle paths are often shared with pedestrians or are near pedestrian facilities. They are often as likely to require concentration on potential dangers as on-road.

Removed text: "* Irrespective of the actual safety level, cycle paths offer superior riding comfort compared to on-road cycling. This is in part due to a higher perception of safety (which may be subjective) and in part because the cyclist only needs to watch out for motor vehicles at junctions, and isn't forced to constantly concentrate on potential dangers."

Article relates to safety of cycle lanes, not roads

removed text "* Removing cyclists from main roads allows motor vehicles to go faster; this causes more road traffic accidents in general." This article is not a debate about car accidents. Moreover it demonstrates one goal of the anti-bike-lane lobby; forcing cars and bikes into conflict.

Lack of progress on POV issues

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)[reply]

As I suggested a couple of years ago, I suggest that this page needs deleting. If it contains anything of value, it can be incorporated into the much better article Segregated cycle facilities, which includes more nuanced and much better-referenced views of the debate. I might do this later this week. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with redirect to Segregated cycle facilities

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)[reply]

Yep I agree. This page has probably gone beyond its sell by date. --79.97.130.200 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above was left by me --Sf (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]