Talk:Utility cycling

Merge 6 Sep 05

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)

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)

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)

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)

Biased Phrasing problems, General lack of evidence

Object to this phrasing

In addition, cyclists can cause disruption when there is no cycle lane available and no way for other road-users to move past,

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)

Also object to the unsourced assertion in this phrase:

It is generally accepted that cycling is only considered a viable form of transport for short trips: 6 km or less

-- Jumble 17:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes this point (written by me) needs to be expanded and to go in at the head of the article. --Sf 09:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarifications please?

I just wanted to request that someone clarify these two sentences:

In Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany, this approach not

restricted to planning guidelines and is also supported by a ban on

below cost selling.

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 also have to second Jumble's objections. Thanks.

--Shafferl 22:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re ABC Guidelines references thereto

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)

One-way streets and more

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)

Removed "Clothing optional bike rides" link.

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)

Common sense dawns with a spring chorus! Thanks for doing that. --Sf 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative retail policy

Seems to be pov pushing to me. Gerry Lynch 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Are the facts in dispute? --Sf 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Linear sprawl

"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)

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)

Bias

Cycling is a form of transport. This article panders to the idea that using it for practical purposes - ie not for sport or exercise - is somehow abnormal. We don't have an article on utility walking do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No we don't have an article on utility walking - but maybe we should - a colleague of my had a city official laugh into her face when she tried to talk about walking as a form of transport in our city "because everybody knows walking isn't a form of transport" - I couldn't make it up. (Same people think cyclists should dismount and become pedestrians at junctions) --Sf 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Walking is appropriately short, with short sections on different aspects of walking, and links to more detailed articles. The present article, in contrast, is very long, suggesting a complex and difficult activity. Much of it ought to be moved to Bicycle transportation engineering and other more technical articles. Jim.henderson 15:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion (5 years!) so my point is probably mute, but in reference to the comment "... the idea that using it for practical purposes - ie not for sport or exercise - is somehow abnormal ...", the PoV will vary from country to country. In China and the Netherlands, Utility cycling and bicycle commuting is quite normal, in the UK it is less so, but not abnormal, but in some other countries (or parts thereof) it can be seen as wierd. It all depends on where you are. --Escribblings 12:28, 15 September 2013

If you want to do an article on the activity of cycling feel free to start one - this ain't it. -- Sf 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article panders to the idea that using it for practical purposes - ie not for sport or exercise - is somehow abnormal. We don't have an article on utility walking do we? - erm, I don't quite understand this. Are you taking offence at the name of the article or the contents of it? For sure, the article is very long and could do with some reduction (moving stuff to sub-pages). What's the issue here? Severo^TC 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For me, it's mainly the huge amount of stuff that is not directly related. Half the article is infrastructure and facilities (there's a difference?) which ought to be elsewhere. The remainder is also too big and, well, solemn. Yes, encyclopedias are supposed to be serious, but perhaps once the article is a lot shorter, a light hint can be added that even when pedalling to the bank or bakery takes thrice the time, it's ten times less boring.

As for what "an article on the activity of cycling" would look like, I am at a loss unless it refers to some other already existing article. Jim.henderson 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea that the pleasantness of much Utility Cycling ought not be ignored. I would counter, also, the notion that urban cycling takes 3x longer than driving. I find it's often much faster to bike than drive, when considering the time required to find parking, e.g. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Infrastructure

For me, it's mainly the huge amount of stuff that is not directly related. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? Could you give examples please. Pretty much all of the material here is directly relevant and it is all inter-related. --Sf 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add that if the article is long it is partially because on Wikipedia there are people, who are clearly from outside the field, who given to challenging all manner of basic and widely accepted concepts on the apparent basis that "they never heard of that". Leads to a lot of normally unnecessary verbiage. This also relates to issues like excessive tagging of articles see Some_things_I've_noticed_about_Wikipedia --Sf 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough. About half the article is about infrastructure and facilities. These are good things, and certainly should have an article; they are merely out of place in this particular one, having little more relation to utility cycling than to day rides for fun, or other cycling. This useful material should not be under an article whose name says it's about an activity, or at least not under a long one. This branch of civil engineering is important enough to put in its own new Cycling infrastructure article, or the existing Bicycle transportation engineering or Bicycle-friendly ones. This last is my own favorite candidate, being small and, more important, poor, so if its old text is overwhelmed by newly imported technical material, no loss.

Anyone else have an idea of where infrastructure can best be covered? Any of the above alternatives, seems to me, would be more helpful and informative to readers than the present location. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. There should be a page called "Cycling Infrastructure." Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the term "utility cycling" to describe the general concept of using cycles as a means of transportation (as opposed to describing the actual activity) is, in my experience, well established and widely understood. With respect, in my view, your comments on the role of infrastructure being "out of place" or equally applicable to other forms of cycling suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the field. The essence of utility cycling is that it is a means of reaching destinations, not primarily an end in itself, how those destinations are linked is absolutely fundamental to the process. (The fact that some people who are utility cyclists are also cycling enthusiasts does not alter this) Recreational cycling is fundamentally and demonstrably different, I get on my bike I cycle for a length of time and I return, in this case it is the activity of itself that is the benefit. If you were to argue that some of the detail needs splitting out on grounds of length you might have a viable argument. --Sf (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Especially pedal pushing Wikipedia editors will mix bike business with pleasure. Yesterday a technical emergency sent me across town and the quickest way was to unfold the Brompton and bull my way through heavy motor traffic. Problem fixed, I took the long way back through the park, thrice the distance and fun. All of which is more relevant than might be thought, since not only do the same people pedal for business as for fun, but we use the same cyclepaths, lockup racks, bridges and other infrastructure. Sometimes the same ones on alternate days. I must spend tomorrow with an infirm relative, and will use the most scenic, popular riverfront Greenway in town to get there.

General concept, vs actual activity of utility cycling? You mean, these ought to be treated separately? They aren't, now, in Wikipedia. There isn't much in the way of separate articles for the theory and practice of carpentry or poetry either, since an activity usually works better when theory is sound, whilst general concepts that do not enter into practice tend to be sterile. And does infrastructure belong to one and not the other? Like, stripes on the road are part of the actual activity of utility cycling, but not relevant to the general concept? Or vice versa? I have to confess to failing to understand how this distinction is relevant.

The distinction between stripes on the road and my purpose in going somewhere, on the other hand, is clearer, at least to me. I'm pedalling along to deliver electronic parts or to enjoy a warm day, and the stripes on the road help me, no matter why I'm going. Thus traffic light timing or curbstones or sewer grates have just as much to do with cyclotourism as with fetching groceries, far as I see. Infrastructure serves all the purposes we may have on the road. Somehow I must be missing the fundamental and demonstrable point of putting a branch of civil engineering into the Utility Cycling article. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, in my view your comments regarding "stripes" completely miss the point. The central issue is the road the stripes are painted on, how it is designed, how and where it becomes connected to other roads, and what destinations might be reached thereby - these issues are fundamental to the viability of utility cycling - they are not fundamental to other forms of cycling. I have removed the merge tag for the moment. --Sf (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material common to the Bicycle-friendly article

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)

Disagree - see above discussion re infrastructure --Sf (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The arguments are usability, readability, and logic. Much of the information here is only distantly related to the title, "Utility Cycling." It's like having a page called "Motoring" include detailed discussions of highway engineering. One could make an argument for that, but it's not the best way to present usable information: It's unwieldy, discursive, and confusing. "Utility Cycling" is a technical term that differentiates such from "Recreational Cycling" (racing, touring). A discussion of Utility Cycling should encompass commuting, services/delivery, and pedicab. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pucher and Buehler paper

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)

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)

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)

Moving content to Cycling Advocacy.

It appears that a great deal of the material in this article is on developing or maintaining conditions that support utility cycling. Although utility cycling seems to be the primary beneficiary of these activites, I think that the activities themselves are better categorized as cycling advocacy (or more broadly, cycling promotion). This si especially the case since improved facilities (particularly cycle tracks and lanes, and calmed routes) also lend themselves quite nicely to recreational activities like a leisure ride.

Consequently, I think that this material might be better placed in the Cycling Advocacy article (which may need to be re-titled "Cycling Promotion"). This may also help prevent completely ridiculous edits, like the commentary on naked bike rides (whose insertion was likely due to their connection to cycling promotion, rather than utility cycling.) by directing their authors to an article where the information provided may actually be relevant.

Dr kiwano (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some parts might better go to Bicycle culture but yes, the present article has become too long, due to trying to be broad enough to cover topics that are related but better described in linked articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is merit in discussing this. Rather than trying to find other places to put material, could I suggest that we start by first trying to decide what concepts might be best captured in separate articles and come up with titles that also evoke those concepts? --Sf (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what words we've got and what places are already prepared for them. For the material in the short term rental section there's already an article Community bicycle program which is where the specific urban programs ought to go, leaving a small general discussion mainly concentrating on how those institutions discriminate or don't descriminate between commuters or other utility users, and tourists or other pleasure seekers. Other material perhaps ought not to move until a better home is prepared.

OK on the Community Bike material but I think there is a requirement at this point to sit back and take an overview and then decide what broad headings might best serve for grouping material and subsequently any break-out articles. --Sf (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

With a mind to this I took a more recent peek over some of the other comments, and there was a reference there to Bicycle transportation engineering, which seems like an ideal place for most of the content in subsections 2.2 and 2.3 (Infrastructure and Trip-end facilities).

Bicycle theft probably warrants its own article (but one doesn't exist yet), into which 2.4 (Active theft reduction measures) could go), and Cycling Advocacy seems like the ideal location for 2.6 (Marketing).

I'll have to leave it to someone else to figure out where 2.5 (intermodal integration), and 2.7 (retail policy) belong (possibly remaining in this article). Dr kiwano (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree on bicycle security needing a separate article I think the last time I checked some of the parking issues were under bike rack which I didn't think was ideal. In terms of cycling infrastructure provision and management I am not sure if a title of Bicycle transportation engineering would intuitively cover the issues. In terms of the marketing issues would Cycling Advocacy cover the issue of negative or anti-cycling attitudes and activities? --Sf (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the Cycling Advocacy page to be anything more than what it is right now, basically a stub acting as a gateway to List of United States bicycle advocacy organizations. If the "Marketing" discussion is worthy of maintaining (I'm not convinced), I'd suggest moving it to "History of Cycling," as there has been a a definite positive-to-negative arc over the decades of the public's perception of cycling. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Vehicular cycling into Utility cycling

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)

No, vehicular cycling is a skill set and approach to cycling on roadways. It applies to all cycling on roadways, not only to utility cycling. Utility cycling is, very specifically, cycling for a utilitarian purpose, such as to get to work or school, or go shopping. Putting vehicular cycling inside the category of utility cycling is like putting driver training inside the category of utility car trips. Just doesn't fit. Also, the disputes about the vehicular cycling article might better be contained there, rather than unleashing them here.Jsallen1 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge. I agree with Jsallen1. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Totally Oppose Merge. Vehicular cycling sounds like “Drivers ed”, Utility cycling emphasises the bicycle in a urban scene and not necessarily mixed with other vehicles. Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Totally Oppose Merge. Utility Cycling is a technical term that distinguishes such from Recreational Cycling. Vehicular Cycling is a philosophy of road use. They absolutely go together in no conceivable way. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge of these too: need their issues resolving individually. Trev M  ~  12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Bicycle commuting into Utility cycling

I propose merging Bicycle commuting into this article, Bicycle commuting is just a specific form of Utility cycling. More info here → www.bikecommuters.com Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good thought. More to the point, I believe most of the current article, as written, should be shifted to a new page called "Bicycle Infrastructure." Utility Cycling would more appropriately include Commuting, Services/Delivery, and Pedicab. I'd like to see it also encompass the information now included in Freight bicycle. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of Cycling Infrastructure (or Bicycle Infrastructure) sections may merit its own article — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Cycling as transport is a clear, concise, self explanatory target page name that could cover a multitude of uses but clearly distinguishes it from cycling purely for sport or recreation. "Utility cycling"... my jaw just kind of drops... this may be a transatlantic factor. Trev M  ~  16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is already 62kb: Wikipedia:Article size suggests articles should be no longer than 30-50kb long. The whole topic of utility cycling is very big and we shouldn't expect to cover anything in one article, so while it may not be a bad thing to merge Bicycle commuting into this article (as it may not work as a standalone article), we shouldn't just merge it because it is a type of utility cycling. Severo^TC 09:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The window I had to work on this is now gone, so I doubt I'll have time to look in for several weeks now. But I'll keep an eye on these two, see how content could either be more specific to each or best combined. Trev M  ~  12:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this is still here I'll just throw in my few cents: Merging Bicycle commuting into Utility cycling makes very good sense to me, but this article is currently (as others also points out) overwhelmingly large and parts of contents in my opinion should be spawned into one article on Bicycle infrastructure and another into Bicycle advocacy (noting Talk:Utility_cycling#Moving_content_to_Cycling_Advocacy.). --Heb (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Bicycle commuting is noteworthy enough to merit its own article. On a separate point the Utility cycling article does need work as suggested by others. Legion211 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Bicycle Commuting Is Utility Cycling· —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ·

What do you agree with? Bicycle commuting is a form if utility cycling, but as noted above there are other forms too, and the utility cycling article is already too long... Severo^TC 08:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the Bicycle Commuting article since it's a form of utility cycling should be part of Utility cycling and definitely the Bulk of Cycling infrastructure section should be on a separate Bicycle infrastructure article· —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC) ·

Oppose - If anything, Utility Cycling should be split up. The U/C article seems to focus more on Cycling Infrastructure and Perceptions of Cyclists by others (individuals, private groups, commercial groups, etc...) I feel that this does not belong under Utility Cycling - yes infrastructure and opinion play a part, but I feel that is a separate article. Utility cycling itself, I feel can be itself broken down into sub categories - Commuting, Transportation of Goods and Transportation of People are just 3 separate types I can think of. Each requiring different types of bike (although there can be some crossover).

A lot of people who commute by bike just use a standard road/hybrid/mountain bike, many without the accoutrements that are standard on bikes sold especially for commuting, such as mudguards, racks and lights (often but not exclusively dynamo).

The other 2 forms of utility cycling generally require much more customised bikes, and specialist cargo-bikes and rickshaws are available, although in the case of cargo it is possible to get trailers if you only haul the odd bit.

So personally I think the Utility Cycling article should be re-titled (not sure what title to use) as it focuses on the infrastructure and perception of cycling (which affects both recreational and non-recreational cycling)

I think commuting should remain as its own article - anyone with any bike can commute if they want to, and that utility cycling should focus on cargo and passenger and other more specialised forms of cycle use as it requires specialised bikes that are less commonly available. -- Escribblings 12:50, 15 September 2013

Proposed move: Bicycle Training into Vehicular Cycling

"Bicycle Training," as written here, should be shifted to the "Vehicular Cycling" page. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree move.Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Commuting is utility cycling. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cycle lanes and cycle tracks

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)

This section ("Cycle lanes and cycle tracks") has been flagged for removal because it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability No citation indicates that the conclusions have been printed in any reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal, textbook, magazine, book published by a respected publishing house, or mainstream newspaper. Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is a "pro-cycling paper"? Lisamichellemurdock (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam picture

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)

Done, just one step lighter — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Splitting off Bicycle infrastructure

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)

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)

Anticipating consensus on the question of split, I figure the remaining questions are: whither? and what?

1. "Bicycle infrastructure" has the advantages that it's the first thing I thought of, and it's the name of the section. "Cycling infrastructure" has the advantage that it's about supporting the action, not the machine.
2. Some of the section is about promotion and other not quite central engineering questions. First cut, I say move the whole section, then argue about which subsections ought to end up where; some may belong in other existing articles or <groan> another new one.

Jim.henderson (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

potential source

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)

Merger proposal Cycling mobility into Utility cycling

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)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)