Talk:Bicycle commuting

NPOV
Though this article is very positive about cycling, which is good, it does seem a little POV. Almost everything is written to try to get people to cycle, I think there should be a little more focus on the advantages of taking a car or other forms of transport. I avoid going anywhere by car myself whenever possible though, so I'm not really the person to make these changes. Richard001 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a fanatic commuter-cyclist, and I agree with everything on the page, but this is really an advocacy page as it stands. Also, the idiom used is very colloquial ("loo", "brilliant", "breeze past"), which is perhaps not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. 213.131.238.25 09:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Dermot

Agree, adding weasle words and NPOV warning. PsYoP78 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated, I've updated this page to try to improve NPOV, specifically focusing on the section that I have renamed to 'Controversy'. I've added a stub template since this article is not complete and I've added citation needed templates through the section in question. PsYoP78 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not controversy as such, though, is it? It's issues which are raised as barriers to cycle commuting, and all of which have been solved by those who cycle commute.  I agree the article should not promote cycle commuting, but it is not biased to state that most issues have eben resolved one way or another by various people.  Most of the issues are really post-hoc rationalisations by cagers anyway :o) Just zis Guy you know? 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. I just couldn't think up of a better section title. I like the new one much better. PsYoP78 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some phrases in the article that still seem to be unbalanced from an NPOV standpoint. Since this is article is a stub and there seems to be some question about tagging this article as a NPOV dispute, I wanted to point out my current concerns with POV verbiage. I am looking for a consensus on if this article still expresses a POV. Following are some of the areas I've noticed that could be an area of concern: PsYoP78 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "While it is undoubtedly a matter of personal choice, and these concerns are not without basis in fact, it is true to say that there are very few issues which have not been solved in one way or another by those who are committed to cycle commuting." -- Is this an encyclopedic comment?  It seems erroneous to me.
 * "Studies have shown that the driver is to blame" -- "Studies have shown" is a weasel phrase. Also, since there is no citation, I don't know how they measured blame...is this legal blame, ethical blame, in what jurisdiction...this does not seem to be a world viewpoint...unless we can cite the source to clarify.
 * "Studies have shown that integrating..." -- "Studies have shown" is a weasel phrase and the POV is questionable with the sentance.
 * "Environmental groups advocate..." -- appears to be another weasel phrase and the POV tone is questionable with the sentance.

The article is still very much slanted in favor of cycling. When the section about the disadvantages is titled, "Issues with cycle commuting", and each sub-section focuses not on the disadvantage but on finding ways to mitigate it or present it as a non-issue, the article is significantly flawed from an encyclopedic viewpoint. -- Hux (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Either it's been fixed in the meantime or I just don't see what the problem is. I believe it is more in need of cleanup than neutrality (which would most likely fix a lot of the problems), as it does have sections for both pros and cons. Since it has been almost a year since anyone's made any discussion, I'm removing the POV tag and adding a Refimprove tag instead. Annihilatron (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominant in China?
I would have guessed commuting by bus to be more common in China than commuting by bicycle. Can we get a reference? The first three paragraphs make many statements without references. Pissant 06:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

While cycling was definitely once dominant in China, I'm doubtful it still is. When I was in shanghai and beijing earlier this year, there really weren't that many cyclists. I suppose it would also depend on where you are, making it a difficult generalization to make 58.172.80.154 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not as popular anymore; I have been bold and changed itAnnihilatron (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on China and/or India but I have visited both a few times. I agree that in the big cities of both Bicycles are not the most common form of transportation, but it seems that they are in the smaller towns and in rural areas, and both countries have a huge number of people living in both.  I would think that this would be enough to make it the most common form of transportation (or most common after walking).  I think it deserves to sit with a  tag for a while at the least.  I'll look for a reference and if I don't find one, and if no one else comes up with one, then I'm ok with changing it.  (Unless of course someone has a reference to the contrary, then it should be done now.)  I hope that sounds reasonable to everyone.--Keithonearth (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Commuting Time / Distances
I am thinking of commuting to work. Its just under 10km one way. It 20km realistic for a daily commute or it it too far? Please include some info on this aspect. Also how long can I expect it to take? I guess 40 minutes. Is that a fast and "sweaty" pace? --Mig77 10:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try it yourself? It depends on quite a lot of parameters: traffic, traffic lights, road surface, elevation, your condition and riding style, etc. p.p.--Hhielscher 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Email from User:Urban-commuter
I got this in the email from Urban-commuter:

Hi,

I am adding a link in the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_commuting. The link is highly relevant to the topic of bicycle commuting.

The url is: http://cycling-london.blogspot.com/

It is about real bicycle commuting experiences, and relevant subject matter, in London, UK. Please do not un-edit this contribution.

First off, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that this was your first edit on that account, so I am assuming that you are pretty new to contributing to Wikipedia. I've left a welcome note on your talk page (User talk:Urban-commuter. I'm also assuming that this is your personal blog.

One of the how-to guides not linked to directly is External links. It is generally discouraged to add links to websites that you maintain, see Vanity guidelines, particularly the section Examples of vanity edits. (At worst, it can be considered Spam.)

A better way to go about it is to come to the talk page (here) and suggest that it be added. Since you already added it and asked nicely, I'm telling you all this instead. If it doesn't get you added, don't let that discourage you. I hope you decide to contribute to Wikipedia articles, Citing sources that are reliable.

If you have any other questions, feel free to leave a note on the Talk pages of the relevant article or user. Good luck! --Christopherlin 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Light Availability
One concern not on the list is darkness - I go to work at around 5am most days, and I choose to walk because it is very dark some mornings, I don't have a bike with a light, and the traffic coming home is very heavy, as I have to go along a main highway and a very busy intersection on the way. Perhaps some mention of bike lights and safety at night could be mentioned, e.g. ways to improve visibility at night, and some guidelines to nighttime riding. - Richard001 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * lights are cheap and easy to use - why would the dark deter any cycle commuter? It's not like general aviation where you need a special license to travel in the dark. 78.86.37.93 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Road Maintenance/Surface Quality
What about the road quality? Sometimes the road is not maintained well enough to be safe for riders, and sometimes it's not safe to begin with (i.e., grating has wide gaps on some drawbridges - I know this danger from personal experience). - Red Plum 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One could use fat tires, like Schwalbe Big Apple.--Hhielscher 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed: voilà: Source for Pollution Exposion
http://www.adfc-bayern.de/a_tip_schadstoffe.htm

Two points - speed
Two points the article somewhat misses (no ref so I didn't add them even if the article is mostly unsourced anyway I don't personally like adding unsourced info to articles). 1) The speed you travel at will obviously depend on your fitness level (which particularly if you are unfit, is liable to increase over time if you regularly commute) and the terrain & type of road used by the cyclist. For example if you get stuck in the same traffic and on the same roads without cycleways you're not going to be much faster then a car even with heavy traffic, on the other hand if you have cycle lans or alternative routes not available to the car then you may be able to bypass heavy traffic. Similarly if route is very hilly you'll be a lot slower then if it's flat (whereas it won't be such big a factor for a car in terms of travel time). The other point is that it doesn't really compare it to pure public transport. For example in Auckland public transport particularly if you live relatively far from the city is fairly crap, with low frequency service and a large number of stops. It can easily take as long as it will take a person with moderate fitness to cycle the same distance. (Actually on peak is better in some ways with high frequency and express services although evem then the lack of priority lanes and stuff means it can still be rather slow.) While things are improving and it does depend where you live definitely it's not necessarily faster. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)