Talk:Bike boom

Undated allegation
This seems to be a direct rip-off of the Sheldon Brown page.

Merge proposal
I've heard the term bike boom used for other periods of popularity for cycling. Really it is just a descriptive term, usually used in North America to refer to the last big boom in cycling's popularity here. Bicycle craze covers some other periods when cycling went threw periods of popularity. Neither article seem to be much more than a stub, but I do think that they should be merged to give a somewhat more world wide point of view. The only down side I can see is that Bicycle craze is without references and needs lots of work, however that's the case if they are merged or not. What do others think?--Keithonearth (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree except "craze" is the older term and covers many separate booms, and ought to survive. The boom article is the one that ought to become a section of that one.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. But I am surprised to hear you say that you'd prefer craze, as I'd never heard the term bike craze outside of the wikipedia article, while I'd heard bike boom a number of times.  Why do you say craze is an older term?  Also "boom", suggests a period of economic growth, while "craze" brings to mind a trend.  Both of course are perfectly valid, but  I prefer the first.  Any ideas how to decide?  Or input from others?  --Keithonearth (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if a third party voted I'd go their way. I am slighty surprized to see in the editing record that this smaller and less developed Bicycle boom article is a year older than the sectionalized, reference and illustrated Bicycle craze one, which could indicate that wiser and more industrious editors think "craze" is the right word, but more likely indicates nothing more than chance while all Wikians neglect the topic under whatever name.  Last year at Museum of the City of New York I attended a lecture by the author of a book about the late 19th century craze, which seemed the word used most then, which is what makes me think that's the older term.
 * "Craze" as a trend? More like a one time event, no?  While "boom" would bring to mind a boom and bust cycle, right?  But maybe that's just because my mind is more attuned to economic history than many and because I participated in the Y2K kick scooter craze, which was so described at the time.  Of course that was a small matter compared to the late 19th century bike crazes.
 * Let's see; one more argument for doing it my way. It's easier to convert a small, narrowly focused, yet underdeveloped article into a section of a bigger article that's already got a good sectional structure and network of inward Wikilinks, than vice versa.  Well, not hugely easier, so it's a pretty feeble argument.  Anyway I expect to be busy filling local landmark articles with photos I made while bicycling around town, so the smartest thing will be for me to take my hands off this question.  If my arguments here have not yet persuaded you, then you should wait a couple days for other comments and then take the merger into your own hands, making of it what you will.  Jim.henderson (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the interesting comments. I'd go the way of another vote too, but would prefer a couple more opinions to be expressed.  I mean ideally.  Do you not think that a "boom and bust" cycle reasonably accurately describes the times over the history that it came into prominence, and then out of favour? I am happy to give it more than a couple days, both articles need quite a bit of work and are not at the top of my list of priorities either.--Keithonearth (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's been done, so no need to talk about it more, but I'd like to point out that bicycle historian Frank J. Berto, in his book The Dancing Chain uses the term "the Great American Bike Boom" to differentiate the US bike boom of the 1970s from previous bike booms. I think we made the right move.--Keithonearth (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The popularity of the car, and in particular its easy availability due the mass-production techniques of Henry Ford, led to the gradual demise of this largest bicycle craze.
This sentence is probably original research, and is highly dubious. Yes, the "craze" ended. However, bicycle sales and use remained high, and the impact of motor vehicles on bicycle use was incredibly slow (most European countries only achieved wide spread vehicle ownership post-WWII).Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bike boom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130811130706/http://corporate.sky.com:80/documents/pdf/publications/olympic_cycling_effect to http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/publications/olympic_cycling_effect

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Source
Roads Were Not Built For Cars explains the inter-relationship of early bike booms with the development of roads, particularly their tarmac surfacing. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What this can include
To anybody who want to expand this article further; a suggestion of what this can include as it seems this boom period between the 70s and 80s was relegated to children and teenagers


 * Raleigh Chopper craze of the late 70s-early 80s
 * early-mid 80s BMX craze
 * Lance Armstrong Donnie Park (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bike boom. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205181751/http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm to http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205181751/http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm to http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)