Talk:Bike lane debate

This reads like an opinion piece. Why is it in the Wikipedia as such?

''It is an attempt to present an unbiased summary of arguments and rebuttals that have been presented piecemeal on both sides of the bike lane debate in various writings and forums. Any controversial issue is inherently difficult topic to cover without bias, but that doesn't mean it should not be covered in Wikipedia. See the morality and legality of abortion, segregated cycle facilities for other examples. This article might be a novel approach... the Wiki NPOV is used in terms of presenting the obviously biased arguments as fairly as possible. There is no attempt to claim neutrality within the content of each argument presented, only a NPOV in the fair presentation of these arguments.'' Serge Issakov, 13 June 2005

This reads like a piece I might get in the 'the people speak' section of a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. If we can't find some actual facts, not just "some people say it's safer, but some people don't" then this article should go. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. At this point it's a work in progress.  There are over a dozen external references.  Do I need to cite the source of every argument?  Traditional encyclopedias had a space issue (number of volumes, number of pages) that prevented them from indulging in "exotic" issues like this one might be.  The fact remains that, like abortion, death penality, the war in Iraq, etc., are controversial issues in the wider community, and libertarianism is a controversial issue within the political community, bike lanes are a controversial issue within the cycling community.  This is an article about the existence of that controversy.  The existence of each cited argument is fact. Serge 18:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There do not appear to be any links to substantive pro-bikelane arguments. This may be because of the dearth of such online articles, at least last time I looked seriously about two years ago. Still, I'd suggest searching for Michael Ronkin or Michael Bluejay or supporting data for the blue bikelane project in Portland OR. or somesuch. I would do it myself, but I've grown tired of butting my head against a brick wall in these debates, and I'd much rather be riding my bike. -- John Vance --129.238.237.96 17:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This page contains instances of near-empty rhetoric. I propose editing to minimise the rhetoric while leaving the arguements intact. There are several claims if "there being no evidence". Such claims are not substantive, with the words that follow amounting to an unsupported assertion. I propose to cut back suc bluff-statements to a simpler wording.--Anthony Duff 00:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an important discussion/opinion piece; increased cardiovascular health, lowered carbon emissions and decreased petroleum dependancy are all positively affected by those who decide to change from automobiles to bicycles. Roadways are always changing, depending on the traffic requirements; from one lane, alternating traffic, in the mountain passes and logging roads of yesteryear, to the multi-lane super highways of today, roads have evolved. Parallel parking, sidewalks and other facilities have replaced 'just doing it along the side of the road'. In urgent, unforeseen, or unavoidable circumstances one is still free to go back to walking, cycling or driving along pathways not suited for that mode of transportation, but if cycling is ever going to be a viable alternative and part of a communities mass transportation solutions, it should not only be as safe as we can make it, it should be made to appear to be a low risk endeavour. One shouldn't feel they require the adventurer's attitude, reflexes and conditioning to travel one's regular commute. As the car population has grown larger and faster, not only have we added more and wider lanes for that traffic, sidewalks and crosswalks have become standard, to make walking safer and more comfortable. Cyclepaths and bikelanes could make the same improvements for bikes, and more people would choose cycling. On the other hand, perhaps cyclists should have to go through a licensing process similar those required to drive an automobile. To be allowed to cycle on major roads and highways, one must pass a test showing an understanding of the dangers and responsibilites of operating a bike in traffic. Unlicensed cyclists would then be restricted to sidestreets and cyclepaths. Restricted roadways would be posted with signs and the cycling licence should be made clearly visible, so that police can moniter and enforce these new requirements. One suggested format for the licence; large liscence plate sized numbers on a reflective vest, with an accompanying picture identification card. It is interesting how emotional these issues can become. Real estate is limited, and whenever one discusses the reallocation of finite resources tempers can rise. The same reaction could be expected if we were discussing adding, or removing, parking and sidewalks in the same limited space. J.P.Ginther 70.70.138.48 02:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

21:22, 1 January 2006 65.87.175.140 (→Argument against bike lanes - rewrite) which is why the update shows up as being authored by my IP addr! Bruce Rosar 21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: my session "timed out" while making the following update

Rationale for cleanup
Someone posted a cleanup tag on this article. I agree. I created the current format, and it did not work out well at all. I would like to see each side represented in separate sections, or something like that. --Serge 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cycle path debate merge?
I'm removing the cycle path debate merge tag since no argument to do so has been presented here. I do want to add that the "bike lane debate" is very different from the "cycle path debate". The bike lane debate is all about the pros and cons of on road segregate cyclist facilities, while the cycle path debate is all about the pros and cons of offroad (usually paved) paths. There is very little overlap. --Serge 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD debate link
This article redirects to Segregated cycle facilities following this AFD debate. If anyone thinks there is anything salvagable in the history, the last version of the article can be viewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)