Talk:Segregated cycle facilities/Archive 1

Global page
--Sf 16:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Moved cycle path page to cycle path debate have put up a more global Segregated cycle facilities page

Pedestrians?
This article focuses on segregating cyclists from motorists, largely ignoring the issue of pedestrians. This seems relevant to the topic at hand. 129.2.211.72 20:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be addressed in section on non car/bicycle collisions (time and energy permitting) --Sf 10:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I created Bicycle lane, not realizing this article was here (why didn't bike lane and bicycle lane redirect here?). It should be merged here, but I'm not exactly sure how. --SPUI 20:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Cyclecraft/Effective Cycling/Cycle Path Debate
Remove cycle path debate 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 13:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Some parts of the article seemed to be biased against cycle lanes, for instance "In Helsinki, it is now proven categorically that cyclists are safer cycling on the roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km of cycle paths." To state something to be proven 'categorically' is a rather extreme statement to make, backed up with no evidence, and I highly doubt that it is possible to prove such a thing categorically because of the nature of the issues involved. -- Joolz 23:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link to Finnish research added. In addition, references to additional Finnish research is provided at bottom of article and with the diagram on junction collisions. --Sf 10:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citations to accident data now put into text - they were already present at the end of the article. I accept the criticism of the original wording and have amended accordingly. The (incorrect) claim that no citations were provided appears to the other basis of the NPOV accusation. As this is now addressed I am removing the NPOV tag. If others feel there is additional data from the international literature which has a bearing then in my opinion it is their duty to present it. --Sf 13:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bike Lanes
Agree 100% with comments made by 'Joolz'. There are a number of claims made in the article with no supporting references. Moreover, several landmark studies done in the US are not mentioned at all. It is as if someone lifted an inane flamewar thread from a Usenet cycling group and turned it into a Wiki article.

Other problems:

1. It is never clear as to whether the entry is talking about Class I or Class II facilities -- there is a huge difference.


 * Class I is a cycleway/bike trail; Class II combines cycle tracks/sidepaths with cycle lanes/bike lanes. Class I facilities are only possible where a corridor exists, like an old railroad, and can be treated as a road that prohibits motorized vehicles. Class II seems to be overly broad, including both sidepaths (which have major problems at intersections) and bike lanes (which have fewer issues, though they have an issue with parking). --SPUI (talk) 12:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. The "safety of segregated bike facilities" section is just flat out wrong. I have never encountered an "established" cycling group (in the US at least) that opposes bike lanes.


 * I'm not sure if Massbike has an official policy, but on their mailing list most people oppose them; a recent posting to their mailing list in fact praised this article. Surely Critical Mass is "established" and opposes bike lanes, but they're a different sort of group. --SPUI (talk) 12:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. "In contrast, it would seem to be an almost universal finding that the use of roadside urban segregated cycling facilities is associated with significant increases in the rate and severity of car/bicycle collisions." Clearly this is an opinion, and not one supported by the data.

-Eric McCaughrin East Bay Bicycle Coalition Board of Directors

Yeah, there should be direct cites for some of the stuff. Also I'd think there should be two parts to it - sidepaths vs bike lanes and bike lanes vs wide shoulders or simply riding in traffic. Much of that should probably go into cycle path debate, which I had tagged for merging with this. I haven't done any study in this, but I could get some people that have over here to help out. They'd mostly be on the anti-segregated facility or at least anti-sidepath side. --SPUI (talk) 12:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply
1. Regarding Massbike: a public discussion list is no basis for determining a organization's position on an issue.

2. Critical Mass opposes bike lanes????


 * They surely don't stay in them when they ride. --SPUI (talk) 15:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The vehicle code only requires that bicycles ride as far to the right as practical. If the bike lane is fully occupied, then it is legal and acceptable for cyclists to ride outside the bike lane. To say that CM riders going outside bike lanes somehow conveys an anti-bikelane message is a gross mischaracterization. -EM

My recommendation, quite frankly, would be to delete this entry. If someone is really interested in a rehash of the sidepath debate, there already exists a Wiki entry for John Forester and Effective Cycling. I think it is enough to mention the debate, provide a link to the John Forester Wiki entry. And if anyone wants more info, follow external links from there.
 * I entirely disagree with the notion of deleting this entry and of moving its content to the Effective_Cycling entry. The Effective_Cycling entry should concentrate on the positive recommendations that Forester makes, not be a general dumping ground for all the arguments about Effective Cyclists might make against particular Segregated facilities.  In fact I was very happy to be able to link from the Effective Cycling entry to this entry on Segregated failities. - Jumble 15:52, 21 Apr 2005 (PST)

If there is to be a page on bike facilities at all, then it should be more general and include things like bike parking. And yes, I would also differentiate between American- and European-style Class II facilities. For each type of facility, there could be a BRIEF pro/con.

--Emccaughrin 3 Apr 2005


 * There is a debate on this, and it's relevant; it's Wikipedia's job to cover it. --SPUI (talk) 15:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but to have two separate Wiki entries devoted to the same debate is redunant. -EM

Inline references - really necessary for everything??
While everything presented in wikipedia articles should be sourced from reliable material this is not the same thing as stating that every statement should include inline references or links to named sources. See debate here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#References_vs._Footnotes

There are readability issues at stake here. In this case the it is a matter of historical fact that some cycling groups fought, and continue to fight, to resist the imposition of cycle tracks. It is a matter of historical fact that in many case they were orginally (and in some cases are still) intended to benefit motorists not cyclists. It is a matter of historical fact that there have been long standing concerns about the safety of such devices. It is a matter of historical fact that various studies in various countries have confirmed serious safety problems. It is a matter of historical fact that remedial measures have had to be developed. These facts are only a matter of "controversy" for those directly involved in the accompanying debates. For those outside the debate they are merely part of the story. However, for those who wish to advise themselves regarding the safe use of roads while cycling or the safe design of roads for cyclists - they are essential parts of the story. --Sf 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, round 2
The article still fails meet NPOV standards.

There are numerous problems in the article, but the one that jumps out the most is the contention that spending on bike facilities does not increase bike mode share.
 * It should be reworded to state that there is no /proof/ that spending increases bike share mode then. - Jumble

For example, the article misinterprets the data from the Netherlands. During a time when virtually every other western country saw precipitous declines in bike mode share, the Netherlands was able to avert such a decline by maintaining high levels of investment in bike infrastructure. In fact, the data show that went up several percentage points. Now, if you think a few percentage points is not significant, consider that the amount of money being spent was still miniscule relative to train and auto, so we are talking huge bang for the buck (note, by the way, that tens of BILLIONS have been spent on various rail projects without having any measurable affect on mode share).
 * In order to talk about whether or not something is significant requires specific statistical measures to be applied. If the trend shows fluctuation of more than a few percentage points then you can't make inferences such as the one that you wish to draw. - Jumble

And when one looks to places like SF Bay Area, the results are quite dramatic. The SF Dept. of Parking and Traffic has measured 50%(!!) increases in bike traffic on key routes after installing bike lanes. Oakland measured a 3X drop in accidents after striping a rather minimal bike lane on Telegraph Ave.

-EM East Bay Bicycle Coalition
 * You need to show that cyclists weren't merely diverted from other routes onto the bike lane routes if you're trying to prove that spending on segregated facilities increases /bike mode share/. The Dublin data cited in the article fly in the face of your contention. - Jumble

-- It also talks about "robust growth" in Germany and Ireland with no investment in infastructure, but it doesn't say what type of growth it was (number of bikes purchased, % of journeys done on bikes, % of commuters using bikes etc), I know in the UK at the moment around 2% of journeys are completed on bikes (Source: BBC News), which is a very low figure compared to other countries in Europe. -- Joolz 10:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Accusation regarding "interpretation" of Dutch data
The following is a direct quote from the cited source. As I recall the author was the head of the masterplan program.

''* Since 1990, the total length of cycle paths has increased to almost 19,000 km, generally speaking double the length in 1980. (The Netherlands has around 108,000 km paved and asphalted roads, including 2200 km of expressways). Besides cycle paths, there were also investments in roundabouts, reconstructions of junctions and pedestrian/cyclist crossings, cycle tunnels and bridges and parking facilities for cyclists; totalling an estimated 1.5 billion guilders. The costs were split up into approximately fifty percent for the municipalities, 15% for the provinces and the remainder for the national government.''

''*Results: In 1994, the total distance cycled was 12.9 billion km, compared with 12.8 billion in 1990. (The number of km travel-led by car was 125 billion in 1990 and 129 billion in 1994). Consequently: Expansion and improvement of the infrastructure does not necessarily increase the use of bicycles .''

2. Regarding Telegraph lane in Oakland
This is sourced from the EBCC web site http://www.ebbc.org/campaigns.html#telelanes I am unclear as to how Mr. McCaughrin intends to use this as a basis for an NPOV accusation. The current article as written, clearly states that there is merit in providing cyclists with appropriate space on roads of an arterial or rural character. Futhermore the logical basis for making such provision is set out. The article also states that such use has been associated with reductions in cyclist casualties.
 * Background/Summary: Telegraph Avenue is a key element of Oakland's Bicycle Master Plan. Not only is Telegraph a major commercial corridor, it is a high-speed arterial connecting downtown Oakland

3. Isolated cycle lane projects procuring significant increases in cycling traffic
To take as an example the valencia street project in california http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Valencia_Street_Report.pdf

This is claimed to have resulted in upto 144% increases in cycle traffic on the treated route. However the relevant passage from the report is as follows.

"Before” bicycle counts were not taken on the parallel streets, so it is not clear whether these are all new bicycle trips or trips that shifted from parallel streets once the bike lanes on Valencia Street were installed.

If all that happened was a redistribution of existing cyclists then this could not be represented as an increase in cycling participation. The proposal that building segregated cycling facilities may create a more attractive environment for certain types of cyclist is not generally disputed. However it does not follow that providing such cyclists with such an environment will automatically procure an increase in cycling. In addition if the main effect of the scheme was to abstract existing cyclists from parallel routes then the "safety in numbers" argument implies that this could result in an increase in danger and/or hostility for the remaining cyclists on those routes.

4. Netherlands investment in bike infrastructure
To quote Mr. McCaughrin "Netherlands was able to avert such a decline by maintaining high levels of investment in bike infrastructure". If this is meant to suggest that the level of cycle use in the Netherlands is primarily attributable to the precence of segregated cycle facilities then I and others would reject this as a gross over simplification. For example in the Netherlands and Denmark figures for up to 35% of train journeys starting by bicycle might be seen in some areas. The key ingredients for this are.
 * 1) an efficient, attractive and affordable train service
 * 2) secure bike parking at train stations
 * 3) a town planning policy that results in a sufficient density of population (eg 35%) living/working within a reasonable cycling distance of these train stations.

There is no way that segregated cycling facilities could be argued to be logically necessary to the equation. If of a high quality they might be nice but in my opinion they can not be argued to be necessary. However, (to deal with Mr. McCaughrin comments re funding rail) it can be argued in relation to this aspect of Dutch or Danish policy that ongoing investment in rail services is vital to maintaining the levels of cycle use.


 * Yes! Obviously the ability to cycle from your front door to said bike park without having to use any roads shared with cars is irrelevent. Please try to learn about realities of cycle use, and culture, here in the Netherlands. oh and the Dutch think their train network is rubbish (it´s not, but popular opinion here is that it is). --EasyTarget 15:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

5. Regarding cycling growth
Germany: ''From 1976 to 1982, trips by bicycle increased by 30%, despite a constantly decreasing share of trips by bikes in the prior two decades. This increase cannot be explained by greater attention to policy and planning during the period of growth. The bicycle was rediscovered by the German people as a useful mode of transport before policy makers and planners began to implement measures in its favour.''

Quoted in: Another look at Germany's bicycle boom: implications for local transportation policy & planning strategy in the USA, H. Maddox, World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 7, No.3 pp. 44-48, 2001

Ireland : From 1981 - 1986 the Irish National Census recorded a 27% increase in the use of bicycles for trips to work and education. At a national level modal share for bicycle commuters increased from 4.16% to 5.61% of total trips. (The actual increase was from 46994 to 60750 or just under 30%). For high school students modal share for cyclists increased from 12.93% to 14.98% of total trips (actual numeric increase went from 38815 to 50648 or just over 30%). I'll leave it at that.

UK: The following are the "official" UK statistics for cycling participation 1970 - 1990 columns are "Year" and "Cycling (billion vehicle km)" 1970 4.4     1971 4.3      1972 3.9      1973 3.7      1974 3.8      1975 4.4      1976 5.0      1977 6.1      1978 5.1      1979 4.6      1980 5.1      1981 5.4      1982 6.4      1983 6.4      1984 6.4      1985 6.1      1986 5.5      1987 5.7      1988 5.2      1989 5.2      1990 5.3

source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_031749.xls

--Sf 13:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be good if the sources (incl. urls) are put into the article. I'm not sure how you can figure that as "robust growth" when clearly it's fluctuating at around the same level. In contrast, car use more than doubled over the same period, so as a percentage of total journeys it has fallen. It's also fallen from a high of 27.5 in 1938.


 * I'd appreciate it if you didn't unilaterally remove the NPOV tag everytime you make a point. I'm happy with the progress you've made with the article but I still think it needs further work in terms of NPOV. For instance: "Their proponents, who frequently come from outside the established cycling lobby" - But who are the proponents? who is the "established cycling lobby"? And also " In contrast, it would seem to be an almost universal finding that the use of roadside urban segregated cycle paths is associated with significant increases in the rate and severity of car/bicycle collisions." - Indeed, it is almost a universal finding according to the references we have at the moment, but who knows what else has been published on the topic? To suggest an "almost universal finding" is far from an NPOV stance.


 * I'd prefer it if the NPOV tag was removed only when some sort of consensus is reached.
 * --Joolz 16:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article Name
Are people strongly opposed to an article title of "Bicycle paths and lanes" ?

Monk127 18:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd prefer "Cycle paths and lanes", but I think either's an improvement on the current one. -- Joolz 19:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd prefer either as well. But I think "bicycle" would maybe be better since "cycle" can mean many different things whereas "bicycle" is exact.  Also, the wikipedia article on bikes is "Bicycle".  --Monk127 19:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you allowed to use tricycles on cycle lanes? ;) -- Joolz 19:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ah, you're right, there's all those other wheeled things... trikes, recumbents, skates, skateboards, training wheels... hmmm... :)  --Monk127 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, bicycles is acceptable to me, because we can always mention in the article whether or not other stuff is allowed to use the bike lanes -- Joolz 23:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The use of the term "segregated cycle facility" is standard in formal/official discussions of the topic in the UK and Ireland and is generally understood to encompass the following concepts.


 * Bike path (redirect page)
 * Bicycle path (redirect page)
 * Cycleway (redirect page)
 * Cycle lane (redirect page)
 * Cycle path (redirect page)
 * Segegated cycling facility (redirect page)
 * Cycle-path (redirect page)
 * Bicycle paths (redirect page)
 * Bike lane (redirect page)
 * Bicycle lane (redirect page)
 * Multi-use path (redirect page)
 * Segregated bicycle facilities (redirect page)
 * Sidepath (redirect page)
 * Multi-use trail (redirect page)
 * Bicycle lanes (redirect page)
 * Bicycle facilities (redirect page)

--Sf 10:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the revert of 11:14, 12 Apr 2005
...and edit comments of 11:41, 12 Apr 2005.

Hi, here it's a beautiful spring day, the sun is out, and it's a great day for a human powered destination facilitator ride. Objective considerations of current phenomena will compel the conclusion to head on out to the closest segregated cycle facility or maybe just on down the interurban type situations. But geez, they all have urban characters around here with high junction density. If I roll down the path and I have to pee, I can go in the bushes or utilize the medium density human waste disposal management systems. Seeya. --Monk127 20:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I had a look at both versions and hopefully I've worked out a good comprimise between the two. I agree that we shouldn't use the word 'city' because here in the UK (where the weather is not so good!) there is a strict definition of 'city' - I live in an urban area but it isn't a city. On the other hand, hopefully I've managed to tone down the rather lawyeristic language that was employed previously. -- Joolz 23:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Segregated ... !!!
The title of this article is NPOV! Segregated sounds very pejorative because of the racial usage and because cyclists are also a minority powerwise like many third world countries inhabitants are (in the past with blatant violation of human rights and now with more subtle north-south pressure such as the Debt, industrial neo-colonisation etc. ). Because of global warming cycling should be prised, not segregated! Not everybody is living in the US with a public transport anemia, a global worshiping of cars and a rejection of the Kioto protocol! By the way, cars after a rational analyse could probably be counsidered as the worst plague that ever happend to human kind linked to : polution, accidents, obesity, heart attacks, bad mood and many diseases linked to the lack of movement, among them some prying directly on the brain, making any reconsideration of old habits impossible!


 * Move to end of page - this appears to be a rant/diatribe by a non-native speaker of English who 1) hasn't actually read the article 2) doesn't understand the typical usage of common English words 3) has various other (geo)political agendas. (Indeed the historical facts presented in the article could be used to support this person's apparent position if they had chosen to read it!).  While I didn't delete it, I am sympathetic to the view that it should be deleted on grounds of irrelevance to the article in question  --Sf 10:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Diagrams
The included ´Look how dangerous the junctions are´ diagram is part of the NPOV problem. It looks designed to give the impression of reckless cyclists jumping the junction and hitting cars. In reality (at least in the UK and Netherlands) the cyclepath is still legally part of the main road, and has priority over the cars turning in and out of the sideroad (think of it as a dual-carrigeway) i.e. the cars should be stopping to let the cycle past. Maybe you could add some policemen arresting the car drivers? --EasyTarget 14:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No the diagram shows the findings of internationally published research from various countries into the safety of cycle paths. This is why countries like the Netherlands have had to introduce special cycle-path traffic lights and other treatments. Their cycle path system cannot operate safely without such features. In addition, in the Netherlands motorists are held to be totally liable in the event of a collision with a cyclist. The issue of priority is precisely the point, trying to separate traffic on the basis of type instead of destination run counter to standard rules of traffic and confuses the issue of priority at junctions. In other countries such as the UK and Ireland priority may be explicitly removed from cyclists at every side road thereby increasing inconvenience as well as danger. In this case of course we would have to include pictures of police arresting the cyclists for not stopping. --Sf 15:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Further to this there is also a similar diagram illustrating the same effect over on the German Wiki http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rw-risiko.png --Sf 09:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

--EasyTarget 09:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No confusion about priority at junctions in the UK at least, please see the Highway code section 159 (near end of page). And the whole point is that turning traffic (af any type) has to give way to through traffic (of any type). The fact that it is on a parallel cyclepath makes no difference, the priority -has- been applied depending on destination.
 * Situations where priority is explicitly removed from cyclists are obviously dangerous, do they really do that in the UK now? It seems like a good way to negate the safety benefits of building proper cycle provisions.
 * Try jumping a red cycle light in Holland and then arguing the motorist is totally liable for a resulting collision.. In reality cyclists are given priority in most situations and motorists are expected to know this, but there is no blanket immunity from dumb or illegal cycling (contrary to what UK newspapers may say when they hear of attempts to extend the Dutch model to the rest of europe).
 * I note that the German pages on this also have a NPOV dispute. I wonder why.


 * A point to note is that the Highway code example given by EasyTarget only refers to "cycle lanes" not "cycle paths" or "cycle tracks". Regardless of what the legal code says it is axiomatic that attempting to separate vehicles on the basis of type rather than destination causes confusion at those locations where changes of direction or merging must take place.


 * For examples showing UK cycle facility priority reversal see here (the remainder of the examples are also worth a good perusal.)


 * http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/April2004.htm
 * http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/January2005.htm


 * As for the liability in the event of collison in the Netherlands my understanding is that this relates to compensation payable by the motorist's insurance company. If any traffic offence has been committed by the cyclist then this is treated as a separate matter.  If this is no longer the case then please let us know.


 * See Below As for the NPOV dispute: As is stated in the article many of those who espouse cycle facilities do so from a political/ideological agenda whether it be the National Socialists in 1930s Germany or the modern Greens. It is inevitable that where ideological precepts are being questioned their proponents react defensively.

--Sf 11:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I just rechecked over on the German wiki. I can find no evidence of any formal NPOV dispute as claimed by EasyTarget. There are tags for articles in need of work and cautions regarding extrapolation of the German legal situation but no NPOV tags (that I can find). --Sf 13:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Intent of remedial measures
What is the evidence behind this sentence:
 * "Although such treatments are often proclaimed as safety "improvements" in many cases the actual intent is to restore the level of safety that existed before the marking/construction of the segregated cycle facility."

I find it rather tendentious.

For the rest, an interesting read, though counterintuitive. It does not say anything about why these segregated cycle facilities are so unsafe, except for the rather obvious point that it's due to intersections. Two possible causes that I can think of is that cars don't see the cyclists and that cyclists feel safer. Does any of the sources speculate on this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased the offending sentence, there's more on underlying collision patterns over at bicycle safety --Sf 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle lane
Bicycle lane is not the same thing - a bicycle lane is a lane dedicated to bicycle use, but on a road designed for motor vehicles. Segregated cycle facilities, on the other hand, are facilities completely separated (and protected) from motor vehicle roads. 222.2.109.55 10:37, 10 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * At least in the US, a bicycle lane is a lane in name only (the definition does not even include the word lane).
 * Roads are designed for traffic, the definition of which includes both unmotorized and motorized vehicles.
 * In any jurisdiction, bicycle lanes are a segregated public facility because the government's intent is to separate individuals traveling a public way from others just on the basis of membership in a group (in this case, cyclists).--Wiley 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bike lane debate AFD
An article on Bike lane debate was AFDed, and the debate can be read here. Although there was a strong majority to delete, there were two who hinted that something in that article might be worth adding to this article. The last revision of that article can be reviewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bike Paths v Bike Trails
Some people may be offended at my edits just now, but it's just a USA thing, and it's pretty incontrovertible, and it needs to be recognized up front; unsurfaced trails ARE called bike trails and surfaced trails ARE called bike paths here in the states. jaknouse

Concepts
Stepping aside from the somewhat contradictory (or absent) statistics that support integration or segregation (if I can refer to the two sides of the debate in those terms), it seems that something 'useful' might come from taking another look at the issue from the conceptual point of view. If we accept that segregation involves creating 'two streams of traffic' where previously there was one, then we create the opportunity to apply a 'mathematical' approach. If we accept that in a segregated cycling 'world' the risk comes (generally) from two things (1) errors in driving where cycling and motor vehicle traffic streams cross (collision), and (2) crossing into the 'other' traffic stream in error (encroachment).

If we are looking at segregated cycling, the greater the number of intersections, the greater the risk of collision. Furthermore, the less consistently and clearly the separate traffic streams are demarcated, the more likely there will be encroachment.

A 'mind game' will prove the logic. In the situation where there are two traffic streams that are demarcated by an obvious physical barrier and never cross there is unlikely to be any collisions between vehicles in each of those traffic streams. Conversley (and this is a real word observation), in an urban environment with many road intersections we are likely to see a very high number of instances where motor traffic and bicycle traffic streams cross, and we are likely to observe that the demarcation is not consistent (it is interupted at each intersection) and often not clear (in an already visually cluttered urban environment).

The usefullness of this observation is that it allows Segregationists and Integrationists to agree that there are some circumstances where segregation is acceptable to all parties. Essentially that is in cases where there are relatively few intersections. In that case there are relatively few points where traffic streams cross, and it is possible to use a consistent (largely uninterupted) demarcation that will have relatively few other visual road information indicators to compete for attention with. Essentially we are saying that segregation introduces an additional degree of complexity in the driving environment, as well as a degree of inherent safety. In some cases however (and it is more likely in an already complex - often urban - driving environment) the additional complexity involved in segregation raises the overall complexity of the driving environment beyond a threshold where not only is that inherent 'safety' negated, but in fact overall road safety is prejudiced.

If it was possible to agree on this we might create the opportunity for folk on both sides of the debate to acknowledge that they agree on some things without the risk of appearing to 'concede' ground 'illogically', or worse still, not concede anything (however 'obvious') because it might detract from other folk's perception of the 'weight of their conviction'. Segregationists and Integrationists can then focus on discussing the best way of handling cycle traffic in complex driving environments.

Another 'mind game' might illustrate what we have 'traditionally' done in this area. Imagine separate streams of traffic for bicycles, cars, motorbikes, buses and trucks. Possible on highways, but in urban areas? Could it be managed in urban areas? Yes possibly, but it would take considerable planning and investment. In practice we compromise, we have lanes for buses, and 'truck routes', but generally we 'share'. There are visibility issues and driving issues, generally we manage them. Some history on how we reached this 'arrangement' might illuminate the current debate on segregated (vs integrated) cycling.

I'll see if I can find some sources to 'prop' this case up, and move it into the article if warranted. Regards, Tban 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with segregation isn't with what is created ('two streams of traffic' or otherwise); the problem is that the separation of a person from others on the basis of class, category or group without regard to individual merit (i.e., social discrimination) is inherently unfair to that person and hence unacceptable. On the other hand, separation of a particular person according to a uniform and fairly administered standard which is based on just on their individual merit is not (by definition) segregation.

BTW, intersections (the junction of two or more roads) are not the only places where crossing traffic (and hence the average risk of collision) is more likely; that risk is greater at any junction of road, driveway, alleyway, path, or accel/decel ramp where the path of a vehicle can cross the path of another vehicle at the same grade and time.

While we do have lanes marked "bus lane", those preferential lanes aren't defined as being limited to that type of vehicle. Rather, those lanes are reserved for a particular use; fixed-route public transportation which the government typically (but not always) provides via buses.

"Truck routes" aren't defined as being for that particular type of vehicle. Rather, those routes are for a particular use; commercial haulage of cargo by vehicle (especially cargo which poses an extraordinary danger to the person or property of others). That use is typically (but not always) provided via trucks.

In contrast, a bicycle is a vehicle which has various potential uses, including public transportation and the haulage of cargo.

Regarding separate and adjacent streams of traffic that can cross or merge at the same grade, traffic engineers generally try to avoid creating then since they violate the fundamental traffic principles. See NCCBD's "Bicycle Driving" slide presentation http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/nccbd/sld009.htm for more information about those principles. --Wiley 06:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CYCLING WITH PEDESTRIANS IS THE NORM IN KYOTO, JAPAN.
 * Have a look at my weblog which  contrasts utility cycling in Kyoto, Japan where large numbers of cyclists share the pavements with pedestrians with the situation in Christchurch, New Zealand where small numbers of cyclists share the roads with motor vehicles .  Alinkyoto 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Segregations
Yes, in some places bikes go with walkers, some with skaters, some with cars. I go all these ways and have never seen a place that wants to segregate me from both skaters and motor cars. Each segregation scheme is appropriate in some circumstances and not in others, each is used in some places where it shouldn't, and each is not used in some places where it should. No, New York traffic segregation rules do not send me to a different path when carrying cargo on my bike than when not, while they often do send me a different way when walking than when bicycling, without regard to my invariant personal merits. Where is it, that segregation is only based on person, merit or cargo, and never on truck vs car, motor vs not motor, or vehicle vs pedestrian?

I only got to this article after describing the segregated path to Jones Beach State Park as a Greenway and wondering how best to link the word. To my surprise, "Greenway" internationally means something different from how it is used in the USA. No problem; I'll conform to local usage for local descriptions. The title of this article is appropriate except for two things: It is long, and it is plural. Are those good qualities? Road and Freeway and Rail transport and Sidewalk and Park are not titled at length or in the plural. Why should this one be either? "Bikeway" or "Cycle path" is short and singular. Some readers may also care that these titles make "segregation" implicit rather than explicit. Naturally the body of the article, rather than the title, will go into detailed distinctions among degrees of physical and legal segregation of traffic.

Apparently this long and plural title is taken from the laws of an important country. To me it seems insufficient reason to use a title which does not follow usual Wiki practice and is inappropriate to the purposes of an encyclopedia article. Jim.henderson 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merge of articles.

The result was Maintain the two separate pages

Merge in of Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation
The Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation article seems to me to be a natural sub-section of this article. It only has one article linking to it - this one, and a lot of its content is duplicated here. Is there a good reason to have it separate? -- de Facto (talk). 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZE - articles shouldn't be much longer than 32KB - this article is already 36KB. So the page needs some splitting - and I don't see much duplicated material. What is on this page should be a summary of the child page: it seems fit for purpose. So I oppose a merge. --Mk3severo 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was split out precisely because the article is getting quite long and this child page will also have to grow to take in Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc etc (SF Not logged in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.178.4 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC).