Talk:Segregated cycle facilities

Dutch investment in motoring infrastructure

This sentence had been placed in the evidence section as a counter point to the figures on cycling numbers during the period of operation of the Dutch bicycle master plan.

However, monetary investments in the road and public transport networks during the same period were many times that spent on cycle provisions in the same period, and car ownership did increase by 49% in the same period without a reduction in cycle use.

However, it seems clear that several (if not all?) prominent Dutch cities had active traffic restraint programs in place from the late 70s on. It seems to me that for the sentence above to stand as a counter point - then it must be shown that the investments in motoring infrastructure took place in urban areas for the purpose of facilitating and promoting motorised traffic in competition with other modes such as cycling. Otherwise the investments might just as easily have been for the opposite purpose of diverting motor traffic around, and excluding it from, urban areas - and hence promoting cycling. --Sf 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Article lacks adequate references

This article needs to have citations added for each presented fact and for each synthesis (see WP:CITE and WP:NOR) to allow readers to verify the article's accuracy easily. It is not acceptable to expect the reader to read through the thirty or more references that are cited, to look for the source of an unreferenced sentence. An example of an unreferenced fact is in the Post motorisation (Pre World War II) section:

By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring.

From which published source can the reader verify that indeed this did happen in the UK?

An unreferenced synthesis is in the Urban roads section:

Accident analysis suggests that on arterial routes with few junctions, providing segregated space for cyclists ought to minimise the number of collisions.

Whose research provides that conclusion?

Please do not remove any of the fact or or tags until the references have been clarified. -- de Facto (talk). 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the article does not need to have specific references for every fact or synthesis. That is a ridiculously extreme interpretation of wikipedia policy. The Encyclopaedia Britannica does not bother going that far. This is a short summary of a complex subject, nothing more - it is not a thesis. If you wish to challenge a particular assertion or fact because it genuinely seems wrong to you, fine, but otherwise please dont undermine others' good faith input by demanding they provide proof of every dot and comma! Trust wikipedia's contributors! Jameswilson 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, states "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article". It also states "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". The fact tags are all next to such edits.

The Wikipedia:No original research policy is very clear about what is excluded. Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? specifically states that an edit is considered original research if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" or if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". All the or tags I placed are against such edits.

For those two reasons I have reinstated the tags. -- de Facto (talk). 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with de Facto. I know of no evidence supporting that assertion. It should not be tagged, but removed. --Serge 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article has excessive verification banners

Resolved

 – Moot; sourcing problems fixed.

There are two banners at the top of the article which are created by instances of Category:Citation_and_verifiability_maintenance_templates Template:Refimprove and Template:Original_research. Both templates are in the Citation and verifiability maintenance templates category. The banners both point to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and both ask editors to add references to this article.

Since improving the references for this article will allow us to determine which material is original research, and having these two similar banners impeds (IMHO) the usability of the article to some extent, I'd like to propose that the Template:Original_research banner be removed from this article while leaving the Template:Refimprove banner as is. --Wiley 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Severo^TC 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of apparent original research in the article, I think the original research banner is necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV problems with this article

I was directed here from a blog post that pointed to this article as a good "source" to use for making arguments to oppose the construction of bikelanes. I can see why. The article is devoted almost entirely to a very harshly critical argument and is almost devoid of description. It is not encyclopedic at all. Whether or not the arguments made are correct or adequately supported by research is frankly irrelevant at this point; the problem lies in nature of the article itself, which is, on the whole, not an encyclopedia article but rather a polemic. That is not what wikipedia is for. I would like to suggest revisions to the outline of this article:

1. History -- this section currently makes two main points--that segregated facilities were put into place in the early 20th century at the behest of motorists and motoring advocates, and that there has been a surge in bicycle facilities since the 1980s due to environmental "dogma" (not an NPOV word). If it is true that these facilities have been constructed largely since the 1980s (or perhaps 1970s, as I would think) then there needs to be a lot more discussion of the history from this period. As large a phenomenon as this cannot be dismissed in an encyclopedia article as merely due to environmental "dogma." There has to be more to the story, and it has to be told in an NPOV way.

2. Types of facilities -- this section, which does not currently exist, should be the main focus of the article. Around the world there are many different kinds of segregated bicycle facilities, and they should each be discussed in turn. I am familiar with on-street bike lanes, cycle paths, multi-use trails, mountain bike paths and shared sidewalks. There are probably many more. The introduction to the article names a few, and this can be used as a starting point for the facility types section.

3. Safety -- a perfectly legitimate section to have, but only after the facilities themselves are adequately described. A number of the references are problematic because they point not to research but to opinion articles or anecdotes that may not be universal; these need to be cleaned up, and I would suggest moving essentially all of the detailed parts of this section to cycle path debate, where they can be dealt with separately from this main article.

4. Road traffic legislation -- I am not sure how important this section is to the article, which needs to deal more with the facilities and less with policy. I suggest moving it to cycle path debate for now.

5. The design vehicle and design users -- again, most of this should just be moved to cycle path debate, although a paragraph might be appropriate here. The language used in this section is not very NPOV right now.

6. Maintenance -- needs to be shrunk a lot. Worth a mention, but the endless detailed references to maintenance practices in one country don't belong in an encyclopedia article. If it's really controversial then move it to cycle path debate.

7. Transportation cycling -- seems to me this section is really at the heart of the cycle path debate, so -- move it there.

-- Planetcs 12:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the project - I would suggest a good starting point would be to get yourself a user Id. As it happens - some of us around here seem to be operating under our actual identities. --Sf 23:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime you could point out to your blog poster that it might be more accurate to say that the article is a good "source" to use for making arguments to oppose the construction of cycling facilities that are inappropriately conceived or designed and/or are proposed for use in unsuitable contexts. Or alternatively you might say that it sets out a useful set of criteria under which interested parties can assess a proposed cycling facility and ensure that it matches with best international practice. As regards your other comments it is accepted that there are obvious gaps in the article - see the "to do" list above. So of your list of concerns 1-7 which do you want to start with? --Sf 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response November 7th 2007

Ok I'll start then -

Point 1. This is addressed in the to do list time permitting this section needs expansion as and when reliable sources can be found. If you don't like the term dogma feel free to suggest an alternative.

Point 2 (Types) We already had to split out a seperate article on different types see Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation as you suggest the issue needs expansion and that would be the place to do it. Any help you could offer with that would be welcome. The main article itself explains the main categories as per CFI etc

1. On carriageway

2. Off carriageway but within highway

3. Away from the highway

Point 3 Claims regarding safety are the overwhelming argument used by their proponents to justify the construction of cycling facilities - Therefore in my view these claims must be explored in sufficient detail to allow the reader to grasp the various issues. Which references are problematic?

Point 4 In my view and the view of others you cannot separate out the issue how cycle facilities work and the legislative and other environments in which they operate. Nor can I conceive of any justifiable reason for wishing to do so.

Points 5 and 6 these are only controversial if you choose not to mention them. choosing not to mention them or play them down would invite conclusions of bias in my view. Denmark is a frequently cited model for cycle track construction therefore examples of Danish practice wuld appear to be an obvious way of illustrating the point if you don't like Denmark feel free to offer a similar example from elsewhere.

Transportation cycling: After safety this is the other major argument made for cycle facilities (the arguments are usually combined - i.e. cycle facilities are needed for the safety and promotion of utility cycling). Are we supposed to have an article on the topic divorced from proclaimed purpose of the devices discussed?

--Sf 12:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Response 17th November

I've changed "central dogma" -> to "article of faith" I'll assume that's the main issue sorted for the moment. --Sf (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

The entire article reads like an advocacy piece rooted in the vehicular cycling ideology. It is almost entirely one-sided. The section on safety needs a major rewrite. The references provided are also problematic: much of them are exhibiting severe defects such as unverifiable or poor quality data, advocacy tone in what is presented as research, undocumented conclusions, etc. Much of the data is also outdated. Universal-777 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to do better than that - I have paper copies of most of the documents cited - if you are saying that the data presented in any of them has been disputed then you will have to provide a published source for that assertion. Also how can accident stats be outdated? --Sf (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition left by User Universal-777 1 June 2008

Much of the data is also old. For example Wardlaw 2002, referenced as number 57, is a position paper rather than an objective review and analysis. The author, M. Wardlaw, demonstrates taking an a priori conclusion --that cycling is safer than other means of transportation-- and sets out to interpret the data to support his position. He also argues both sides against the middle, by writing in one section that the risk of cycling decreases with increased usage, but in a different section he states that the risk of cycling, which he agrees is much higher than for driving cars, by unit of time, is mediated by low cycling usage. In addition a significant portion of the data Wardlaw relies on is from an unpublished and unreleased study dating back to 1988 and not available from public sources. The data is therefore unverifiable. And there are many more defects in this referenced document.

In the section titled "Indirect Safety" the article states, "The "safety in numbers" argument has also been used to explain the apparent success of cycle facilities in some cities. In most cases, the most prominent examples of "successful" cycle networks were implemented in towns that already had significant numbers of cyclists.[22]"

Reference 22, in addition to providing a comment on the "tasteless American tomato" is pure advocacy with no attempt at being a serious study. When time permits we will contribute many more examples. Universal-777 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC), with addition dated June 1, 2008.

Reply by SF 02 June 2008

With respect I think you need to reread Wardlaw's paper again. You appear to be confusing the arguments about the inherent risks of cycling with the the overall risks faced by cyclists while cycling and which in terms of serious injuries are imposed primarily by motoring not cycling. Also it is clear that the use of the reference numeral (3) in the paragraph on the National Travel Survey data is likely in error. My reading of the paper indicates that all data is sourced from public sources. If you want we can ask Malcolm for confirmation.

As regards your objections Jeremy Parkers' comment about the Food Science and Botanical Activities at the University of Davis I fail to see the relevance. It is an uncontroversial observation that university towns tend to have lots of cyclists. If you feel a better source is needed feel free to offer one.

Finally it might be best if you keep your comments in chronological order so that people can actually see what it is you are or are not disputing without having to trawl through the page history. --Sf (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition left by User Universal-777 6 June 2008

The article fails to review the quality of the referenced material, focusing on points or conclusions it almost always takes at face value. Universal-777 (talk) 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Does reviewing the quality of referenced material not count as original research?

Your more recent edit, seems to negate the meaning of a sentence, and conflicts with the rest of the paragraph. I think the phrase "should be easy" does not belong on wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE quality of the reference material. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to use any Wikipedia article to discuss the quality, or alleged lack thereof, of any source material. However, it would seem to be entirely reasonable to discuss such matters here on the talk page. In this regard, I view it as noteworthy that despite making their allegations on the 31st of May, user Universal-777 has so far been unable to substantiate his or her, rather sweeping, claims. Either there are issues with the material or not - if so please state them - if you please with reference to specific documents. If there is counter evidence from the literature please state what it is and clearly show where it can be found. In my view it is telling that while Universal-777 has purported to cite a report in favour of his or her contribution to the article, no properly dated or attributed citation has been provided. There is an apparent inconsistency --Sf (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Struck out comment re citation as this has apparently now been provided --Sf (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rail trails

The mention of rail trails in this article has given at least one Wikipedia contributor the impression that rail trails are segregated cycle facilities (see Talk:Rail trail). I know of none that are; can anyone here name one? Else, I suggest removing all mention of rail trails from this article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, it is your view that any mention of the use of old railway alignments should be removed from discussion of the use of roads dedicated to cycle traffic? --Sf (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that segregated means separating an individual from others on the basis of a grouping or a classification, then facilities which exclude one or more classes of travel (motor, foot, etc.) while allowing cycling apparently fall within the scope of this article. Another POV is that a facility which restricts or bans an activity on the basis of posing an extraordinary danger to the public (such as motoring) isn't segregated since the basis for the restriction is an attribute of the individual (they're driving a vehicle which is so dangerous to others that a license is required). --Wiley (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article defines segregated cycle facilities as designated for the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists. Most rail trails do not meet that definition. I'd like one example of a rail trail that does meet that definition. --Una Smith (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition has been reverted to pretty much the original version - does this solve the issue? --Sf (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because the new definition defines a non-motorized multi-use facility (ie, almost any trail, path, or road closed to motor vehicles), not a segregated cycle facility. The problem was not in the definition, but in the statement that a rail trail is a kind of segregated cycle facility. Most of them are not. --Una Smith (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok must be a US thing, in Europe most of them are open to cyclists so we'll stick with European examples thanks for that. --Sf (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in my experience as a bicycle commuter, the US and Europe are much the same. I think the problem is this: "open to cycles" is not a synonym for "segregated cycle facility". A segregated cycle facility is something designated as being principally or exclusively for use by cycles. Example: in New York City's Central Park there is a loop road used by police, emergency, and maintenance vehicles, and by thousands of walkers, joggers, inline skaters, wheelchair users, skateboarders, and bicyclists. Bicycles have a designated lane, a "segregated cycle facility" where other users must yield to bicycles; outside this lane, bicycles must yield to other users. Most multi-use trails are not segregated cycle facilities; one evidence of this is the fact that on such trails bicycles must yield to other users. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that on this side of the Atlantic "open to cycles" is a synonym for "segregated cycle facility" and the concept would be taken to include roads shared with pedestrians and also shared-use footways (sidewalks) and similar features. --Sf (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about citing a reliable source for this synonym? Here are some sources that explain the difference between shared and segregated bicycle facilities (lanes, etc): US, Scotland (although this source uses "segregated" in two senses, the second sense equivalent to "separated" as by distance, grade, vegetation, fencing or other barriers). Then there is the apparent oxymoron "segregated shared route" but here what is shared is the easement; the route is a collective multi-use trail that consists of two or more parallel, segregated trails/lanes/etc.[1] --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Irish Road Traffic Act 1993

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0068.html

68.—(1) In this section "cycleway" means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

( 2 ) ( a ) A road authority may construct (or otherwise provide) and maintain a cycleway.

( b ) Where a road authority constructs or otherwise provides a cycleway it shall by order declare either

(i) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists, or

(ii) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

Also if you go to the Warrington Cycle Facility of the month you will see various examples of devices that are shared with pedestrians. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/June2008.htm

Simlarly if you look up the same topic on the German wikipedia you will see a range of options for rights of way that are shared with pedestrians. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radweg

I can assure you that the concept is well established in law in various countries and that in the mind of the general reader the concept segregated cycle facilities includes such treatments - as you have discovered yourself on the rail trails page. --Sf (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In the UK there is no such thing as cycleways segregated from pedestrians. A path may be marked and signed as a route for cyclists, but pedestrians have as much ROW. Where a path is marked with one side for cyclists and the other for pedestrians, then pedestrians still have the same ROW as cyclists on the cyclist side. Martin451 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality of the research cited by Universal-777

Universal-777 has made allegations as to the quality of the published work cited in this article. By way of providing evidence in support of their position, Universal-777 has provided the following quote:

A 2006 report concludes that "bicycle safety data are difficult to analyse, mostly because bicycle trip data (and thus accident probability per trip) are hard to uncover" (see NCHRP Report 552, 2006, "Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities", National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation research Board of the National Academies, page F-1

This is the full quote from Appendix F User Safety Benefits:

In the end, bicycle safety data are difficult to analyze, mostly because bicycle trip data (and thus accident probability per trip) are hard to uncover. As more research and conclusive findings become available, it will likely be possible to understand the safety benefits of bicycle facilities in more detail—at such time, a model could then be developed and incorporated into the guidelines.

It would seem that the NCHRP authors wish the reader to conclude that such research is not available at present - a claim which in my view is false and which there is good evidence that the NCHRP authors knew to be false. On page 34 the NCHRP authors provide us with this.

There is evidence to support the notion that collision-type crashes are lower on off-road paths (120). Using before and after analysis, Garder’s research (121) found raised bicycle crossings to be more appealing and safer for cyclists than at grade crossings. However, there exists an equal, if not greater body of research suggesting no relationship or a relationship in the opposite direction.

Lets take the last sentence first. The NCHRP authors clearly had knowledge of a body of research suggesting that segregated cycle facilities decrease safety but they then apparently fail to refer to any of it in detail or explore the findings. Instead for the remainder of the page they refer to work showing that certain facility designs are no less safe than unmarked roads or offer safety improvements over other facilities - without exploring the fundamental issue of the comparative safety of roads versus cycle facilities.

Let us now consider works cited above by the NCHRP authors: There is evidence to support the notion that collision-type crashes are lower on off-road paths (120). Reference 120 in the NCHRP document is to the paper: Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates by Aultman-Hall, L. and M. G. Kaltenecker. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 1999, p. 675–686. This paper is based on survey data from 1196 cyclists that specifically included information on the cyclists' routes thus allowing the authors to calculate relative exposure (and accident rates) depending on environment eg roads, sidewalks, off-road paths. What follows are direct quotes from the Toronto paper:

If one considers the various event counts on different types of infrastructure, it might seem that roads are the problem for falls, injuries and collisions. However, inspection of the rate data indicates that events on sidewalks and off-road paths are the more frequent events per kilometer traveled. Thus diverting cyclists from the road to sidewalks and paths as might be suggested based on count analysis could be expected to increase overall event rates based on this analysis that accounted for travel exposure.

This study has found statistically significant differences between the collision, fall and injury rates for bicycle commuting on-road, off-road and on sidewalks in the Toronto study area. In general, these relative rates suggest it is safest to travel on-road followed by off-road paths, and finally, least safe on sidewalks. While the same analysis undertaken in Ottawa resulted in the same pattern of relative rates, the magnitudes were different. The rates per distance are all higher in Toronto suggesting that urban form, traffic levels and the attitudes of drivers and cyclists can affect bicycle safety. The Ottawa relative collision rates were approximately 1.0 while the Toronto ones were 3.5 and 2.0 for paths and sidewalks versus roads.

This analysis by Aultman-Hall and Kaltenecker would seem to be diametrically opposite to the interpretation of their findings that is portrayed by the NCHRP authors. To return to the next sentence the NCHRP authors tell us that: Using before and after analysis, Garder’s research (121) found raised bicycle crossings to be more appealing and safer for cyclists than at grade crossings. However the NCHRP authors neglect to explore what was driving Garder, Leden and Pulkinnen's research. Here is a quote from the original Garder, Leden and Pulkinnen paper: Bicyclists have a higher risk of injury along “conventional” bicycle paths (along collector roads and arterials) where junctions are delineated by painted white rectangles than they have if sharing the roadway with automobile traffic. [A recent comprehensive analysis of “all” available studies indicates, on average, a 1 percent increase in the number of injured bicyclists as a result of constucting bicycle paths through intersections (12).] In my view, There is no point in the NCHRP authors telling the reader that safety can be improved unless they also explain what the safety issues were in the first place. Garder, Leden and Pulkinnen cite other research into the safety of bike paths as follows (a point to note is that two of the articles below are cited in this Wiki article)

Gårder, P., L. Leden, and T. Thedéen. Safety Implications of Bike Paths at Signalized Intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1994, pp. 429– 439.

Linderholm, L. Signalreglerade korsningars funktion och olycksrisk för oskyddade trafikanter—Delrapport 1: Cyklister. Bulletin 55. LTH, Institutionen för trafikteknik, Lund, Sweden, 1984.

Wachtel, A., and D. Lewiston. Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. ITE Journal, Sept. 1994, pp. 30–35.

Thus, the NCHRP authors must have known of the existence of this research and were in a position to follow up on it themselves. Despite this, they make no direct reference to its existence, nor do they provide any citations that would allow their reader to follow up directly. In my view, the authors of the the NCHRP document cited by Universal-777 are open to the accusation that they are being economical in their portrayal of the findings of other authors in the field. It is my view that, the so far unsubstantiated, accusations of bias made by Universal-777 might also be said to applicable to his or her preferred source. --Sf (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a Neutral Point of View

The article is poor in NPOV - The removal of edits is showing a lack of concern for a balanced point of view. The writer who seems to be the main author did not provide a valid explanation to counter that it lacks a NPOV. We maintain that the entire article reads like an advocacy piece rooted in the vehicular cycling ideology. It is almost entirely one-sided. The research cited is of extremely poor quality and as time permits we will provide more examples. In the mention of Wardlaw 2002 above, the contradiction is between "increased usage" and "low cycling usage." [[Universal-777 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)]]