Talk:Safety of cycling infrastructure

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cycling Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 6 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Bikeway safety to Safety of cycling infrastructure. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

Is there a reason why the article has a primary focus on the disparity of safety between different types of bikeways? I believe the article could be made more informative if it also offered information on the relative safety in various areas currently. While information of this type is found periodically throughout the article, I believe a dedicated section to the current status of bikeway safety is necessary (i.e. the current risks associated with cycling). CAH510 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)CAH510[reply]

Does the large overlap between pages such as 'cycling infrastructure' and 'bicycle safety' with this page warrant merging these pages into one? CAH510 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)CAH510[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CAH510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bikeway safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bikeway safety. 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/20080625075543/http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/FS_Cyclists.pdf to http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/FS_Cyclists.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bikeway safety. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Bike%2Bpaths%2Breduce%2Binjuries%2Bstudy/4255360/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032822/http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/publikationer.asp?page=document&objno=17291 to http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/publikationer.asp?page=document&objno=17291

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safety by Region

I believe the page could be made more comprehensive with an analysis of bicycle safety in different parts of the world, in order to greater contextualize the issue. The interplay of traffic laws, population density, and bikeway infrastructure policies should be taken into account. To represent the disparity in safety in different systems of accommodation, I suggest using studies that have comprehensively analyzed cycling fatalities and injuries (accounting for overall distance traveled) to highlight the relative safety of different systems for urban cyclists. CAH510 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)CAH510 CAH510 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)CAH510[reply]

Current Initiatives

I believe the page could be supplemented and reorganized with information on current initiatives and proposed policies aimed to improve bikeway safety. This information about ongoing or potential improvements in bikeway safety could be segregated into subcategories according to a region or type of policy. Also a section regarding traffic policies and initiatives that are arguably detrimental to the safety of cyclists could be warranted. CAH510 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)CAH510[reply]

General organization, credibility of studies

I have added a reference in the first section and removed a the second redundant reference to the 2010 Montreal study in this section. The Montreal study is referenced again in the section of studies showing benefits of separate infrastructure. There is a problem with organization here. I don't have time now to address this, but I am thinking that the introductory section should include no references to individual studies, and that these should be placed in the later sections. Also this article does not address criticisms of studies -- some are more credible than others. Jsallen1 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Jsallen1 (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Jsallen1[reply]

And the reference in the first section to the Vancouver study as claiming that other studies lump together different types of facilities is misplaced. This study itself exaemplifies that problem, identifying paths along roads along a waterfront, and on a long bridge, with no cross streets, as cycle tracks and so, eliminating car-bicycle crashes. There are numerous additional problems with this article. In particular, it faile to reference important studies and fails to evaluate their credibility. Categorizing studies as supporting or not supporting separate infrastructure is simplistic. Credible studies generally draw more nuanced conclusions and support some measures while not supporting others. A categorization by infrastructure type and review of studies treating it would be more valuable. Jsallen1 (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)jsallen1[reply]

Hi @Jsallen1, I've looked through the article and recategorised the article along more topic-relevant lines (between intersections vs. at intersections, which is where studies seem to show a difference). Jèrriais janne (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health benefits section

The "Health benefits" section doesn't seem to fit with the topic of the article. Delete? Jèrriais janne (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept as it is comparing deaths from cycling with deaths from not cycling Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No substantive opposition after a week. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bikeway safety → Safety of cycling infrastructure – Attempted move myself and seems to have moved it to a completely different page and now further attempts to move won't work. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jèrriais janne: Ping requester to let them know the discussion moved here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I contested this move since the title change had he potential to change the scope of the article, so thus needs to be evaluated by the community. Other than that, I have no opinion about the title change. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment on reflection it does change the scope of the article (though I would argue to make it more in line with some of the content located therein. I obviously support the change, but if there is opposition, I am happy to discuss it. Regardless, I think that the term "bikeway" is outdated and something like "Safety of cycleways" would be better. Jèrriais janne (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.