Talk:Safety bicycle

Comment

"Ride in an upright position"? This seems backwards, as I see bicycles as described here as ridden leaning heavily forward while penny farthings would be ridden more upright. Leaning lowers center of gravity and, especially in bicycles with front wheel brakes, makes it much harder or impossible to fly over the bars without actually letting go of them and diving forward.

Paraphrase, someone

"The safety also made cycling much safer, and therefore much more popular, especially for women." Most the women I know would employ a lot of sarcasm at whoever wrote that. An etymological description would clear up a lot too. I have no clue about cycling, so I'm just commenting ;) 18:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)~

When the Safety bicycle came out the fashion for women back then was for long skirts and dresses, which made riding a Penny Farthing dangerous, as the skirts made getting on and off and riding much more awkward, with the possibility of getting the skirt tangled up in the bicycle. The Safety changed that, and with the advent of the 'ladies' frames - with the crossbar lowered or angled down towards the rear - that made it even easier for a woman wearing a long skirt to use.

BTW, that's why 'ladies' bicycles have a different crossbar arrangement - women (unlike men) sometimes wear skirts. The lower or angled crossbar was so that they could get on and off without showing their knickers.

Except of course, some men, even today, wear a kilt, in which case, the result could be even more unsightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is an allusion which should be made more direct by a quote from a source. The popularity of the safety bicycle circa 1890 was a reflective of -- and a small contribution to -- the emancipation of women in the UK and US. The bicycle gave many women access to long distance transport which was not mediated by the men of the household, as cycling did not require the use of the household's working animals nor require per-use payment. The popularity of women's cycling lead to a modification of clothing -- the "rational dress" movement -- which again was reflective of -- and a small contribution to -- the increasing emancipation of women. A suitable source would be the materials of the exhibition “Pedaling the Path to Freedom.” Kenna Howat, National Women’s History Museum, June 27, 2017. Gdt (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I have removed the following from the article, because as far as I can tell it has almost no relevance to this subject:

In 1890, two recent graduates of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, Thomas Gaskell Allen, Jr and William Lewis Sachtleben, literally took the safety bicycle to the world when they set out to circle the planet on the new invention. The inspiration for their journey was Thomas Stevens' then popular Around the World on a Bicycle (1887-88). Stevens had used the much more dangerous 'ordinary' bicycle in his trip.

In 1890 they traveled across Europe from England and wintered over in Athens. In the Spring of 1891 the two began the most dangerous part of their journey, a trip through Central Asia rarely visited by outsiders. That portion of their journey was not completed until the fall of 1892 and is described in their (still in print) book, Across Asia on a Bicycle. As they traveled, they demonstrated the bicycle for the first time to people across Asia. Along the way, they became the first Americans to climb Mount Ararat in Turkey, reaching the top on July 4, 1891.

On June 3, 1893 they completed their around the world journey by returning to New York City. The 15,000 miles they traveled was at that time the "longest continuous land journey ever made around the world." Thomas Allen's much battered 1890 Huber Safety bicycle is now part of a science museum and is housed in Hanger L4 at Wroughton Airfield in Wiltshire, England.

Photo would be nice

Incidentally, why is this template supposed to go on Talk pages? It would seem more logical to have it on the article page where people would see it immediately, as with the various cleanup tags. 81.158.1.206 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond-shaped frame not necessary

The "Cogent" Safety bicycle shown in the illustration does not have a diamond-shaped frame as mentioned in the definition of a safety bicycle. So I have removed this part of the definition.

Gary 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Safety" ?

Is it called a "safety bicycle" because it is somehow "more safe", or is it just the marketing department trying to spread FUD about other designs? If it is more safe, how is it more safe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.167.236.153 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there marketing departments as such in the 1880s, and I think it is much more safe then the Penny Farthing bicycles that were popular before the Safety bicicles. Penny farthings are apparently prone to roll over foward, with a risk of the rider landing on their head. 82.45.205.96 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Usually, there is a proposal and discussion before a merger. I agree that some kind of consolidation was in order, but I'm not convinced that this was the right move. Is upright a subset of safety or vica versa?

Is safety commonly used anywhere? Not in the US in the shops where I've worked. Upright is the common term. I suspect that safety is really an obsolete and not very clearly defined term.
The sentence "Safeties" are characterized by having two wheels of identical - or nearly identical - size, and a chain-driven rear wheel. excludes many recumbents and thereby suggests that recumbents are not safeties. I hope no one is considering merging recumbent into safety as well.

I get the "be bold" part, but I'm ready to ask for a source to confirm that all uprights are safeties. I'd believe that all safeties are uprights. I can already show that all recumbents are not safeties, according to the current definition given in this article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term is not very common. Standard bicycles are pretty rare, and so the term safety bike is no longer needed. However, it is still the correct term for these bikes. Upright bicycle is basically a newer term for the same thing.

In that case, we need to find an expert in the field that has said so in print. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I consider a recumbent a safety bicycle is that the rider is lower to than the ground than a penny farthing, and usually even lower than an upright bicycle. Reub2000 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're going to need an 'official' definition with a source. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning P38 with 16" or 20" front wheel and 700c or 26" rear wheel.

I agree that safety bicycle is a technically correct name, and I am supper glad to see the articles merged, but I also question if merging to Safety bicycle as opposed to Upright Bicycle was the best move. I'm not going to say that it needs to be moved to Upright bicycle, but I would say that is my preference. More important to me is that recumbent bicycles have been included here. While recumbents are certainly more safe than a Penyfarthing, I don't think that makes them "Safety Bicycles". It doesn't make sense to define bicycles in relation to (nearly non-existant) penyfarthings. Merging to Safety and then including recumbent muddles the important distinction between uprights and recumbent. I think it makes more sense to merge to Upright and then be able to contrast uprights with recumbents. --Keithonearth (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, any bike that is driven by some type of drive train, be it a chain or drive shaft is a safety bicycle. Recumbent bicycles also borrow many other features from the upright bicycle, like freewheels and derailer gears.Reub2000 (talk)

Sadly, "As Far As I Know" is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If we're going to assert that any bike with a chain or shaft drive is a safety bicycle, we're going to need some published expert to say so. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One such "established expert", Sheldon Brown, in his often cited glossary, says "Safety Bicycle: A conventional bicycle, with wheels of similar size and chain drive." That seems to eliminate most recumbents and shaft drive and making safety bicycles a subset of upright bicycles. Sadly, he does not give a definition of upright bicycle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I propose that we rename this article to Upright bicycle and indicate that Safety bicycle is a historical name for a subset of upright bicycles. Also, diamond and step-through are the main types of upright bicycle frames, and chain and shaft are the main drive train mechanisms on upright bicycles. Finally, recumbents are the main alternatives to upright bicycles. Now if only I could find a source... -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recumbent do use similar size wheel. I've never seen a recumbent where one wheel is vastly larger than another wheel. And the technology used for the drive train is less important here than the fact that it allows for the transfer of kinetic energy while amplifying the speed in the process. Reub2000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then cast your eyes on these beauties: -AndrewDressel (talk)

That all sounds really good to me Andrew. I'd really like to see those edits made. A couple little things though: I think the addition of the fact that historically they arose as an alternative to penny-farthings, and were at that time known as "safety bicycles" is important to include and I think it's more fair to say chains are the main form of drive train, with shafts as an alternative.--Keithonearth (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it may not be that simple. Herlihy's Bicycle has pictures of the "Humber Safety Bicycle of 1884" with a front wheel about 1/2 the size of the rear wheel and the "Rover Safety Bicycle" of 1885 with a rear wheel 6 inches smaller than the front and "a complicated indirect steering mechanism." Henry J. Lawson, a British Engineer, apparently coined the term "Safety Bicycle" in 1876 as the name a machine on which "the rider sat nearly directly over the small front wheel, and shift[ed] treadles back and forth [to propel] a driving wheel of standard size just behind the saddle." Yikes. Herlihy often uses the expression "Rover-style safeties", presumably to distinguish them from other safeties such as the Humber and the Lawson. It seems that "Safety Bicycle" means whatever a manufacturer wanted it to mean: mostly to distinguish a new design from the then reigning high wheeler. I'm beginning to lean towards splitting the two article back apart. "Upright" describes the dominant form today, and "safety" appears to describe anything that wasn't a high wheeler when high wheelers were prevalent. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles where merged because they described the same type of bike, just with perspectives from 2 different eras. If you would like to create a safety bicycle article describing other types of bikes, then be my guest.Reub2000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workin' on it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safety bicycle, former or current

The current version of the Oxford English Dictionary, arguably a reliable source, says of safety bicycle former name for the type of bicycle now in use, differing from the ‘Ordinary’ in the lower position of the saddle, whereby greater safety is afforded to the rider. Is there any source that confirms that safety bicycle is still the proper term for this type of bicycle? As it stands now, the current assertion is unsourced. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Brown

A conventional bicycle, with wheels of similar size and chain drive. When the modern style of bicycle was replacing the high wheeler, in the late 1880's, the new style was mainly noted for its greater safety compared to the older design.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

A bicycle with equal or nearly equal wheels, usually 28 inches diameter, driven by pedals connected to the rear (driving) wheel by a multiplying gear.

Although I have never heard the term applied to a modern bicycle due the lack of penny-farthings in use, this is the first time I've read anywhere that the term no longer applies to modern bicycles. Reub2000 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard the term applied to a modern bicycle either, which is why the final name of this article after the merger with upright bicycle caught my attention. The fact that neither of the two sources you found explicitely state that the term is obsolete does not mean that it is not. For example, Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. has this to say about aerodrome:

a landing field for airplanes that has extensive buildings, equipment, shelters, etc.; airport.

While the OED, which usually provides dated examples of usage, has this:

A place where a balloon or flying machine is housed; a hangar. rare. Now disused. and Originally: a tract of open ground set aside for aircraft to fly over in flight trials and flying contests (now disused).

So, it could simply be a matter of how much detail a source provides. However, far more damning to my point, is Effective cycling By John Forester

One path leads to the present safety bicycle...

Maybe it is not as former as I or the editors of the OED would like to believe, or some authors are attacted to antiquated expressions in the same way that some cyclists are attracted to antique bicycles and componentry. Is there any way we can weave all these details together in a readable fashion? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully done, Reub2000. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the lede is so short, and the new section looks pretty short, too, after I combined the two small paragraphs into one, perhaps we can just put it all back into the lede the way it is worded now. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I'm just glad that we've reached a consensus on the article. Anyways, do you know where the term 'low safety' came from? I haven't heard or seen it anywhere but this article? Reub2000 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I can't find it anywhere. There are just a couple of hits on google and they appear to be only to works of fiction. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting sample of the usages in books google has digitized. Pretty cool, you can really see the bike boom of the 1890s. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Humber

Here it is said that Thomas Humber invented a safety bike in 1868. The article "Thomas Humber" says that he patented a safety bike in 1884. He founded his company in 1868, first copying French velocipedes, than building ordinaries in the 1870s. So I think 1884 is the more probable date for his safety. 84.145.116.151 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]