Talk:Cycling in Melbourne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template[edit]

I've removed the inclusion of Template:Cycling in Melbourne as I don't believe it adds anything to the article that isn't already there. Also, the list of trails in the template is now out of sync with the list of trails in the article. Yes, I could go ahead and now edit the template, but this is merely duplicating information and would be error-prone over time. --ozzmosis 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling trails in Melbourne article[edit]

The article seems to mostly focus on cucling culture in Melbourne and the list of trails seems a bit out of place. Perhaps there should be a separate article named Cycling trails in Melbourne (or similar). --ozzmosis 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss links here[edit]

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)--VS talk 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dixon[edit]

There is a reference in the Letters page of The Age today (15/6/2007) to Brian Dixon being instrumental to the creation of the cycling trail network Melbourne now enjoys. If this is true and can be sourced, it would be an useful addition to this page. Icd 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

The Age quoted some interesting statistics sometime in the past week that should be included in this article. The stats that are here (especially in that slightly dubious bit about helmets - NPOV?) are a bit out of date. ☸ Moilleadóir 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) ☏[reply]

Please indicate which part is "slightly dubious". If you are referring to the facts adduced - feel free add in any alternative facts (provided you have cited sources) that give you grounds for feeling "dubious".--Sf 07:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion edit of section Effects of cycle helmet legislation[edit]

The section is adequately covered by the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Melbourne#Cycling_equipment and the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Opinions_for_and_against_the_compulsion_or_strong_promotion_of_helmets. The section is not well referenced, contains biased references, contains opinion and assumptions based on selected statistics. E.g The ABS statistics cite 'distance to far' as the main reason people gave for not traveling by bicycle with no mention of Cycle Helmet Legislation wherein this article leads the reader to believe it is specifically due to Cycle Helmet Legislation. 'This has led to experts' is not referenced and speculative. Surveys at 64 observation sites are not referenced. If someone with a NPOV cares to reference more current data such as [1] they will actually find a steady increase in cycling numbers since 1990. Instead of referencing a Western Australian anti-helmet site for statistics could we not reference [2] that confirms that helmets have lowered head injury rates in the years since mandatory helmet laws were introduced. But then again this all this is still not specifically relevant to Melbourne and better placed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Opinions_for_and_against_the_compulsion_or_strong_promotion_of_helmets. 'The experience of Melbourne's cyclists has given added impetus to the efforts of cyclists in Europe and elsewhere to resist, or repeal, such helmet laws' references no longer exist and is also opinion and irrelevant to Cycling in Melbourne (except as a clue to the reason why this section persists and is in my opinion NNPOV) For these reasons the section should be deleted, or heavily edited.

Firstly it seems that the introduction of Helmet laws in Victoria was a world first. Well that's a quite an interesting fact that should definitely be noted in the article. So indeed the section need not be deleted, just a few edits need to be made.
The first sentence: 'Had a strong negative impact' is opinion and depends on viewpoint, in that it presumes that a reduction of the number of people cycling is a negative impact. You could similarly argue that laws that prohibit carrying guns and shooting people whilst riding a bicycle have a negative impact on cycling as there might be some people who would like to do that, that don't and thus reduce the amount of people riding bicycles. In the case of random shootings by cyclists I would venture to say that a reduction in the amount of cyclists is a positive impact for the cycling community and the wider community. Then again that is just opinion, whether the impact of certain laws are positive or negative is a widely debated topic E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia and far beyond the scope of the Cycling in Melbourne article.
'Surveys carried out at the same 64 observation sites in May 1990 and May 1991 detected 29% fewer adults and 42% fewer child cyclists,[28] with an overall reduction in cyclists of 36%. Further falls were recorded to May/June 1992, with teenage cycling reportedly showing a 46% decrease from pre-law levels.' is based on a single survey from Monash university in 1992. Statistics are more comprehensively cited and discussed in more a contextual manner in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia. Also the talk section of that article is much more relevant to the merits and contextual placement of different facts and figures. To give any context to the inclusion of the 1992 survey data in this article we would need to bring in all the data from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia article which would be redundant. More logical to remove this sentence, note that there has been some debate about the merits of the legislation and add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia in the further reading section for those that want to investigate the topic further. If people feel the need to discuss specifically helmet legislation in Victoria they could create more in depth articles. Especially considering that Melbourne is only 1 city in Victoria, a comprehensive discussion of the merits of Victorian legislation should include all Victoria and therefore would need its own article.
The next 3 sentences are more statistics, from the same survey, from another survey done at Monash by the same authors as the first, and a few unreferenced bits and pieces dropped in. These 3 sentences should be removed for the same reasons I just gave above.
The final sentence. This has given added impetus to European cyclists... Well good for them, but that's nothing to do with Melbourne. And why are we focusing on Europe, what about America, Asia... huge cycling communities that are discussing the pros and cons of helmet legislation. Different things give me imputes to do all kinds of things all the time, but I realize my personal imputes are not really relevant to articles. For the same reason we would not edit the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breasts#Sexual_characteristic to read, 'This has given added imputes to some guy from Australia to...' we would not include personal imputes in this article. However as Victoria was the first place to introduce the laws it is factual and fair to say that the discussion of the merits and effectiveness of the legislation often cite the experience in Victoria as an example.
So we end up with something like:
'Cycle Helmet Legislation
Victoria was the first place in the world to introduce compulsory helmet legislation. Introduced in 1990 following a recommendation to the Victorian Government by the RACS. Since that time there has been continual debate about the merits of this legislation and its effect on cycling participation and injury rates. As Victoria was a pioneer of this type of legislation its effectiveness has been widely scrutinized and discussed by the global cycling community.'
Cite and add further reading links to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets
Should I make these changes? 114.76.92.155 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/01D7F108-E83A-41D6-B702-483263A95467/0/BicycleNetworkReportAug2012.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla/file/Uni%20NSW%20-%20Helmets.pdf

Proposed additions to text[edit]

I have written some text which coveres cycling in Melbourne from a more practical viewpoint, rather than the historial or legal aspects that are currently covered in this article. My text covers topography, numbers of bike riders in Australia, road rage, bike paths and bike lanes, public transport and bikes, helmet and bike light rules, bicycle theft and prevention, bicycle purchasing and bicycle user groups.

While I recognise that the current article covers relatively different ground, I feel this is the best place to add my information given the relevance of the topic title and absence of any more applicable articles which I could add this information to.

Please let me know if you disagree and have a better suggestion for location. This is my first edit and so I will be adding information in stages as I learn how to do it.

Cheliamoose (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Cheli 5/8/09[reply]

That information sounds wonderful. Especially if you have third party reliable and verifiable references for each fact that you include. Use the

Ref tag or use the 'Insert Citation' button to add inline references.--Takver (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.92.155 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cycling in Melbourne. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cycling in Melbourne. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cycling_in_Melbourne&oldid=1199283283"