Jump to content

Talk:Motorized bicycle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.137.245.198 (talk) at 15:00, 20 December 2005 (→1st POV (THE CCM Pixie bicycle motor) that was recently removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCycling Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

We have a clearer picture

Actually, I found many more hits on google when I looked up "motorized bicycle" as opposed to "electric bicycle". If anyone can find a picture of just the motor that is public domain, that'd be great. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More removes

I removed most of the "See Also" links. I either incorporated them into the main article or just removed them. Apparently, the links for emergency vehicles, vehicles for hire and for OC Transpo were basically attempts by the anon and CyclePat to promote electric bikes for those purposes. here is a petition formed by CyclePat and others that specifically mentions that OC Transpo does NOT currently allow PABs (electric bikes) in their Rack and Roll program. And I saw 0 google hits for motorized bikes as electric vehicles or as vehicles for hire (a la a taxicab). --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it is not permissable to do "something" (ie.: putting an electric bicycle on OCtranspo's rack and roll) denny the fact that it exist? Analogy: It is illegal to smoke marijanua. Are you going to delete this fact? I question your edits and bias toward this article. --72.57.8.215 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Woohookitty deleted the OC Transpo link because electric bikes on Rack and Roll are illegal. The question is not whether it is legal, but whether it is relavant to the article. If someone in Poughkeepsbie, NY rides an electric bike (legally or not), does that mean we should add Poughkeepsbie to the See Also? --Alynna 20:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NO, but if that person has developed a new or undiscussed method (within the encyclopedia) of transporting or using his vehicle, it would be worthy to include. (Like we say in french: "Les moeurs de notre société.") For example, how cars are transported oversea (freight, etc)? Or, the same as cars can be towed by a tow truck? Or perhaps the same as an idea that a car might change their tires for winter driving. This is a log of society and the cultures of using an electric bicycle.--72.57.8.215 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned, from the comments about an "edit war," I also question the method this article uses for discusing changes to an article? What happened to the thingy on top that said this article does not necesarily represent a world view? Is it not better to have a concensus? (ie.: like the idea of keeping motorized bicycles, but putting the article of electric bicycles back, seems to have been agreed upon with a curent vote of 3 to 2) Are you taking owner ship of this article? What happens if your methode of research, which appears to be only based on internet "googling," is flawed. Generally there is a concensus from academia that books have a significant importance in research. The last I recall, it was highly recomended that you obtain at least 5 book sources when handing in a project. This article seems to constanly be removing reliable "book sources" information and other important links toward the developement of the article. --72.57.8.215 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added the {{globalize}} tag shortly after a rewrite was suggested, because one of the reasons stated was that there was too much about Canadian law. Since all the laws have been moved to a separate article, that issue is no longer present. So I removed the tag. Is there something about the current article that you think represents a geographically narrow view?
I don't think it is appropriate to count "votes" based on comments about a much different version of the article. If you think it still makes sense to break electric bicycles out to a different article and you want everyone's current opinion, bring it up here again and ask.
I don't see anyone taking ownership of the article (are you accusing me or Woohookitty of this, anyway?). I see some bold edits, but I don't think that's a problem, especially when there was a movement to completely rewrite the article. I think the article is a lot better now.
You're welcome to use books as references. However, Wikipedia is not a book report, and the fact that this article uses internet sources is not in itself a reason to disparage the research that has been done. If you think a particular link is not a reliable source, please bring it up here and explain why.
--Alynna 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is very narrow minded in the description of a motorized bicycle and essential has a on point of view describing them as mostly electric bicycles. It even goes on within the article refering to motorized bicycles as a list of different electric bikes. A motorized bicycle however is described as having a motor. (includes mopeds)(moped are generally defined as a modified bicycle) --CyclePat 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done with my edits for tonight

Compare this to the current version of this article. I think it's much better. There's more we can do but it's more readable now and it has fewer unneeded links. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Motorized bicycle or Electric bicycle

Does this article talk about motorized bicycles or electric bicycles. It seems to state that it will discuss what an motorized bicycles is... but as soon as it goes into detail: ie. history, etc. It talks solely about electric bicycles. --72.57.8.215 21:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about motorized vehicles

Hey folks. Does anyone know enough about other motorized bicycles to write about them? I don't think that electric bikes are necessarily the most common/important sort of motorized bikes. I've seen bicycles powered by small internal combustion engines, and I'd hazard a guess to say that they're more common than external combustion engines.

I think that the people who've been working on this article have been doing good work, I just think that as it is, this article is really about electric bikes. In order to make it fit logically under the name motorized bicycles, it would need information about other types of motorized bikes.

My suggestion would be to rename this article (with a couple minor edits) to Electric Bicycles, and put a disambiguation page here, directing people to the electric bike page and uncreated pages about internal combustion motorized bikes, and others.

As I'm new to Wikipedia though, I don't know what the conventions are about this sort of thing. Is it done to leave incomplete articles like this until someone knowledgeable comes along to fix it? I suppose if there are strong feelings about structure this might make sense. Can anyone enlighten me?AdinaBob 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! How about we set a date. Tuesday the 8th of November should give enough time for everyone to voice their opinion. I agree with the change. (b.t.w. check out my user page and company page CyclePat --CyclePat 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)  :)[reply]
Because of all the changes we made back in september... The french version of this page needs to be re-written. Or we could simply turn back the article to electric bicycles. --CyclePat 03:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. CyclePat has a major conflict of interest here. He sells electric bikes. He has a court date on Monday involving electric bikes. He has a petition online about Electric bikes. "This article is about electric bicycles". No, actually it's about motorized bicycles. The thing is, many jurisdictions do not call them "electric bicycles". They call them power-assisted bicycles or PABs or whatever. We came up with motorized bicycles because it's a good general term for them. It covers all of the various terms. This is what this article looked like when it was basically about electric bicycles. Isn't it ugly? The problem is that if we rename this into electric bicycles, Pat is going to decide he "owns" this article again and turn it right back into what it was. No. I've run out of patience with you, Pat. it's obvious that you want to turn this into a pro-electric bicycle article. Considering, you had links on here to things that don't even exist yet. There were here to promote your ideas. No. It stops here. I'm removing the "attention" tag. People are already looking at this through the cleanup tag. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not pick an arbitrary date ok? For one thing, I can do research on this. Any of us can. You have to give us more than basically one day since that's how long it's been since we got the laws out of here and started to make this a real Wikipedia article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The decision about whether there should be a article for electric bicycle separate from this motorized bicycle article should be made from a NPOV. The argument against based on the supposition that a non-NPOV person will take over the electric bicycle article is not an NPOV argument itself. Whether they should be separate articles should be decided independent of any considerations regarding who will be doing what if they are or are not separated. Now, it seems to me that an electric bicycle is a unique type of motorized bicycle with a separate history and completely unrelated technical issues, and, thus, warrants having its own article, period. However, any issues common to all motorized cycles should be covered in the motorized bicycle article, and appropriately referenced from the electric bicycle article. --Serge 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that such a decision already had been made, and that there was a clear consensus to merge. But whatever. My view is that the scope and subject of the article as it stands is valid: the legal position of electric bikes is generally similar to that for IC assistred bikes, as far as I can tell, and the two have many more similarities than differences. For the record, I have no competing interests. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the relevance is of having a similar legal position to the decision of whether there should be separate pages. I think the decision to merge was wrong, and appears to me to have been made mostly for non-NPOV reasons having to do not with whether there should be two articles, but with what a certain person would do, sprinkled with irrelevant rationalization like , "they have similar legal positions". I too have no competing interests. Just disappointed in what has appeared to have transpired here. --Serge 07:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propoganda

This article is Propoganda. This is because it presents one point of view for motorized bicycle; that is being an electric bicycle. --CyclePat 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs much attention and should present more than one side. --CyclePat 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Then start contributing to the article instead of A) bogging it down with links Or B) Insisting that we switch it back to electric bicycle. After just saying that this should be switched to electic bicycle, now you are complaining that this article is only about electric bicycles? You're not exactly helping yourself, Pat.
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)You are putting word in my mouth.[reply]
We try to assume good faith here, but contradicting yourself to desperately try to get the article back to electric bicycle is not exactly good faith. And as I said, the last version you worked on had links to things that don't exist. Electric or motorized bikes are not being used as emergency vehicles...
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)please read http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/newscenter/releases/pr_052405.html[reply]


nor are they used in the OC transit system you had it linked to.


--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Yes they are! a PAB is essentially like a bicycle. It can be placed easily on on rack and roll OC transpo device.[reply]


It's hard to trust you when you talk out of both sides of your mouth and then link to things that don't exist.


--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)If it doesn't exist how can I link to it?[reply]


It feels like you want the article to be a promo for your electric bikes. It's felt that way since the start, since at one time, you had a "contact me if you are interested" type link on here.
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Feeling don't really have it's place in hear but... No I think I was citing my sources. (and I was new to wiki so I simply put the name of my company: CyclePat, which b.t.w. I now have a place for on the wiki here. So why would I want to do that now?[reply]
You are welcome to contribute into making this a readable article, but Katefan, Alynna, I and others are not going to let this become promotional material.
--CyclePat 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) I am trying to creat an article on electric bicycles and you keep deleting it. You are, (or we have) deleted an article about electric bicycles and massacred it. Essentially, the title was changed but the material within is still propoganda for "electric bicycles" (Which I don't really mind, except for the fact that it's plain wrong because it doesn't belong there) As I have mentioned time and time again "Electric bicycles" are a sub-class of "motorized bicycles." (A different beast all together) Lets me make this clear from what I might have said in the past. I don't agree "removing" electric bicycle page and replacing it with a broader term such as motorized bicycle. I am all for creating a page on "motorized bicycles" but keep "electric bicycle" seperate. I am going to bring this up further (once I figure how to, LOL!) (since I'm so new at wiki... and since you seem to have such great experience perhaps it would please you to take this to arbitration) Or I'll figure out eventually... that is how to ask wikipedia for a fair evaluation of the subject.[reply]
We're here for encyclopedia articles, not promos. Read Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine. We're actually anti-propoganda.
Is that why you are putting propoganda about mostly electric bicycles (constantly attempting to place narrow minded progandic material (either by negligence or on purpose) within the article of because of the poor perception of these anti-capitalistic, gasoline free vehicles with the terminology "motorized bicycles" (that can be easily confusing)

We want this article to encompass everything that is considered a "motorized bicycle". We're using that term because jurisdictions use all sorts of terms for what is essentially the same thing. It shouldn't be "electric bicycles" because many jurisdictions don't call them that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

I stopped your attempt to make a separate electric bicycle article. By consensus, this was to be all under one roof so to speak and you actually agreed to that, remember? Stop being disruptive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has recently gone and re-reverted electric bicycle to the exceedingly ugly version that was there before you re-redirected it... I'm going to go redirect it again, since that seems to be consensus and the revert to the ugly version was not discussed. I hope that's okay. --Alynna 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, that was both unclear and inaccurate. User:Benjamin Gatti reverted Katefan's version of electric bicycle, and I reverted it back. I think that was how it was supposed to be while up for RFD - I hope I haven't done anything too horrible. --Alynna 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You did just fine. Ben is someone that Kate and I are dealing with on another article. Anyway, you did fine. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I trust if the article is reverted back enough times, or if people keep trying to put stuff there... eventually you/we might decide to do something (write a new one or put back the re-direct) (considerering the beautiful history I just wrote about motorized bicycles, (*blush blush) (seriously though) It seems we are moving along good. --CyclePat 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up a request for comment on this article

If outsiders think this should be electric bicycle, fine, but in any case, we're not going to let this become a promotional article. Here it ison the RfC page. I'm going to flesh out the non-electric bicycle part of the article tonight. I asked for the rfc because obviously, we have a dispute and this is close to degenerating into an edit war and I'd like to avoid that. I deal with enough of those already. Don't need another one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say this should be an article for "electric bicycle." I think the vote should be on bringing back "electrci bicycle" (consenquentially lightening up the present article) (That was the point I was trying to get by with the strawman I had put up earlier) --CyclePat 05:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And btw

In the research I have done, DMVs in the US use "motorized bicycles" as often if not more than "electric bicycles". They seem rather interchangable in the laws, in which case, I don't understand the hubbub here. I think we should be going for as general of description as possible given all of the different names given. In fact, I think that should be the main point of the article, i.e. that these all describe a type of bicycle that we can call a "motorized bicycle" as a general term but that everyone differs in terms of their definition. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humm? DMVs? what? Hum... well I did (I think a good start on the history)... I think we're getting to that idea, that is that everyone differs in terms of their definition. (a good example for that is what I did for History of the bicycle. One bicycle had 4 names. --CyclePat 06:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The right way to do it!

after much edit war I was finally able to get something that resemble a little bit of an article for electric bicycle. So we can officially argue about this (which was never really done / considered when we merged to "motorized bicycle" I've added the consideration for deletion of electric bicycle (This way we can place our debates in the write spot) --CyclePat 06:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the "way to do it". I asked for a request for comment on this page. That means that others can come in and comment on what they think. Putting electric bicycle up for deletion is NOT the answer here. That's not how to settle a dispute. Here is a description of how to resolve disputes. Putting an article up for deletion is not part of that. Besides, you did not properly add it to the articles for deletion page. I did that for you. Again, we created this article so it encompasses all of the fractured articles we had. Making an article on electric bicycles is just silly. It's already in this article. Plus, you are putting it up for a vote so it loses, which is against the spirit of afd. You are supposed to put articles up that you want deleted. That's why it's not part of the dispute resolution process. Also, you are asking for a redirect to be deleted, not an article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article motorized bicycle is mostly about electric bicycles. It is proganda for "electric bicycle" and most of the information should go back to the appropriate article. I believe electric bicycle was improperly merged with motorized bicycle. After the merger everything at the electric bicycle page was moved to motorized bicycle (essentially deleting everything or the article of electric bicycle). During the discussion we had talked about using the "electric bicycle" article as a stencil for "motorized bicycle." However opinions quickkly changed after the merger. This is because we utilized essentially the same article, changed the a few words (ie,: electric bicycle to motorized bicycle) but not the definition. Currently there is some arguable fact that exists for the various other names that exist to define a "motorized bicycle" (ie.: = pab, = motor assisted bicycle, = e-bike,) Trully these are all types of electric bicylces. Again, there was no real vote for mergerging, just a concensus by a few individuals that we should make another article. And what does a vote have to do with things when someone can easily "make a sock puppet." Electric bicycle, is a sub class of motorized bicycle. Just like "Pot pie" is a sub category of Pie. Or how motorcycle is a sub category of motor vehicle. Each one should have their respective article. You are right. I want to ask that the re-direct be deleted, however, because the article was merged it was essentially deleted. I am asking that the article be brough back seperate. --CyclePat 06:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, that isn't what the afd page is for. The afd page is to ask that articles be deleted not kept. So if people vote for keep, they are not voting to keep the pages separate. They are voting to keep the redirect. Which is why it needs to be on the redirects for deletion page. The electric bicycle page was never deleted. It was redirected to here. That is an entirely separate thing. I just don't get it. You call this all "electric bike propoganda" but then say that electric bicycle should be its own article. That makes no sense. I'm moving the afd to the proper place and making the electric bicycle article a redirect again. And I also don't get this...well we should do a vote but people can manipulate votes so...why bother with a vote? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying about deleting the redirect, but in your last edit (adding that delete the redirect) you removed some arguments that where currently happening concerning this article. I added it to your edit. (perhaps we could take those conversations / vote and save them somewhere else?)--CyclePat 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Opps! Acted to hastelly. I see you put in the redirect "debate." Sorry. However, before I go and hastily revert back to what you just had, should we not have something people can compare to? So they can have an idea what the electric bicycle article would look like?--CyclePat 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute here. You put all that information on the redirect page. Anyone who reads that will think that I am in for keeping the redirect. Bah! I'll make it clear. I'm sure anyone that votes will read this discusion. --CyclePat 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, try to follow procedure and this won't be an issue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It's comming along. However, I think we should put in the section of "legal status first" the paragraph (Generally motorized ....) and then (Electric bicycles...) --CyclePat 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are still some sections that need an extensive analisys to ensure they are not totaly biased toward "electric bicycles" and that we develope some more on the other vehicles. --CyclePat 08:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from my lack of knowlege on how to properly proceed in some wikipedia element, to which I appology, I think we are all doing a very good job. (with an article well writen like this, perhaps electric bicycle will not have such an important place) (however I still believe it should have it's own spot defining what it is, if not for that, at least for dissambiguation) --CyclePat 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that you think the article is coming along. I will say, though, that disambiguation pages are really only for things that multiple definitions (like America for example). This really only has one definition. But yes, I was actually wondering that myself. Most articles would put the naming part first. I'll switch it to that and see what others thing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything out there on laws in Europe and Asia? I would like to see it integrated into what we have, i.e. maybe 2-3 sentences on the law in other parts of the world with links to the sites the info came from. I can't seem to find a darn thing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Low emissions vehicles

I really don't think internal combustion motorized bikes can be considered "low emissions vehicles". They usually use simple two stroke engines (often lawn mower engines) with no filtering at all. This means that although less fuel is used, these vehicles are very dirty - rivalling or _surpassing_ cars minute per minute, even though they use less fuel! Here are a couple of links to back this up: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Lawn-Mower-Pollution.htm http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98532&page=1 AdinaBob 16:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Oops! Sorry for not commenting about my edit! I added information about the environmental effects of lawnmower powered bikes. AdinaBob 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't talk about internal combustion bikes. We mention EXTERNAL combustion bikes. The only mention of internet combustion is that motorized bicycles had them at one time. Nothing says that they have them now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. They still exist. I've seen them. I'd bet that external combustion bikes are way less common than internal combustion, if only for the reason that it's so much easier to make an internal combustion engine. It's fairly common for kids to have access to a lawnmower and a bike and decide that they'll put the two together so they don't have to pedal anymore. I'll fix this. 69.159.190.117 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um. There's nothing to "fix". The article doesn't say anything specific about internal combustion engines. It doesn't say that they do or do not exist anymore. Nothing to fix. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. If the article is inaccurate, and implies something which is false (IC engines are not used as much as jet engines/external combustion engines) doesn't that mean that there's something to fix? That was what I was trying to say. AdinaBob 18:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue because I'm tired of arguing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is preciselly this type of attitude that make this article progandic material. (One point of view: though we migh know this, the lower ranks probably dont)--CyclePat 20:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Pat, it actually takes someone with a vested interest in a subject for them to create propoganda. I had never even heard of some of these types of bikes before we got into this. I think you are confusing personal views with trying to make Wikipedia as neutral and tidy as possible. It's not as if I'm doing this all by myself. I haven't even done 1/3rd of the edits to this article. I'm a tech support geek from Madison, WI. I cannot create propoganda on this topic. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Woohookitty, I guess you're right. What I meant to say was complete. (Unless you think my understanding about IC engines is false? In which case, please say why! Maybe I am wrong...) I'm sorry to have caused you more stress when you've obviously been working very hard and doing good work on this article, despite being attacked. Thanks for your work. AdinaBob 22:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. I was being too harsh and I apologize for that. I understand what you were trying to say. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better!

Good work everyone. I think this page now has enough content about many types of motorized bicycles that it works. I'd like to rescind my request to move it to electric bikes. I'm sorry if I inadvertently got on the wrong side of some people for asking that. I'm new to wikipedia, and I didn't realise how quickly the article could be completed to more accurately describe all kinds of motorized bikes. AdinaBob 22:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


With the fear of beeing considered hypocritical, I must agree. There is good work that has been added since AdninaBob gave out some critical comments (to which I agreed with). Some edits appear to be very nice. This article is great. However it is still a work in progress. I'll get back to fully helping out (after my 6 hour trip for a court date tomorow in Guelph)(providing sugestions and working them in user:CyclePat/sandbox my sandbox before incorparation), and of course providing any typo mistake corrections and small changes in the order. Again, I think we need to make sure this article is broad in covering the different types of "motorized bicycles" and not specifically meander mostly about "electric bicycles." --CyclePat 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about we all pick a section to add?

So woohookit, I could try and find some laws in Asia! I'd love to do that. Anyone else want to add something? Dunno, Political, Technical Aspects (I could upload a picture of my hub motor from wilderness energy (I had trouble last time but uploading a small video but I wouldn't mind uploading a picture... someone could write about the brushed motor vs the brushless motor (or should that be in another article?) (electric bicycle motors?) Dunno, just brain storming here. Hum.. Anyone want to pick a section (invent or elaborate on a section)? --CyclePat 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not talking about sections. In the case of the Asian law, it would be 2 or 3 sentences to add to the existing paragraph. I just feel like we have to be careful here. I really don't want to see this turn into a bloated article. Frankly, I don't see how much more needs to be added. We have to stay out of speculation, which would eliminate stuff like "it could be used for this" or whatever. I dunno. I can see fleshing out a couple of sections, but I just don't want this article to be unreadable again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging laws section

64.230.90.10 06:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC) What happend to my discuss comment here? I has asked (approx): "why remove this new section" (besides reason that some of the info is on a laws page I see now) and "intro material is sound - many of these laws pertaining to electrics are new (1-5yrs) and specific to electrics, not to gas power laws that have been around for decades"[reply]


I removed it for a bunch of reasons. #1 it was speculative. #2 I see no citations as to where this information is from. #3 I really don't see where we need another legal section. I think that if any information is added, this article is going to be basically a law article and I think the consensus has been that we don't want that. Alynna moved the laws section into its own article and I didn't see many complaints. In fact, we've received praise from a couple of people that the article looks much better. Now, I'm not going to assume anything, but the anon's changes look alot like CyclePat. Please don't try to "sneak" anything in if it is CyclePat or one of his friends. Whether you like it or not, it's obvious that the consensus is to keep this article on its current path and not to return it to being highly technical and law driven. I know you think I have some sort of "personal crusade" against you, but I don't. My #1 job as an admin is to keep Wikipedia as tidy and as readable as possible. I've never personally been on a motorized bicycle. I have no interest in them, to be honest. I'm just interested in a well written article. The thing is, if it wasn't me, it'd be a different admin.

I think I'll take a look at what I removed and see if I can integrate it into the article, but we need sources here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at it again, there is nothing to salvage. The first paragraph is a rehash of things we already have in the article. Most of the rest of the section contradicts what's already been said. To the anon who did those edits, actually no, we do not have uniform laws in the United States on motorized bicycles. We don't have uniform laws on *anything*. If you look at the research I did or do some yourself, you'll see that every state has different definitions for motorized bicycles. As I've said before, I think that should be one of our main points. Some states lump them with mopeds. Some don't. This is just my opinion, but I think that contrasting the areas is good enough. I don't think we need specifics unless they are necessary. So for now, I'm leaving that section out. I just don't see anything that is useful. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same issue we have been debating since the start of the article; The laws. Actually, the definition per jurisdiction. The idea that we can replace the entire article of electric bicycle(when we first merged) with the title "motorized bicycle" does have it's point. However, simply changing a few words to then say a "motorized bicycle" is an "electric bicycle" is plain wrong (reference to previous discussions: Universe vs galaxy vs solar system). That is why I believe this article has a type of propaganda (a one point of view)(or at least it did yesterday in some sections). We seem to have overlooked the inclusion of motorized gas engines into this article and I believe this is because we simply don't want to take the time to merge that already "well written article." When I first started out this article, I began with quoting, a citing every law section in the book that I could find (pertinant to electric bicycles). I believe we might have some confusion, or possibly accidently mix some of these laws up with the general term motorized bicycle. So why is it now... being suggested there are no more links to the laws? (rhetorical question) Again this page is full of double standards, on one hand we merged electric bicycles with motorized bicycle, yet on the other hand we refused to merge "moped" with "motorized bicycle." On one hand we separated the laws section to it's own page... What shall we do with the other names of "motorized bicycles" (ie.: "power-assisted bicycle," "power-assisted cycle," "motorcycle"(is a type of bicycle), etc...) I understand the clarity of the article is at risk when we begin incorporating to much information. Hence, following with this principal perhaps we should begin making sub pages for our main article? --CyclePat 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


64.230.90.10 06:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Woohookitty: Seems we are editing each others edits too quickly here. My info is sound. If you wait a few minutes before removing the new section perhaps you would allow me an opportunity to add thos references? Request revert. I can clean it up with a link to laws page, and with your other comments in mind.[reply]

It had better be a *marked* improvement. I just don't see where we need yet more law in this article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did the revert. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


64.230.90.10 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Thank you. It may take me a few minutes but I will clarify, remove speculation, and provide references.[reply]


64.230.90.10 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your patience. I am going to look at the section above now to try and reconcile what is there with what I added so that there are no conflicts. Hopefully they can become one clear section, or a chunk on motorized laws in general with a chunk that can be moved to the electric bike law page. Much of the conflict arose when we tried changing the article to motorized bikes form the original electric bikes. Motorized bike laws have been around for ages. Electric bike laws are largely new.[reply]

I read what you added. You mentioned clarifying. I'll give you some more time, but honestly, I still don't see anything to salvage, but I'll probably keep it up to give others some time to give input. I think I'll at least try to combine it with the existing section we have. Otherwise, it still sticks out like a sore thumb to me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


64.230.90.10 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I incorporated most of it into the electric bike laws page, and combined the rest.[reply]

Well I reverted some of your changes, but honestly, what you ended up with wasn't alot of different from where we started. I did keep the changes you made in the power source section. We probably should have some spacing in there. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


64.230.90.10 15:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Your reversion re-introduced a bunch of the errors that I worked so hard to fix. Why?[reply]

I"ll go back to it. Please read Wikipedia:Revert, so next time, you can do all of this yourself. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I reverted somewhat. I went back to the original version of Legal status/Regulation because the version the anon put up had links to nowhere and such. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mopeds

I really wonder if we need anything on Mopeds. I say that because Mopeds are a different animal. From what I understand, mopeds weren't originally meant to have pedals, but they were added so they wouldn't be classified as motorcycles. Well, motorized bicycles are exactly what they are...bicycles with a motor. I'm not sure why we even have to mention mopeds here. It's a different animal. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the section on mopeds. If someone objects, I'd like to hear why. :) From what I've read, mopeds just aren't the same thing. Motorized bicycles are basically what's pictured. Anything else is something else entirely. The reason why I can see keeping nuclear and all of that is that at least, they are still bikes, not mopeds. A moped is not a bicycle. Nuclear and such are just different engines you can use, but they are still motorized bikes, not mopeds. I think I understand that right. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moped are a type of motorized bicycle and we should talk about them in our article. Just like I previously discuss in the section "Ontario Moped," (I think the issue of merging moped with this article should be brought up)(b.t.w. why the double standard, Moped is motorized bicycle and when we attempted to merge it with this article you guys objected, however electric bicycle is a motorized bicycle and we merged the article quite nicely. I will try to find a place to incorporate this within "motorized bicycle." --CyclePat 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mopeds are distinctly different beasts from bikes with helper motors. Mopeds have pedals, but the pedals aren't intended to be the primary motile force. Early Triumphs, Harleys, Indians, etc. all had pedals, two wheels, and a motor, too. --Charleschuck 17:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss it and come up with a consensus first, because I and at least one other person don't think it should be in here. A moped is a moped, not a motorized bike. From what I've read, the only reason why pedals were ever put on mopeds is so that it could meet existing laws at the time of their introduction. If you include mopeds, than we'd have to include motorcycles. From what I've read, mopeds were meant to be smaller versions of motorcycles...basically like a scooter. Motorized bicycles are not like a scooter or a motorcycle or a moped. Basically, motorized bicycles started as bicycles but then a motor was added. With mopeds, they started as motorcycle wannabes but just didn't look like them at first. This is right from the mopeds article...
"People have been adding motors to bikes for over a hundred years. A bicycle with a small motor added used to be known as an autocycle or cyclemotor. [4] These eventually evolved into mopeds, which really aren't bicycles as they were never actually designed to be pedalled, though pedals were fitted to comply with regulations and to aid in starting."
I just think this is another attempt to achieve your goal of making this article so bloated that then you'll have a reason for a separate electric bicycles article, because you sell electric bicycles. No.
PS- We usually don't move sections of talk, but I moved to this to the bottom so we can get other opinions. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take is this: we mention that mopeds are a development of motorised bicycles, but that they are designed to be run primarily on motor power with the pedals present in order to overcome certain regulatory restrictions. A single, short paragraph, nothing more. And it can go at the end, or at the end of History, or somewhere else, I don't really care which.
As for the rest, the parallels between the vélomoteur and the electric bike are, I think, sufficiently strong as to make it difficult to separate the two without substantial duplication. The article is nowhere near the length limit, I see absolutely no need to split it. And I have no axe to grind. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • "Vélomoteur" and "electric bike"? Do you see these types of "motorized bicycles" in the article? "My take is this: We mention electric bicycle are a development of motorised bicycles, but that they are designed to be run primarily (or not) on motor power with the pedals present in order to overcome certain regulatory restrictions. A single, short..." The article is nowhere neer the lenght limit because some people have decided to remove and place some sections elsewhere (ie.: mopeds) --CyclePat 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion Just a point of interest, in my state motorized bicycles and mopeds are legally considered the same thing. Probably because mopeds evolved from the motorized bicycle, are are essentialy similiar in many ways. Early mopeds are basically motorized bikes, the line that seperates the 1950's moped from the 1950's motorized bicycle is hazy at best. Because there is already a page for the moped, I think that this evolutionary relationship should be mentioned there. On this page the moped warrants mention in so far as that its earliest iterations were largely influenced by the postwar helper-motor craze, and that as mopeds became more integrated ("ready to run") machines they essentially replaced the bolt-on motors in everyday transportation, and ended the postwar popularity of the bike motor. In fact the Garelli moped started life as a bolt on motor - then the company began making frames specifically for their engines, and eventually began producing fully operation mopeds. If no one objects, I would like to add this to the history section (or somebody else can if they choose to, and there are no valid objections). User:K-111

I think that was very interesting and would be good for this article and the moped article. You should add it. You might have someone try and revert. But those that have enough sense to have looked at this discusion, I hope, might only remove the parts where you don't put sources cited. (I guess you'll have to go to that british moped thingy article... I think that's where you got your info right?) --CyclePat 21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING

You are breaking your own rules in editin the talk page. Go figure when I was writting this you went and made another edit... forcing me to put this in another section totally unsubtianting my comments however.: here it is: --CyclePat 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, you often do make quick reverts (practically starting edit wars (reference to the electric bicycle page), perhaps we should take a little more time to discuss other peoples changes instead of reverting them write away. In the mean time anyone that wishes to add work on a text before incorperating it can do so in my user:CyclePat/sandbox that way you save from losing your information from people that revert quickly (and believe they might own the article) --CyclePat 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm trying to keep this article as tidy as possible. "Breaking my own rules". How so? Moving a section to the bottom to spur discussion is not unprecented. It's done to get a consensus and since this moped issue isn't going away, I thought it'd be a good idea. If the consensus is that we should include a paragraph on it, great. I'm here to uphold the consensus, whether I agree with it or not. I don't know when you decided that I'm making this article for my own personal gain, but nothing is further from the truth. I'm actually trying to keep it up to Wikipedian standards. I'm sorry but most of the edits you have attempted and that the anons have attempted have been full of misspellings, bad grammar, etc, etc. And you know, I don't see the others (Alynna, Just diz guy, Katefan0, AdinaBob) complaining about how I'm handling this. I wish you'd quit painting me as this evil bastard who is trying to ruin your life. I'm not. Why did I revert last night? Because the anon who was doing edits added a section that did not belong here. And then he/she complained when I reverted a bit at the end of their editing, even though they had left a link to www.example.com, which doesn't even exist. I make edits like that to keep this page from becoming a joke. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Btw Pat, all I did was archive and move the one section down towards the bottom. I wish you'd read the stuff fully and see that instead of assuming that I removed your comments or something. You've done this several times now and then you have to correct yourself. Patience. This isn't a race. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question "Are you making this article for your own personal gain?" I think everyone has something to gain from working collectively together. I am personally gaining, hopefully, the ability to try and work in group and overcome some personal issues. I don't know why anyone would say I have anything to gain more than that because wiki is a place anyone can edit and eventually remove bias opinions. Some people have suggest that owning a bicycle shop creates a bias towards this article. Why does owning a bicycle shop creat a bias? Is there really a personal gain to editing articles? --CyclePat 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad to hear that about working together. I like you Pat...I always have. You just have to accept the fact that I'm trying to uphold what's been agreed to. I have no personal interest in this. I don't even own a bicycle. Anyway, as for the personal bias Q, owning a bicycle shop can create bias here because obviously, you want to further the cause of electric bicycles and their use in Ontario's roads because it could mean more work and money for you. If you look at the versions you've submitted, they've all been pro the push for Ontario to accept PABs on the road in one form or another. What you need to learn is to go for the greater good. The thing is. I'm afraid I've been too harsh on you at times. Burying bias for the greater good is VERY difficult. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OUh! geesh! (blush) Thank you. Yes, I have had to be pro for PABs in Ontario because all the comments in the article seemed to be against it. (Even the web page provided by the ministry of transportation on three wheeled vehicles is biases(propaganda). (I've decided there's no us talking to the ministry, I might as well bring that up with the Ontario Ombudsman service) I've called up some engeneers at MTO whome indicated that the page only applies to one type of PAB (the one in the picture). Honestly, the one reason I became a company is because I kinda needed to, so I may register my bicycle. Secondly I do this part-time (I have another job elsewhere, that actually pays) Thirdly, the main idea behind my company is "political statement." (My company is there to mock the government as much as it can!) All this to say; Now, if I tell everyone that I own a fully registered PAB, explain to them how to do it and legally opperate on road (even though it seemingly contradicts the facts stated by the MTO) does that makes me bias? Okay, so maybe I might want to eventually start making profit of my sales, and might make me bias? So, you're right about the first part but not really about the second part (money!) Hum... could it be that I do everything with passion? Does passion=bias? B.t.w. Like I've said, you do some very fine work and though I get unerved/stressed/uneasy at mistakes other people make (or even my own typos) I admire your patience toward my lack of wiki etiquette. I do like you too... essentially you've become a mentor for me and that's why I'm trying to still help out. And though I stirr up some stink in unconventional ways I'm glad we're on the same team. (Right?) Right! Thank you. --CyclePat 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) p.s.:(Now what do you think about this edit I...)--CyclePat 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, bias is a tricky issue. The main thing is...you don't want an agenda here like pushing PABs on public roads or political activism. Like I said, it can be a hard line to walk and honestly, some folks can't do it...and that's not a knock against them. Staying objective is difficult. And no, passion doesn't automatically mean bias. It can. But you can also use it to try to write as factual an article as possible. Honestly Pat, if this article is unbiased and objective, it can still be used by you to get people into bikes. I mean we do mention the emission free part and how enviornmentally friendly these bikes are. That appeals to alot of people. I'm not sure you have to tell them that they should allow bikes on public roads. Oftentimes, being objective can be as attractive to people then if you try to tell them to do something...in fact, I think being objective is always more helpful. People respect it more I think. Anyway, I'm rambling. :) -Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement sugestions:

Please add you suggestion

(sign your name after each one)


  • Suggestion #1: to add a section pertaining to different uses of PABs in society... recumbent bikes, trailor, and (ie. Wavecrest's press release on how police use electric bicycles). MAke a reference to LEV (light electric vehicles). --CyclePat 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to that at all. Not sure how others feel, but mentioning their uses is probably not a bad thing. But let's keep it to non-speculation. In other words, let's make sure that these are all actually being used. I don't want something like the links we had in here originally to stuff that didn't exist yet. And make sure we have sources like to the press release you mentioned. I know. It feels like lots of rules but I just want to make sure we have our ts crossed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking myself of starting up a 'uses' section sometime in the past... Yes, I think it'd be a good idea. But it does need to be sourced. --Alynna 23:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section for use by different people and organisations. However affordability was incorperated together. I originally intended that to be a reason why people use this type of vehicle... Should we have a different section for this?--CyclePat 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Sounds good to me. I think we should find a better name for "Constuiencies". Maybe Official uses? I dunno. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Official uses" sounds too, er, official. Maybe just "users." Also, I don't agree that "affordability" needs its own section. This section already describes who uses these things and why; affordability is certainly one of those reasons and should be incorporated with the rest. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Users" would work. "Uses" would work. I was just trying to combine uses with the fact that these are not just personal users. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My only problem with having a technical part is that this is supposed to be a general article on motorized bikes. If people are interested in the technical parts of the engines, they can click on the links to the articles on the engines. This article is supposed to just basically be a primer on these things. We don't want it overly specific, I don't think. And like I said, if people want to learn more about...say...2 stroke IC engines, they can click on the link for it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion #4: Addition of section "Terminology". (Like on the EVCO web site):
Terminology--CyclePat 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electric bike or Electric Bicycle is the general use term for bicycles that use an electric motor to power a two or three wheel vehicle with or without the addition of muscular power.--CyclePat 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power Assisted Bicycle is used in the Federal Legislation, but is carefully defined to only apply to electric motor assist, and specifically excludes internal combustion engines.--CyclePat 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • '???(anymore here)???
I have major problems with this. We already have a section that lists alternate names. I just don't see where this is necessary. Again, let's not get bogged down in details. Let's pick 3-4 common names and stop at that or else we're going to get into minutie. I think we should integrate it with "Names and legal status" since that's intertwined. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in the electric bicycle laws? --CyclePat 03:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the last sentence of that paragraph has names for motorized bicycles. I wouldn't object to you adding 2-3 names to that list. Oh and don't fret about forgetting to sign your posts. I've been at this for a year and I STILL do it. :) It's easy to forget. I don't even note it in edit summaries anymore when I go back and sign. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion #5: at the end of article Globe and Mail News Article on electric bikes in Ontario from Nov. 10th there are various models. We should do the same for our article. --CyclePat 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Constituencies

I found an interesting article that talks a little about motorized bikes (electric) (and other stuff). What do you think about the source? Is this a fiction novel or is based on reality? Anyone from France have a say on that? (Asside: I understand France if a very politically active country (Revolution, etc...) and the present riots. I hope that you/they may find a healthy resolution to their political debates.) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/044181.html --CyclePat 03:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is largely redundant. The issue of mobility impairment is a couple of additional words in History (where it discusses why motorised bikes are becoming more popular), the point about licensing is also already covered elsewhere. That leaves a small note on who uses them, which might arguably be added to History. The tone of this para is also evangelical and runs against the general style of the article, which is already in danger of becoming fragmentary. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the information trust worthy though?--CyclePat 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more sources of info for this section:

  1. Globe and Mail News Article on electric bikes in Ontario from Nov. 10th
  2. China laws and PABs
  3. World business council for sustainable development (talks about some laws in China (this link is taken from within the URL above) (There you go woohookitty) Found you some instance of Asia! mohohoho!:)(*breath)(*sigh)--CyclePat 03:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the information to the article. Thanks! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fill the ______

I won't do the edit yet since you might be working on the article yet, Pat, but you need to fill the ______. Otherwise, your edits look good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... I can't find anything right now... I guess I'll have to take it off. --CyclePat 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can do it. I'll just reword it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Humm... Cool! Thank you. Well I tried to re-word it myself. Maybe you can try again. Something still doesn't seem right about it. (just had the idea of adding the section for ICE engines... I have so many ideas. but... I'll get back at it tomorow. Happy editing, Gnight! --CyclePat 06:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. Well, try to integrate it into the existing motors section if you can. If you need to make a subheading for it under Description of Motorized bicycles or maybe under one of the engine headings. If you haven't figured out, you are the creative guy and we're the editors. :) It seems to be working ok with the last few edits you've done. Just try to keep it focused and not too technical if you can. If it is too technical, we can always edit it. So far, your ideas have been good the last few days. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Science and tech! New info

hey! I'm off to the museum to check this out and take some better pictures. but if anyone wants to add this in the mean time, Thank you! http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm --CyclePat 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of pictures in this article...please...no more. :) 2-3 is good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any other exhibits in there that could lend themselves to illustrate other Wikipedia articles, by all means shoot them. Sometimes obscure topics are difficult to illustrate with public domain images. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get any pictures but there are some available at the museum's web site http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm (I believe that's public domain!)  :) --CyclePat 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little helpful note about the edits I did

No need to link things more than once in the article. It's one of those unofficial Wikipedia things that most articles follow. No biggie. Just thought I'd point it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yah! I went all out on my linking. This started because I noticed some "links" where not quite appropriate for the term being used in the article. Anyway, Thank you. Sorry. --CyclePat 05:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I ended up restoring your links. :) Motors/bikes/engines are kind of the gist of the article, so linking them more than once is probably alright. I was beihng a bit hasty. The general rule I follow (and this really varies among editors) is that if it's the subject of the article, linking it more than once is ok. But anyway, that's good what you did with links that didn't match up where they were supposed to go. That's *very* common on here and I think it shows your growth that you noticed it, because some don't. I run into articles every day where they will have a word like "1984" linked where its pointing to the year when it should be the album by Van Halen. It's a pain. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for CyclePat

It's about this line: ""Motorized bicycles" generally have pedals. ". Don't they always have pedals? If they don't, then we need to modify the opening paragraph since right now the opening paragraph says that motorized bicycles have motors to "assist pedaling". We'll have to add a "usually" or something like that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my oppinion. yes. Motorized bicycles should have pedals. If they don't it would be a motorcycle. (I'm not sure exactly what section you are refering to, however if you do change it, make to pay extra special attention to see if there was not an attempt to compare to a motorcyle.) (otherwise change it!) --CyclePat 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, generally... could be a better term. Its not so exclusive. Mean a someone could have built a motorized bicycle with a bicycle that had pedals but removed them... (but then again, that would be what? a noped? (but that's a term that we use here in Ontario... so we get into the name game thingy, maybe in Germany it's still a motorized bicycle or "motorisiertes Fahrrad"? (I really don't know anymore) (I do know that in Ontario though you take the pedals off and it's a noped.)--CyclePat 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I thought, but I wanted to double check. I'll edit it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History section updated!

After my excursion to the museum today (for about 40 minutes)(for free after 4 pm.) I got some info that I added. Though I tried a little, a lot of it I could not really put in my word so we might want to be careful of copyright (I'll reread through it in the next few days)--CyclePat 05:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CCM bicycle

Humm... you know there's something wrong when you have more precise information in another article ("motorized bicycle") then with the original "CCM (bicycle manufacturer)". --CyclePat 05:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I want to address that. The history section is nice, but it's way too Canada centered. We need to generalize it a bit. I say too Canada centered because you could've used Schwinn or many other manufacturers. I'll try to generalize it a bit. I'll keep some of the information, but it just needs to be given more of a "world view". In fact, the specific stuff on CCM should probably be in the CCM article. I'll see what I can do. I'm good at merging stuff. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went ahead and moved what you added tonight to the CCM article. I did that because we're talking about motorized bicycles here, not bicycles in general. So instead, I included a "see also" link to the history of the bicycle. Pat, this is not something you know unless you've seen lots of articles on here, but generally, that's what's done. I.e. if you did an article on the history of a specific brand of car for example, you would include "History of the Automobile" as a link. As we've said, it's a steep learning curve. :) That's why I usually recommend reading as many articles as you can on here. It'll help you alot. Anyway, I would definitely add to the CCM article if I were you. It looks like you found some good stuff. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It looks like everything I added was removed. Even the "pixie" motor to the CCM bicycle? Why? This is a documented fact about the firt motorized bicycle? (I could understand all the other information about the history of bicycles, but why the information of around 1940's addition of the Pixie motor?) It doesn't seem right? When you look at the article bicycle a lot of the information from History of bicycle is repeated. It just seems prety harsh to totally remove some information, put it in another article, and not even link to it. Maybe it's time we think about merging the article bicycle with motorized biycle (I mean the article motorized bicycle with biycle? (I've been thinking about for a day or so) I think the inherent history of a motorized bicycle puts in jepeordy many other article such as moped, motorcycle, etc. and essentially, as we have stated in the article, is like a bicycle. What do you think? --CyclePat 15:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not asking this to, how do you say, go against comon procedures, I'm serious. (well to a certain point). What really qualifies "motorized bicycle" to have it's own article? The answer to that question, should it be in the article? --CyclePat 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Okay! I'm a little frustrated so I might be giving you some lip. Sorry in advance if the tone offends you.) Well, I see someone changed the name of "History" to "History of adding motors to bicycles" ... does that mean our article should change names too? Adding motors to bicycles? What about adding engines to bicycle? (motors are more limited then engine?) (now doesn't that just seems appropriate). Now I understand there is a difference from what was there previously and what you might expect to be there. (A discusion would have been worthy) (Just as I'm pretty sure you don't like going through I finding relevant information, I don't either) However, I will have to do that, and repost relevant information. (this article needs serious re-writing and pen-menship skill) (I'm not one for that... but I tried pretty hard last round and felt prety offended not to see one litle bit of information left over... until of course I point out specifically what should be put back. Why is it everytime I add something, You delete it. Do some of your own edits. Then often, eventually it ends right back up there? (Never mind... actually, the real question should be... why is it not possible to pay a little more attention when deleting someones additions? Anyway, we still have to talk about the history of motorized bicycles? And if we defined a motorized bicycle as being a bicycle with an attached engine, it is un-avoidable not to talk about the history of bicycle. Again, I find it awfully rude to delete a section (history), change the name (history of adding motors bicycle). I think we might have to rewrite (or paste) a lot of that info. Again the history of motorized bicycle can not be explained without talking about the history of bicycles. How will we explain the difference between pedaled bicycles, non-pedaled. Motorcycle, Moped, Scooters,... All these are a type of motorized bicycle that needs to be explained in the article (even if they are not necessarilly "technically" a "motorized bicycle") It is a common name used by many to describe a two-wheeled vehicle that has an attached engine. Again, like the article, bicycle a lot of the information is repeated from history of the bicycle. I also would like to bring into question the validity of the information concerning "autocycle" or "cyclemotor." (Do we have any other sources?) Finally, the article seems to have a few sections that repeat and say the same thing. (That's my beef) --CyclePat 21:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to tackle what I can. First of all, we might want to try to explain why it should have its own article BUT remember to avoid self-references. In other words, you have to avoid language like "This article is being included because" or "This belongs in Wikipedia because". Secondly, I removed the content you added, Pat, because it didn't belong here. From what I see, CCM was a bike manufacturer. You spent an entire paragraph talking about CCM. Why? From what I see. They didn't have a major role in motorized bikes. They produced one, yes, but other companies did as well around the same time. Save that kind of information for the CCM article. And you know what? A discussion would have been worthy before you pasted the section in. You should've asked if that would fit into the article. I still don't know what you want, Pat. This article is about motorized bicycles, their history and their use. It has to have world scope. Listing CCM is fine as a company who made an early motorized bicycle, but we do not need their company history in here. How does it possibly add to the understanding of motorized bikes?
NO! NO! Don't go saying I only talked about CCM. I might have talk a bit more about them... Yes, That's because they have an important role in the developement of our "motorized bicycle" (as you realized and put a small blurb back... still lacking some key points, which I will attempt to fix after my nap) I disagree with you. I think they had a major role with motorized bicycles. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. Because they manufactured a stronger, steardier, lighter frame bicycle than the previous (afformentioned somewhere in that now deleted section of the article) it made place for the ability to easily attach a "pixie" motor. It's is preciselly that type of naivety that make me mad. Saying that because they only produced one bicycle that's not enought. The US produced one H bomb? Then of course many more.... Seriously I only quote one example that I found. If you feel that their are other bicycle companies during that time produced motorized bicycles.... than name them... add them to the article. Again, you are removing information, to suite your perception of the world. The is destructive. Become construstive and add some information to be merged... and if Schwin did exist, and if Schwin did have some motorized bicycle during that time than find some info... put the source and incorperate to the article. The more the better someone will be able to make an educated assumption of when the first motorized bicycle was constructed. We all know that what was there had a lot more. (Talking about motorized bicycle from CCM is a documented fact in an Internationally recognized museum (that just happens to be in my back door), it is not some biased opinion) You also missed the point... the history of a the bicycle is an inherent property of the history of motorized bicycles. We need to begin talking about the bicycle before we can elaborate on the motorized bicycle. Call it pre-history! That's a good idea. (bring it back and call it pre-history) (Well not all because of course it will never be quite the same but some good parts) There will be an overlap somewhere... we will need to explain the shape of the bicycle used... was the first motorized bicycle a high-wheel... or was it a diamond safety style bicycle (such as we kinda know it today!) What was the first motorized bicycle based on? Did it have more than 2 wheels? What or who are the major key player in the developement of this type of bicycle that lead to eventually a motorized bicycle? Where these bicycle originally constructed for the addition of a motor? Are they now contstructed for the addition of motors? (ie.: electric bicycle?) Many of these questions where answered by this section... I think a pre-history section is good. (Just as bicycle give a section of history)... however (I haven't read further down... if you feel there is no need for so much info, then I guess a new article called History of the motorized bicycle might be appropriate?--CyclePat 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for the history of the bicycle, you say "How will we explain the difference between pedaled bicycles, non-pedaled. Motorcycle, Moped, Scooters,... All these are a type of motorized bicycle that needs to be explained in the article (even if they are not necessarilly "technically" a "motorized bicycle")"
No. You don't have to cite the history of bicycles to explain motorized bicycles. That's what the link to "History of the bicycle" is for. I'm still not sure you quite understand Wikipedia. Bicycle is the most general 2 wheeled category. So it has a full, all encompassing article. Motorized bikes are a class of bicycles. We do not need to explain the history or scope of bikes here. Why? Well, #1 chances are good that people that run across this article already know what a bike is and they are looking for information specific to motorized bikes. And #2, that's what links are for. The beauty of Wikipedia are the links. If people want more information on bicycles, they can click on the bicycle link or the history of the bike link. We don't need to recap what is already on the site.
Actually, I think it is necessary for this article to have a disctincly written history that covers the development toward motorization. Perhaps a pre-history --CyclePat 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes, having the history of the bike link and saying that a motorized bicycle is a bicycle with a motor on it is all you have to say about bicycles. If you start going into detail about the history of bikes, then you are repeating information from 2 different articles. And yes, the history of the bike article repeats information from the main bike article, but that's ok since the reason why the history of the bike article was split off from the bike article was that it was getting too long, so they decided to give it its own article.
You mentioned rewriting. What do you want rewritten? And honestly, I didn't appreciate the "do your own edits" comment. I've had to edit your contributions for spelling and grammar since we started this process. And I did do some of my own research...and...I've been responsible for organizing this into a readable article. Like I said, Pat, my job here is to get this article to conform with the usual format here. And yes, I'm the one who changed the "History" section, because for awhile I had 2 history sections until I decided that the CCM stuff didn't belong here. I was going to change it back but I had to go to bed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "usual" format? Actually what is Usual? Please someone explain? Because the last time I saw something that was usual, well... he was stealing a bicycle? (ironically)Okay! Well you, see, the common etiquette that I've had when working in project is... you sugest something... (or put it down).... someone says... yup... no... change this. So I guess, all I can say is I feal like you've made this your article now? I understand. Until that's resolved I will go explore other venues in the mean time. Heck, I have a business to run! --CyclePat 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia Manual of Style - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I don't see alot of repeating. I do see some between the intro paragraph and some of the sections, but that's normal. It's sort of like a school paper where the introduction introduces the main topics that the paper will cover. You will have repeated info. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
btw I think I remember what I said. Sorry. You often do a great job editing often fixing many of my typos. I will, in the future attempt to reciprocicate the favor. Thank you.--CyclePat 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

OK, I am now working through the article trying to polish up the flow and development. There have been a lot of edits, some of which which have been moved or partially backed out, leading to the same concept being addressed in more than one section (mopeds, for instance). Nothing big, it just reads slightly disjointed (natural with multiple editors). FWIW, I believe the major historical development of IC engined motorized bikes was in France, the Veolomoteur goes back to the early years of the 20th Century. But I am still researching that trying to find a categorical answer (it may well have developed in several places simultaneously). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

difficulty to define a "motorized bicycle":

We could say {of course taking out and developing the idea such as this interjection}(but where would we put this? History? The start?): Some of the major difficulties in defining a motorized bicycle have been because of it inherent association with the regular bicycle. For example, the history of the bicycle has a specific development. These bicycles throughout history often have only become motorized through home made modification(s), {self made motorized kits}(now we need to put some examples)(eg.: is the Pixie motor a self made kit or was it specifically designed for bicycle addition?) or when small manufacturers specifically designed addition kits {from perhaps the Pixie motor? (Or was it the addition kit that came first? Or was it the entire motorized bicycle?) {Personally I would imagine it's the homemade modified kit} to the eventually the electric hub motor kit such as [3]]}. Of course other manufacturers specifically designed some motorized bicycles {I only have recent electric motorized bicycle companies such as [4] but I think ICE would be a good place to look}.

Pre-history of the motorized bicycle:-----

While the addition of a motor to a bicycle might seem natural, there are historical key points that lead to it's natural development. One reason would be the amelioration and historical development of the regular bicycle. This bicycle frame, a diamond-frame, such as demonstrated on the "Rover safety bicycle" from Starly & Sutton, c. 1885 (which can be found at the museum of science and technology of canada (Ottawa)) was a safer bicycle than it's predecessor (Ie.: the highwheel, etc.) and may have been a key reason for developing a motorized bicycle. Another reason might have been the development of a stronger frame made of stronger tubing, such as the "CCM Light Delivery bicycle", from Canada Cycle & Motor Co., c. 1932(Which looks a lot like todays modern mountain bicycle). Which in the late 1940s had a "Pixie" bicycle motor installed to add power when climbing hills. (not necessarilly to increase speed). The motorized bicycle is a natural evolution or modification of the bicycle, a sound basic design that can be improved to perform a variety of functions.--CyclePat 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


(of course I didn't talk about the normal type of propulsion of a bicylce (pedals) but that might also be a good point to contrast... the adition of pedals, chains,... chained motorized bicycles. to the ruban... etc... --CyclePat 20:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, why would you want to go over this ground in this article? The bicycle and its history is covered in considerable detail in the linked article on bicycles. The "pre-history" od the motorized bicycle is the history of the bicycle! As far as I can see the article as it stands is good, covers the ground thoroughly and in the right amount of detail, and provides sufficient pointers for anyone who wants to delve into it in minute detail. Only bike geeks would even think about anything other than the diamond-frame bicycle. I couldn't even get the "penny-farthing" article renamed to "ordinary bicycle", because only bike geeks like us have any conception that the high-wheeler was ever considered the norm. Leave well alone, it'll only confuse the hell out of people. Trust me, I've tried.
And I really wish you'd stop banging on about CCM. By 1932 the veolmoteur and even the motorcycle were well-established. Gottfried Daimler built the first motorcycle in 1885, Sammy Miller's museum in New Milton (UK) has motorbikes going back to the late 19th Century, and I've seen references specifically to motorised bicycles from 1902 and earlier. I don't think Canada has played a leading role in the development of the motorised bike (compared with, say, France, where models like the VeolSolex and Derny originated) and a small Canadian firm sticking a motor on a delivery bike in 1932 is not, I think, a seminal moment in the development of the motorized bicycle. It might have been a seminal moment in the history of that company, which is great in that company's article, but from the point of view of the motorized bicycle worldwide it is really not significant enough to warrant more than a passing mention, if that. Sorry, I know you are an enthusiast for the thing, but that's how I see it. We have to remember not to be parochial (something I always struggle with too).
Nor is there any difficulty defining "motorized bicycle". The article does it right there in the first two paragraphs: it's a pedal cycle with a motor attached. It's distinguished from a motorcycle by the fact that it has pedals and can be propelled by them alone. Where is the supposed ambiguity? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a little confused now. On one you are saying the history is that of a motorcycle (which doesn' have pedals b.t.w.) and base on the velomoteur {but we don't substantiat this idea (I go into details and explain that the stronger frame made room for the addition of a motor)} but on the other hand you are saying its that of a bicycle and that it's distinguish by the fact that it has pedals? I really don't feal that a motorcycle has as much significance to this article except for comparing it's early history with previous bicycles. In my personal opinion I feel that the motorcyle is more or less a developpement of the first two-wheeled vehicle called the "Hobby-Horse" (see History of the bicycle)(which didn't have pedals) Again, as you have indicated, a motorized bicycle has pedals. We should at least talk about (or smerge)(small section merger) some history sections that deal with (pedal bikes) and why they became motorized?(or vis-versa the history of bicycles should talk about the slow evolution of it's bicycle to be eventually capable of motorization)--CyclePat 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity... no I said difficulty in defining it. And in part because of the wikipedia "natural" format (which I'm still waiting to get an answer?) But also because, as I indicated we are not sure what came first... who came up with what idea. Was it the motorcycle that inspired the creation of motorized bicycle? (I think that's another category, as afformentioned (no pedals) and perhaps influenced more by the "hobby-horse"... but perhaps the regular bicycle and its pedal gears where just as influencial for the motorcycle. No matter the case that should be in motorcycle history) Or is it the bicycle that inspired the motorized bicycle? (due to the "subject" title, I would say the bicycle probably had a biger influence... however the motorcyle might have had just as much influence? I don't know?) (What came first the chiken or the egg?) I you trying to say that a motorized bicycle was first built without pedals? Was it someone that wanted to have a motorcycle but had a bicycle (such as the pre-history I have written might suggest) and added a motor? Isn't are article mostly about "adding motors to bicycles? Did the addition of cranks to the "hobby-horse", such as the velocipede (a type of bicycle from 1860, have a stronger impact on the development of the "motorized bicycle?" Which type of bicycle had the strongest influence for motorized bicycles? Which frame had the strongest influence for motorized bicycle? What frames are used today? (Again what came first the motorcycle or the motorized bicycle? Was the motorized bicycle an influence to construct the motorcyle, which in turn, today, influenced the motorized bicycle? (humm...?) By eliminating the pr-history do we not eliminate our human capability to induce an answer to these questions. I certainly think it is worth mentionning specific sections... Not mentionning them at all, I believe, would be worse and leave us with a poor article lacking important historic information. --CyclePat 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're suggesting is we should add more information about the evolution of the motorized bicycle, that could possibly be done. But we would need to back that up with primary sources, and it must be specific to motorized bicycles. We can't re-create the text of History of the bicycle or whatever that article link is. Does anybody have or have access to any scholarly texts that would apply? · Katefan0(scribble) 00:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pat, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that reference to the ordinary and the Rover Safety is essentially irrelevant in a discussion of the motorised bicycle. There is plenty more that can be said on its history, and on the forks in the road which led to the motorcycle and the moped. But the frame style had no significant influence on the development of the motorised bike: ordinaries were not motorised because they had died out by the time a practical bicycle-sized engine had been developed. I have seen motorised bicycles based on several different frame types, it seems to me that the frame style is no more influential (and not significantly differently distributed) from unassisted pedal cycles. The only style of bike I personally have not seen motor assisted is the recumbent bicycle (I have seen several motorised recumbent trikes). I can't think of any authorities offhand who link the motorcycle to the hobby-horse - this, too, was history by the time of the motorcycle.
I don't believe there was any serious thought given to motorising bikes before the Rover Safety because (a) the Safety embodied the lower CoG and castor steering which makes a bike stable enough to be propelled at higher speeds in safety and (b) the Safety was in any case a response to the arrival on the scene of inventions such as mass-produced ball bearings, practical chain drives and fine casting and assembly techniques which are a prerequisite for motorisation. Of course, back in those days they would try bolting a motor on pretty much anything! Frame style has relevance only in this sense: early motorised bikes were simply production bikes with a motor bolted on. These days you can also still retrofit a motor to a stock frame, but then and now the existence of the motorised bike led to a class of machine designed around the motor. The modern Powabyke, to pick one example, has a mixte-style frame with the main tubes splayed to acommodate a battery. But what I'm saying is that the development of the safety frame is in the past by the time the motorised bicycle really starts to take off in the early part of the 20th Century.
The relevance of the comment re Daimler is solely to show that 1932 is late in the day as far as development is concerned. I know the difference between a motorcycle, a moped and a motorised bike; I think you are getting too bogged down in one product from one minor manufacturer. My impression from various sources is that France played a leading role here, with the cyclomoteur class being exempt from various regulations, and with young rioders being permitted. France also has a comparable class of light car still, which requires no driving license. I think this regulatory regime combined with the French enthusiasm for cycling led to France being a leader in the development of the (internal combustion) motorised bike. But I don't yet have enough verifiable information to say so in the article.
Finally, as I say, I see no difficulty at all in defining what constitutes a motorised bike. The fact that different legislatures call it different things and accord it different laws is not a reflection of the difficulty of identifying it, it's to do with the historical perspective in those aras. In the UK it is counted as a road vehicle. In other jurisdictions legal regulation of it has got mixed up with the Segway, which is undoubtedly not designed as a road vehicle. The practical definition for the purposes of this article is pretty simple and unambiguous,to my mind.
Is that any clearer? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to thank you AfD? for answering several of my questions. We must be clear on where we are comming from. When this article started it was soly on "electric bicycle". Perhaps irrelevant now, I think we should however keep in mind that the article is not intended to be a history of the motorcycle, the moped, or even of the bicycle (as my previous history post might have allusioned).. humm... wait a minute... (*think, think,!) Should we do that? hum... I could see a lot, lot more work having to be done. Merge here. Scream there. No. Never mind. Again, I think the frame had an important role in the developement, but now that you mention the gears, the ball bearing, etc... that makes sense to! Could be a combination? I don't agree that "ordinaries were not motorised because they had died out by the time a practical bicycle-sized engine had been developed." (Well first, when we say ordinaries, we mean the triangle-frame such as the CCM bike I was talking about right?) I agree with you that perhaps in the last 10 to 20 years, maybe even more that the bicycle frame was probably irelevant because by this point they where all prety strong (compared to the first pre-history bicycles). B.t.w. here is a link to a motorized recumbent bicycle (the link is already on the main article page). For the speed, I know the CCM was constructed with a motor more for the torc in climbing hills. So the general frame concept, being safer, stronger, must have been a reason for it being a choice of motorization in the late 1930s. If you mean motorized bicycle take of around in the late 20th century you would be more precise to say the late 1970s... that would be correct according to statistic on the registration of Mopeds in Canada! (Moped is a type of motorized bicycle) But if you mean electric bicycles, then the really late 20th century (say around late 1990s) would be appropriate. (They're fairly new I don't have to many stats on that!). If you say France had an influence... I would believe you. It's just setting up our history line! OMG! A history line! humm... user:CyclePat/History line of the Motorized bicycle? (anyone want to dare try and make it! (is it worth an article?) Anyway. I know in music, we often studied the influence of pre-histories influence on the development of newer music (that we hadn't studied yet). Example: The Beethoven influence on so many other composers: the interminable cadences, the, his classic style vs. schoenbergs dodecaphonism. However every composer had his style. I think we might be getting into the history of different styled motorized bicycles (which is always subjective). Major studies are produces on such theories and when we here about it class, it's like a 2 second blurb. (well of course with an analitical study of the symphony to demonstrate) At least we are agreing somewhere in the midle, as you said: "Frame style has relevance only in this sense: early motorised bikes were simply production bikes with a motor bolted on." Now we need to analyse why they where bolted on! (Perhaps it was the stronger frame?) or perhaps as you sugest it was the adventure of trying to hook a motor up to anything? p.s.: I say this with anxiety: If you find anything on the French do post it in the article! Cheers --CyclePat 14:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, an ordinary bicycle is a high-wheeler (I thought I said that?). What I'm saying is that the bicycle was sufficiently settled into the standard diamond-frame pattern before the advent of motorisation as to make the history of that development (which is in any case well covered elsewhere) irrelevant to a discussion of the motorised bicycle. It is not at all like musical influences, where there is a continuum of overlapping change over time, and where different composers worked with, or in reaction to other composers. The advent of the safety bicycle format, on which most motorised bicycles are based, was essentially a one-time change. And the UCI want to keep it that way :-)
And you are still far too hung up on that one bike from one small Canadian manufacturer in the 1930s. You'd be far better off spending your energies on researching the really early days of the motorised bicycle. I know of no good evidence that this event (or Canada in general) exerted any discernible influence over the history and development of the motorised bicycle. You've not provided any such evidence either. Oh, and remember that early bicycles all had heavy steel frames. Lightweight frames followed on as manufacturing technology improved. As far as I can tell, in the early days of motorisation, there was no need to look for an especially heavy or rugged frame, as there was nothing else on offer. Again, this is just the view I have from my researches, so if you can provide verifiable documentary evidence to the contrary it would have a place in the article.
Remember, too, that everything in this article must be verifiable by reference to credible external sources. We are not here to conduct original research. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you question my sources? you have virtually the same info as I do. First off... I'd just like to say... had the wheel never been invented I don't think we would have a motorized bicycle... so history has an important role on this. (aside: Idea: History of the Development of the Motorized bicycle wheel) Okay! Let's write all the sources down again. (*head shaking)(*breather). Maybe you should write down your sources so we can compare notes. (Feel free to add it on my user page under links/"your username")(Many links that where mentioned during discusions in motorized bicycle article where put on my user page) (b.t.w. What the heck is UCI, and why is UCI influencing this article? Please explain why you say "the advent of the safety bicycle format, on which most motorised bicycles are based, was essentially a one-time change. And the UCI want to keep it that way :-))" What do you mean by a one-time change? (This could be worth putting in the article if you explain yourself) Okay... here is my primary source: Bikes:The Wheel Story/(museum of science and technology). B.t.w. I don't think I said this bicycle was the first! The "statements/facts" that I presented seem to coincide with your afformentioned comment, essentially that the safety bicycle format appears to be at this point in time the base for motorized bicycles. NPOV my, my,... anyway! Have fun reading the source. I await your sources for your previous statements. :) --CyclePat 20:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, you are misunderstanding again what I am saying. I do not dispute that CCM added a motor to the Light Delivery, what I dispute is that this bike or this addition had any significance to the global development of the motorised bicycle. Nor does your cited source show that. That source is about an exhibit in a museum - it is contextualising the exhibit, not defining the history of the motorized bicycle. The addition of the motor is a footnote even in this article, it is mainly about the versatility of the diamond frame, which is covered in bicycle. And as for Timeline of Motorized bicycle history, if you're going to include the invention of the wheel you have to include the Bessemer converter, the discovery of aluminium refining and manufacturing techniques, key developments in welding and brazing, the development of fine casting techniques - but I suspect this, too, is well covered elsewhere (probably in industrial revolution). This article is about the motorized bicycle and its development globally. The motorized bicycle is a sideline to both the bicycle and the motorcycle, of some passing interest mainly due to the legislative confusion it arouses. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

history of this article

Another reason it is important to include this information is because we really don't have anywhere else to put it. Unlike the link to bicycle, which might have the sub-category ordinary bicycle... we are unable to do so with this article. Though this is not a strong argument I have to argue that the article bicycle, has a fair amount of "stolen" information from the article ordinary bicycle. If they can do... why can't we! note: Originally motorized bicylce was only about electric bicycle. Some administrators decided we should merge. It would be kind of stupid to unmerge. I think we should get the general history correct. But how? Question? Is there an encyclopedic article somewhere on motorized bicycle? Anyway, there has been a constant dilema on expending and having different sub-categories for our article (see the Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (electric bicycle). What does that have to do with all this you ask. I think, in part because of deletionists, that it keeps the article small and medeocre and prevents from quickly expanding new sub-categories that might have important information for the developement of the main article motorized bicycle. Suggestion: Have as many sub-article on motorized bicycles. (that also eliminates the double standard that exist with the afformentioned example in bicycle but also with the motorized bicycles such as "moped"(which has it's own article) vs "electric bicycle." --CyclePat 21:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to leave, but I have to defend myself here. #1, you are completely misunderstanding "deletionist". It does not mean that deletionist users are for deleting material from articles. It means that they believe that articles need a certain level of notability before they should be included. It has to do with article inclusion, not with what to do once the articles are on the site. By the way, there is an article on deletionists at the Meta site.
And "administrators" did not decide to merge the articles. Alynna is not an admin. Just diz guy is not an admin. And there were others that supported merging. I'm not really sure when I became "the bad guy" on all of this. I did not make decisions as to merging on my own. I strongly dislike how I leave the article and now it's back to...let's create all of these sister articles and categories. Let's go back to arguing for the 10th time that we need a separate article on electric bicycles. The consensus was for merging. Again, I was not on my own. It was me and kate and alynna and some others. I'm sorry you were on the losing end of the merging issue, Pat, but accept it and try to work within what is being done here instead of continually hinting that we need a separate electric bikes article. That was decided a month ago. Please move on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feal that way. --CyclePat 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now we still have a problem. As I said "Unlike the link to bicycle, which might have the sub-category ordinary bicycle... we are unable to do so with this article." Does anyone have a possible cause or more importantly a solution? Another problem is getting the general history correct. That is why I started a timeline on the main page. (Any other suggestions) And finally, again, is there an encyclopedic article somewhere on motorized bicycle? --CyclePat 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the possible cause: one person who for reasons known only to themselves insists on trying to put half the history of the bicycle into an article discussing motorisation of the bicycle, when that history is already well covered in bicycle and the major turning point was already wel past before motorisation became a practical proposition. The solution is obvious to everyone but you, Pat. You are right that getting the history correct is problematic (per WP:NOR). The solution is not to create a separate article including such irrelevancies as the invention of the wheel and speculation about the first (unpowered) bicycle, plus, purely by conicidence, the addition of a commerically available motor to an existing bike by one small manufacturer in Canada, an event whose significance you have yet to provide any authority for. These irrelevancies get removed here, and they would get removed there as well (assuming it survives its VfD). WP:V and WP:NOR are the key problems, and you have yet to address them. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I've talk about this with you before. There is no argumenting here on the importance/significance in the global history of motorized bicycle... But since you want a talk about it, then here we go. I have simply presented some facts that I found at the Museum of Science and Technology of Canada. I am presenting the fact not arguing. You are arguing about nothing. I haven't found any studies or information on the significance of this CCM bicycle. But it feels like you might have some because you keep deleting the information about CCM. Is this original research of yours? So what I'm saying is would you stop it. My viewpoint should be fairly reported, and its alleged (according to you)minority status noted, and then I would be happy. --CyclePat 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I removed the CCM solely because there was no evidence of its significance to the global development of the motorized bicycle, which is what this article is about. As soon as you provide that, in it goes - but you say you have no such evidence. As far as I can tell Canada itself, with which (as your homeland) you are naturally most concerned and most interested, is itself not significant in the global development of the motorized bicycle. So put the Light Delivery in the article on CCM, where it has an indisputable place. In the mean time we have enough notable examples to make the history and development clear within this article without running off after apparent red herrings. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

should we add {{notsportcycling}}

Should we add somewhere in the article a spot for {{notsportcycling}}? (sample here)


or {{cycling project}}?

(sample here)

--CyclePat 22:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I just added the {{cycling project}} category! --CyclePat 22:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well it been two days or so, that I asked what you think about adding {{notsportcycling}}. I guess I'll just do it and see what people say. --CyclePat 04:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The french article of motorized bicycle only talks about electric bicycles. It is well written and that's why I'm hesitant to begin re-writing it to reflect more general concept of motorized bicle. The link is no longer really valid and should be removed to the french article. However, I think we shouldn't forget about the article (humm... Vélo à assistance électrique. I'll see what I can do as a simple user. I'm not quite sure what? But in the mean time any sugestions? --CyclePat 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English wikipedia, we have nothing to do with articles on fr. If you want to make or request or propose changes to the fr article, you should do it on that article's talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't say it that correctly. I meant to say. Our english article, on the left side has a link to the french article on electric bicycles. I though this somewhat, redirect to the french article, should be deleted. --CyclePat 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out. For your info: I removed the [[fr:Vélo à assistance électrique]] because it talked soly of "power-assisted bicycles" (bicyclette assistée) --CyclePat 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. Sorry, I misunderstood. However ... I don't mind that you removed the link, but would point out that the reason to have removed it is because it's in French, NOT because it only deals with one aspect of motorized bicycles. If it's a relevant aspect of motorized bicycles, I don't see any reason per se to be trimming external links unless they're frivolous or inherently commercial in nature, etc. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading correctly, the reasoning was that this interwiki link to the French Wikipedia article was removed because it only deals with one aspect of motorized bicycles. --Alynna 21:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I got that. What I was saying is that it's an invalid reason for removal. But in the end it should probably stay removed since it's French and this is the English wikipedia. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole point of the "in other languages" links was to link to other wikipedias, which are in other languages...--Alynna 22:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NEW Category

My edits:

  • Added a new category [[category:Motorized bicycle]]
  • Also added timeline section
  • added Transportion and cycle stub
  • added many other appropriate categories.
  • Placed Moped in the category of motorized bicycle.--CyclePat 08:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the timelines since we are still a long way short of having enough externally verifiable data to support that article. I suggest that we work on it at Motorized bicycle/Timeline until we have enough verifiable data to make a decent article. And Pat, I am going to ask you to provide verifiable external references to support your continued assertion of the significance of CCM's fitting of a commercially available motor to an existing frame, in the context of the global development of the motorized bicycle. Which books, by which authors, mark this as a significant event? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I brough back the link to the motorized timeline, please allow enough time for everyone to see the link, and please leave it there until the deletion dispute is resolved. --CyclePat 01:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is much more usual to wait until there is excess information in an article before splitting out, and in any case any critical points we can identify might just as well be added to the transport timeline. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call for collaborative edits on a rather clunky paragraph

People have been adding engines or motors to bikes for at least 50 years. The Canadian company CCM was attaching a "Pixie" bicycle motor to the back of their light delivery bikes in the late 1940s. Early motorcycles were simply bicycles with engines; essentially a motorized bicycle. (See Motorcycle History) A bicycle with a small motor added used to be known as an "autocycle" or "cyclemotor" [1].

This paragraph is awkward. It seems to me, someone not knowledgeable about cycling issues at all beyond a few political issues mostly regarding Segway, to be strung together without context. Why are these things mentioned? Why is the CCM mentioned, why should I care that a bicycle used to be called an autocycle ... this needs more context. Someone who can provide it should take a whack here on the talk page at making it more useful for the casual reader. For an intro paragraph, I still have no feel for the history of how this evolved. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It reads awkwardly because it has an irrelevant reference to something halfway through the evolution of the internal combustion assisted bicycle stuck in the middle. I'll see if I can't make it a bit more coherent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colaborative Research

the information found at http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=132708&calln=4&lastq=&opt=ANY&doc0=0&query=bicycle is to large to discern by myself in the short amount of time necessary to have a descent article before the deletion. Please help by including any pertinent information for the article. Thank you! --CyclePat 04:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check out http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pattle/nacc/arcindex.htm --CyclePat 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, I know Andrew Pattle personally so will ask him for some of his sources to follow this up. But will you please stop pissing all over the consensus here and trying to make a WP:POINT. There is a strong' consensus on this page for keeping history within this article unless and until it becomes too large (which it has not yet). Also, much of the stuff you (I'm assuming it was you, given the text) put into the timeline was irrelevant to the motorized bicycle as defined. It might have the makings of a timeline of motorcycles, or even powered two wheelers generally, but the BSA Bantam is a motorcycle, the Honda Cub is a motor-scooter, the horse-drawn cart, although undoubtedly available as a powered two wheeler, is not actually a motorised bicycle according to the formal definition. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response on the appropriate page. Thank you everyone for your edits. --CyclePat 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Timeline of Motorized bicycle history


Steam Engine

My favourite editor is at it again. I do hope his edits about the steam engine bicycle were only by mistake. Right? I believe, steam engine motorized bicycle is worthy of notation in this article. But, for some reason the link was recently removed? Reasons being? Also, who believes that this steam engine, though it might be extreme, is in fact a motorized bicycle? So what is all the fuss about. This is yet another poor edit/delete because I have been stereotyped as some sort of weird backyards editor. So, anyone here ever tryed to ride a steam powered bicycle? Check out the link... Steam Engine bicycle. Cheers! --CyclePat 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Please link diffs. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is no contest, it's been a few days now since the link to a steam powered bicycle was removed without reason. I will put the link back. For formating, should it go in the place where steam engine appears or at the bottom. (Previous it was at the bottom and was deleted. --CyclePat 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, what are you on about? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No answer, but I think I've worked it out. Generally, in articles, links in the text are Wikilinks, external links are usually placed in the "external links" section. I rationalised the external links section because it had multiple links to pages at various depths on Andrew Pattle's NACC Archive microsite: I replaced that with a link to the NACC Archive root, and added a link to the NACC itself. I have left the steam engine bicycle link in this section this time (against my better judgment) because I simply can't face yet another protracted argument with CyclePat. Frankly, steam engine power is (again) of virtually no overall significance. How many motorised bicycles are steam powered? The evidence thus far is that the number produced is in single figures. Actually Andrew's link has precisely one, built as a curiosity by an eccentric. Amusing enough, but again 'completely irrelevant to the global history of the motorised bicycle.
Pat, I have a brilliant idea. It's pretty clear to me (and I guess to you as well) that your POV on this issue is somewhat quirky. Why don't you get a free hosting provider, make a page which looks how you want it to look, and we'll put it in the external links section as "CyclePat's Canadian motorized bicycle pages" or some such. The things you're adding, although often of no demonstrable significance, are interesting enough. This approach will allow you to say what you want to say in the way you want to say it without the constant conflicts with others whose vision of the subject differs from yours. What say? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, that does make sense!  :) You hit the spot dead on! lol. The items I hapen to talk about are (assumingly) less notable (or less renoun or famous would probably be better) but they might have a significance. I will look into your suggestion. But, I have a feeling this is something that must happen with other subjects (wiki articles) as well. Do you know how they generally deal with such a things? (That is to consider an item that is less renoun or less notable?)... I though according to NPOV it would be to mention something about them without specifically mentionning them. :s (confusing) Any sugestions? Well actually you did give me a suggestion. Thank you, I'll check into it. --72.57.8.215 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell issues like this generally get fixed by the proposer either deomnstrating genuine significance, sufficient to persuade other editors, or accepting the consensus and dropping the matter. In some cases where passions run high we get edit wars and mediation. In this case, with you being the only dissenter and apparently amenable to reason, that should not be necessary. I will be very happy to link to your external page should you choose to make one; I believe it's a good way for you to state your case in your own words. On WP other editors will always come along and change things. Also, it would allow you to put up the how-to I seem to recall you discussing, on how to get your electric bike registered (or was that someoen else?) How-tos don't belong on WP but often get linked. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Someone has state that Moped is a motorized bicycle. (http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/232107/231706/) Therefore, as per WP:MM#Merging these article should be merged. --CyclePat 22:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we keep seperate pages. The moped really became it's own machine during the fifties and sixties, I think that the moped warrants mention on this page though, and while you could say that mopeds are motorized bicycles, you can not claim that all motorized bicycles are mopeds, since mopeds are legally regulated and defined as having 50cc engines, and a number of early bike motors and motorized bicycles (such as the Whizzer) use an engine of a larger displacement than 50cc. There are a few mopeds that blur the lines between what is clearly a moped and what is clearly a motorized bicycle, such as the VelosoleX, Honda P50, and the Garelli Mosquito - these machines should probably be mentioned on both pages, but after the early sixties the moped and motorized bicycle's (baring those examples above) evolutionary paths diverged in manner significant enough that they became seperate - although they remain much more similiar to eachother than to any other motorized transport. Just my 2 cents. User:K-111
I agree with K-111. The suggestion comes from a moped message board, not from Wikipedians. We have already explored this and there appears to me to be a strong consensus for this being separate, not least becasue most jurisdictions treat the two differently but also because the two strands of development are entirely separate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CyclePat, I'm glad to see you're at the Moped Army's forums and making good use of them. I was going to say hi over there, but have been busy with the Thanksgiving festivities this week and taking a little time off the internet. As for the merger request, I still don't think these two articles are necessarily a good match. We failed to reach a consensus last time this merger was suggested, and I'm still of the same opinion—that mopeds are functionally more like a 50cc motorcycle with starting pedals than a bike with a helper motor. --Charleschuck 03:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and yes, Happy Thanks Giving (for you US neighbors). Comments are duly noted and appreciated. Thank you. It would be nice to have at least one more opinion, if possible someone new. To summarize what you guys have said:
  • Some motorized bicycles are Moped because of jurisdictional laws (obviously some are not)
  • Not a good match because later on in there history the two strand shave different developments? (Okay, but if we want to add that to our article, we have to be careful when demonstrating and we should keep in mind the new electric bicycles)(which I think we do, right?)
  • Motorized bicycle are more like a bike with helper motors vs a 50cc motorcycle.
my quick comment: I think it's is really nice gray area. That's one reason I asked the question. (We describe it fairly well in the motorized bicycle article) In the context that it was put, I agree with you on this! (a Moped should be a moped)) However for example, my electric motorized bicycle is registered as a moped here in Ontario. So legally a motorized bicycle could be a moped. not all are! (as you demonstrated) This exception to the rule, I though would be a nice inclusion. As you said... That made me believe that motorized bicycle, was a broader term that could include prety much all mopeds (with pedals). It changes so much from jurisdiction that, that's why I asked? If we get this cleared up, or at least clearly stated (which I believe, by recolection, we do in the motorized bicycle article.), I think we will be on our way to a featured article. --CyclePat 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that Moped is a legal classification that varies between various countries while motorised bicycles is a defined type of two wheeled vehicle. All particular types of motorised two wheeled vehicles should be and can be classified as a motorised bike, scooter or motorcycle. I do not think there needs to be a merger as my recent edits to the moped article clearly show that these articles are of two seperate concepts. --Clawed 08:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove the merge tag. You just don't give up, do you Pat? Stubborness will be your undoing here, I guarantee it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, this was already defeated. We work on consensus here, Pat. I'm not sure if you just think I'm making this up to be mean or what. Wikipedia:Consensus. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so, but I couldn't comment on that. However, if you take a look at the start of that Wikipedia:Consensus page, you may notice someone put the comment "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia." You may also notice that this merger request was initiated because of a third party POV oppinion. But Again, I couldn't possibly comment on that, now could I. --Pat 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I can comment that it is my belief you probably should have let another administrator remove the merger, considering the vested interest you have in this article. What happens when a merger is removed early? Why should it be removed early? --Pat 05:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain the significant relevance of legal definitions to these decisions of whether to merge or not? I mean, what relevance does no legal distinction between a road bike and mountain bike have on whether we should have separate Wiki articles on these? I don't see how whether the law distinguishes between motorized bicycles and mopeds should have any weight on a merge/separate Wiki decision either.

Having said that, it seems to me that there is a significant distinction between mopeds and motorized bicycles that warrants separate articles. But, then, I also think a similar significant distinction applies to electric bicycles and motorized bicycles in general. I don't know much about any of these topics (I'm into pure human powered cycles, thank you). But I will say from my ignorant disinterested and therefore relatively neutral POV that I could certainly see wanting to read and learn about mopeds independent of motorized bicycles, and the same about electric bicycles. I think you should be consistent and do the right thing... create separate articles for each of these distinctive types of vehicles. --Serge 06:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

motorized bicycle has been added to:

  • Well, it was the idea of what to include vs not-include in an article. There are a few examples we touched upon. We discussed the CCM bicycle. The Steam Engine bicycle (still on this talk page (above)), we have resolved or stated clearly (I think) that a moped may be a motorized bicycle, (to which my fingers are still smoking from all the typing). Right now, I'm moving on toward the second paragraph of motorized bicycle. We say something alon the line that it can be is especially pedaled "easily." The thing is... there are some new electric bicycles that are being manufactured. They look just more like a scooter. The only reason they are a moped or "motorized bicycle" is because they have these ugly pedals (which are dangerous b.t.w.) sticking out from the side. In Canada these are generally considered "power-assisted bicycles", but so is my modified electric mountain bicycle. (Actually this bicycle is everything!! It's a motorized bicycle --> Power-assisted bicycle --> moped --> limited speed motorcycle (according to my insurance and in other jurisdictions) --> it's not a vehicle according to the one precendence and the criminal code of Canada (if I'm pedalling) --> ??? Well all that to say I think the "and especially mopeds" is a little pushy. We could simply put mopeds... I would have thought especially would have gone on motorcycles more. (Anyway, I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already, I'll read through the article to make sure and at the same I'll try and find a place if it ain't there. Then, back here for sugesting.) Finally I though a 3rd opinion would have been nice to see if anyone thinks the article is POV. --CyclePat 16:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your POV is different from the others editing the article - that's not a "POV issue". A "POV issue" is where the subject is not stated in neutral terms ("X is the best thing since sliced bread"), or possibly where the subject of the article is inherently subjective (e.g. "ten best films of all time"). The article already discusses local jurisdictional differences tidily, I'd say. It defines motorized bicycles clearly and unambiguously, while at the same time acknowledging that the boundaries between a motorised bike and a moped are blurred. I still can't see why you have such a problem with that! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

I remember a while ago, I think it was woohookity that asked,... laws or cultures in other countries. well, here is link to transport culture in china. http://chinaunique.com/business/transit.htm --CyclePat 04:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link for triumph... I know I had put some info on the wiki somewhere at one point but it has disapeared http://www.wilsonmar.com/1history.htm Here is a list of other manufacuters: http://www.uk-dir.co.uk/Business/ConsumerGoodsandServices/SportingGoods/Cycling/Electric/

Wrong article, I think: these should probably be in the timeline, if refactored as proposed, or motorcycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I have trimmed the categories down to the following: Transportation, Road transport, Vehicles, Electric vehicles, Cycle types, Cycling, Alternative propulsion. I could easily be persuaded to re-insert Hybrid vehicles, but all the othger members of that category are cars, so we might want to think about that for a bit first.

I am a big fan of categories, they are self-maintaining and (to me) intuitive. I can't, however, see much point in having a separate category for motorized bicycle which contains three articles and one user page, with the articles being this, the timeline and moped (which is not, by common consent, a motorized bicycle). For what it's worth I don't see much value in the moped category either. Once we have a significant number of individual articles on individual motorised bicycles that view will of course change.

I could, on the other hand, very easily be persuaded of the merit of a category for light motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds and motorised bicycles, if I could think of a name for it. There are surely enough to make a useful group. I seem to recall somebody making a passing mention of a Canadian company who motorised a delivery bike at some point - that's exactly the kind of article which could be added to such a category. If only I could remember who it was... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OOuh! Ouuh! Ouh! hey! OUh! OUh! Pick me!! I think the category for hybrid should remain since it is part of the definition of our vehicle. --Pat 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not averse, but if you look at the category page it does stick out like a sore thumb. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes another analogy: When I went to high school, with my nerdy hair, big ears, and weird manerism I stuck out like a sore thumb. They still kept me categorized as a "student" there. (People might have been mean, wanting to bash my anoying fucking little head in, but I'm pretty sure I was a student there!) [[category:garneau]]? --Pat 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put some of the discussed categories back in. --Pat 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removing the motorized bicycle category - at present it includes the two articles and your user page, and there are simply not enough articles on individual motorized bicycles to make it menaingful at present. Most articles have fewer categories, although I am a fan of categories this article does seem a bit excessive at present.. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could remove my user page. But you seem to have a lot of opinion based on precendences (that's actually good if we have some example, source, analogy) that might not be appropriate or similar for this subject. We are talking about categorizing a type of vehicle. (Similarly, water can be cattegorized in: liquides, chemicals, lakes, rivers, oceans...) I don't know if this is the best example or the best thing to do but this is only logical. Though motorized bicycle is not technically a tricycle, it is a type of motorized cycle. It could be in this category. (perhaps this category doesn't have room for much expansion in your mind, however it might create a list of all the articles that are related to motorized bicycles... all the different vehicles that exist, different manufactures, etc..., CMM should be in there!!) --Pat 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A category for motorized bicycles will be warranted as and when there are enough articles on individual bikes and manufacturers to need collecting. Right now there are very few, and some of them also make unpowered bikes, so I'd leave them in Category:Cycle manufacturers. At this point in time I would suggest that you should be devoting your energy to fleshing out the history of development of motorised bicycles in the history section of motorized bicycle, because that is what needs doing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance on legal definitions - why?

In comments in the article and on the talk page I see an awful lot of reference to legal definitions. Why? I could understand a mention of these confusing and inconsistent definitions, but there seems to be a lot of unjustified reliance on this. Like something is a "motorized bicycle" if and only if the law in some jurisdiction (which one?) says so? Mopeds are "motorized bicycles" because the law says so and therefore the articles should be merged? Seems like weak reasoning to me.... --Serge 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tone it down. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MBIC (Motorized bicycle improvement campaign)

Join MBIC

Have you been wondering... Where? When? What do we do next? Well, perhaps it's time we started the MBIC category (a group of wikipedian that like editing the motorized bicycle and related articles) (anyone want to start the category:MBIC)? Anyway... I think we need some directions in what to add. That is, what should we concentrate on next? We could go through a voting system where everyone puts their sugestions down. Then we concentrate on that?

  • I've recently been reading up on motorcycle war History (mostly canadian documentation of WWI and WWII and the significant impact on the development of motorcycles.) I'm working on adding a quick blurb on that. To make things fair however, I am ready to change my current field of specialization. That's if anyone has any propositions. --Pat 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would however make sense if anyone from wants to study other countries use of motorized bicycles? --Pat 22:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, if you devoted half as much effort to the content of the articles as you do to talking about them they would probably be much better. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that once with woohookity. Every action has it's reaction. Every reaction it's counter reaction. It's better to know what this reaction will be. It good to know about what policy, rules, regulations... when you know what they are you can respect them, but you also know when it is necessary to break them or if anyone has done. --Pat 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AMCEB

This article is being considered for the category. WP:AMCEB (a better article then encyclopedia britanica) --Pat 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What part of only include featured articles did you have trouble understanding? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Moved from the WP:AMCEB (perhaps in a couple more weeks?):
*motorized bicycle
  • I could not find any article specific to "electric bicycle", "power-assisted bicycle", or the article it self "motorized bicycle" (the online version of britannica does however have an article on motorcyles and talks about motorized bicycles and tricycles (with an internal combustion engine). [5]
  • the wikipedia article take into consideration other engines.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica seems to have grouped motorized bicycle, Moped, etc., into the motorcycle article. (probably because of the close resemblances and the fact that a lot of motorized tricycles and motorized bicycle where pioneer devices for automobiles and motorcyles. (seeing as I am not a member and I don't intend on being one unless I receive an honorary encyclopedia membership, I obviously can't read the entire article and give it my 100% fair judgement. But it does appear that they have grouped "The moped", "a light, low-speed motor bicycle that can also be pedaled" with the motorcycle category.
    Wikipedia article takes into strong consideration the POV of various jurisdictions, developes on the newer electric bicycle technology, tries to keep the article motorized bicycle on those machines with "pedals" (possibly the early history of motorcycles). It does not go into detail on the general overview of "motorcycles"(a broader term which is discuss in another article within wikipedia) --Pat 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a featured article. opps. --Pat 17:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that --Pat 19:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{cleanup}}

Pat, what precisely do you think needs fixing? I don't say the article is perfect but it is a long way off needing the attention of the Cleanup Squad, who already have more than enough to do. We have an active commuity of editors, so best to start by listing things on this page. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to add new information to this article without making it look like a sore thumb. I added the picture of the CCM light motorized bicycle. This has it's place in this article. --CylePat 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A summary of my recent edits can be found here! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motorized_bicycle&diff=31882101&oldid=30817186 --CylePat 20:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, you make it incredibly hard to assume good faith. When a particular bike has been repeatedly and by consensus excised as irrelevant to the global history of the motorized bicycle, adding a picture is not a sign of respect for consensus. I do not trust myself to be civil so I will stop there. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st POV (THE CCM Pixie bicycle motor) that was recently removed

You make it increasingly difficult to make this article a non-biased article. According to Wikipedia:Describing points of view, it is stated that:

any article can be "unbalanced" due to the fact that contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects. For example, suppose there is an article about highways that is mostly about the US. A German who encounters this should not complain about Americocentrism, but alter the article to approach the subject from a wider perspective: what can be said about highways in general, that applies worldwide? Begin the article with this, and then discuss the specific variations in different countries.'

according to WP:NPOVUW "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views." I believe, my view point to include the CCM bicycle as a Internal combustion motorized bicycle is a viewpoint that is held by a significant minority. It has some prominent adherents such as the Canada Technology and Science Museum; I have added the POV-Section. --CylePat 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, as per WP:NPOV#Bias, "If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral."

For the picture. File:CCM Light delivery motorized bike.jpg This information is verifiable. The statements that where added in regards to the picture where not biases. (opps! no statements where added) However the probable 73 years of difference between the first picture and the CCM ligh delivery motorized bicycle, I believe warant this picture for inclusion. I will add the picture back into the article.

"When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."

Seemingly this article asserts on many occasions that vehicle "X" is in fact a motorized bicycle yet doesn't not make room for other vehicles "Z" and "Y". We fail to assert fact about competing opinions (For example: the specific vehicle such as the CCM bicycle (though it is a motorized bicycle, "you" and others remove this fact from the article.) (Though the article does however mention the competing view of motorized bicycle in general with motorcycles, maintaining some of our non-POV policy, some section are, arguably POV because some editors remove important information.) --CylePat 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? What is at issue is not the existence of this bike but its significance. If you think your relentless pushing of this obviously insignificant machine is anything other than POV then this discussion is a lost cause. You have inserted it here, it's been removed by consensus. You created a POV fork to include it, it was removed from there by consensus. You've then suggested cvreating another POV for in order to include it. What this article needs is more pictures of demonstrably significant motorized bikes, like copyright-free images of the Giant, VeloSoleX and Powabyke models.
I have replaced it with a picture of a VeloSoleX, which is mentioned explicitly in the article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is said. We have discussed the issue. We have attempted to resolve it. I think it is time we move on to rfc-user. --CylePat 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do that. The POV tag is unjustifiable (there is not dispute re the content of the section). The caption you added is false: the CCM was not an example of an early motorized bike, it is post-war and not in any way distinguished. Fopr the record I don't think the Dahon is a good image either, I'd prefer to see it replaced by a better and more representative picture.
Incidentally, the reason we keep having these disputes is that your approach appears to be to add content, however contentious you know it to be, and then argue POV with anybody who removes it, however much precedent there may be. Have you ever considered talking first and adding content once consensus is reached? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, please stop re-inserting the CCM picture. Now you've created another POV fork to put it in (in addition to the CCM article) it has absolutely no place at all in this article, rather than (as previously) merely no place at all in this article. The other bikes pictured are all significant models discussed in the text. By common consent the CCM bike is not a significant model and is not discussed in the text. You will note that the Dahon is also out. There are five good quality images on this page, illustrating the context well, and a section below discussing what, if any, additional pictures will help. Note that "nice pictures of bikes with no demonstrable significance" is conspiucuously absent from that list. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I'll say again: please stop adding the CCM bike to this article. It's been removed from the text by consensus, it's been removed from the timeline by consensus. You've already created (yet another) fork for this picture, all the other bikes pictured are mentioned explicitly in the text as having some significance in the development of the motorized bicycle. You say "re-addition of CCM photo. Explanation for removal is unjustified." - no, it's just not in line with your inexplicable obsession with this machine, which nobody but you seems to think has any significance or relevance to this article. The CCM bike is out by consensus, and re-inserting it without proper discussion looks like making a point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone says it's out by concensus doesn't mean it is. Please substantiate your "hear say." Your alleged democratic concensus appears to be far from that. user:Cyclepat --131.137.245.198 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No please stop deleting this picture. It is obviously a motorized bicycle and has it's place within this article. Yes, this vehicle is part of the CCM (bicycle manufacturer) history. However the Toyota Prius is also part of the Toyota. Inclusion into both articles is possible... (as per the example of bicycle and bicycle history) --131.137.245.198 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2nd NPOV section.

Changes that have occured at line 18, box 2, (in yellow) (made by user:Just zis Guy, you know?) make me believe this article is possible POV. (the History section of the article [motorized bicycle]) currently states: "Electric bicycles are gaining acceptance, especially in Europe and Asia, in response to increasing traffic congestion, an aging population and concern about the environment." The recent changes that you, "Just zis Guy, you know?", removed creates an unfair representation of the social exceptance of this bicycle. Inclusion of the comment (here below) (which was removed) eliminates this POV becaus it covers other jurisdictions. "They are however in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, or New York, being restricted by laws and regulations." Again, removal of this statement make that section a possible POV. I have added that to the article. --CylePat 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of text "They are however in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, or New York, being restricted by laws and regulations." to a section from which regulation has been removed, adding it to a proper section on regulation below, is possible POV by the person who has a vested interest in the legal position of motorized bicycles (which I do not). The legal position is covered in the legal section, and in a separate article on motorized bicycle laws. For some reason twice is not enough for one editor, the rest of us appear to feel it is quite sufficient. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images wanted

OK, at present we have: a VeloSolex and a Derny, an example of the Whizzer (which I believe is the most common aftermarket IC ocnversion, but I could be wrong; does anyone have stats for this v. the various Bike Bug conversions?), and two mass-manufatured electric bikes one hub motor powered and one driving through the pedal drivetrain.

This leaves us needing, IMO, at least one more picture, an image of a very early (ca. 1900) motorised bike, of the experimental variety. I can get a picture eventually by visiting Sammy Miller's Motorcycle Museum, but in the mean time if anyone can find a decent picture of a really early experiment that would be a great addition.

Also, an aftermarket electric conversion (e.g. the hub motor conversion for a Trice) would round the article out. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorized_bicycle&oldid=32105637"