Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I give up! You guys are screwed!

What the hell! you can't just change one word and expect everything else to fall into place.

REVERT REVERT REVERT! NOW!

I'm all for merging and crap... but "motorized bicycle" has it's place... IT is the main category... you can't go substituting that word in the place of "electric bicycle." Holly shit! definition of "electric bicycle" is proper to what he have been working at the last while.

--CyclePat 06:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

CyclePat, why do you have problems with us combining this all into one article? You said you are all for merging, but it doesn't seem like you are, which is valid. But why? The thing is, we cannot have separate articles on all of these subclasses since all of them share many things in common and we're trying not to be too redundant. So. We are trying to merge this into one article. So that's why I changed the text to motorized bicycle instead of electric bicycle. This article is going to be about the class of vehicles that we can call "motorized bicycles" (or whatever final title we agree on) as a group. So we need to work towards that. The article is not about trying to sell motorized bicycles nor is it about trying to win an argument with the province of Ontario. It's about trying to write an objective article on something that many people aren't familiar with.

And the other thing is...this is a collaborative effort. If you don't like a change we make, then change it back and then we can discuss it on the talk page. Don't take changes people make so personally. They aren't attacking you nor as they attacking what you believe in. They just feel like the changes they've made serve Wikipedia better. It's alright to disagree, but leaving in a huff isn't good for you or for us as a whole. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Motorized bicycle, as we agreed, is an acceptable umbrella term. Also, calm down. If you don't, I personally am not going to be much inclined to work with you anymore. We're all volunteers here and don't deserve to be abused. If there are specific changes you seek, just talk about them here. We're all reasonable adults; if some error was made, it wasn't out of malice, so stop acting like it was, please. Wikipedia:Assume good faith · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Don't take it so personal dude. Everyone makes mistakes. If you feal I have pointed the finger specifically at you well then perhaps you should talk about it in the discussion group. The changes SOMEONE made without discussion, just happens to be you (I guess). I indicated that when substituting the word electric bicycle for motorized bicycle, how did I say that: "you can't go substituting that word in the place of "electric bicycle." Holly shit!") Again if you have been offended by these facts, might I suggest you deal with these personal issues by "growing up!". (however, via personal experience, remaining in Never never Lan with Peter Pan is fun!)

I would suggest that you might be well-served by reading up on Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Everyone is expected to treat each other with a basic level of respect. Disagreeing is fine, but let's be collegial about it. For the record, I have yet to disagree with you because I still don't understand what the problem is. Dumping text into this page doesn't really help me understand where you're coming from, unfortunately. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

To business: The definition of "electric bicycle" is proper to what he have been working at the last while. (before added the link to motorized bicycles) As you may have induced via the afformentioned statements. However, now I shall try and make this as clear as possible. (Here is a summary of what we have essential discussed)

Bicycle is the major class.

Motorized Bicycle is a sub-class of bicycle.

And Electric Bicycles is a sub-class of motorized bicycle.

Plan of action: We need to properly think our changes through.

Analogy: For example, simply taking the difinition of our solar system and placing it as the definition for the Universe is plain wrong. The universe entails much more then our solar system. It inculdes, our galaxy, many galaxy's, etc... The same applies to electric bicycle. I sugest:

Plan A

We revert back to electric bicycles

1) we keep the sub-class (electric bicycles) until we are ready to merge the article with motorized bicycles,

2) once that one is ready merge motorized bicycles with

Benefits: Clarity in understanding the article for us and for people looking for the definition, less changes to do all in one shot to accomodate the new "vehicle class" that we are inventing!! Hence less stress.

Cons: Work slower at transfering the article

Plan B

Statu Quo.

1) Electric bicycle is merged already with motorized bicycle.

2) Define a motorized bicycle (which would be like a moped)

3) Transfer moped to motorised bicylces (sub-class)

4) Define power-cycle (sub-class)

5) Define electric bicycle (sub-class)

6) Reread everything to make sure we haven't made any factual error in the transfer because we proceeded hastily

7) ??? anything else???

Benefits: Work faster at finishing the article (which I'm not to keen about right now and could be considered a con)

Con: Many more factual errors will occure from unknowlegable people if we don't hurry up to define the sub-categories. We still need to transfer the article to bicycles.

Plan C

Tranfer the article to bicycles

1) Motorized bicycles is merged with regular bicycle:

2) Define a motorized bicycle (which would be like a moped)

3) Transfer moped to motorised bicylces (sub-class)

4) Define power-cycle (sub-class)

5) Define electric bicycle (sub-class)

6) Reread everything to make sure we haven't made any factual error in the transfer because we proceeded hastily

7) ??? anything else???

Pro: We have finally placed the article in the right category.

Cons: bicycle article will be super clutered

As I have indicated. I am all for merging but WE must make sure that a new definition for every class of vehicle is properly created. I sugest that this class be properly defined before the merger is done! or else we will probably, such as is the current situation, be presenting factual errors, misleading information, and a bias opinion that might be considered a political statement. Hence, I sugest proceed with Plan A, until further notice --CyclePat 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to create a section for electric bicycle on this page. Nobody said you couldn't. I don't really understand what all the hand-waving is about. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel that we have had some good edits done. however a lot of the edits (such as the last one I just did, or the one wholekit did, changing puting "motorized bicycle" on top of the definition of "electric bicycle) should requested a type of discussion. (don't get me wrong, we did discuse the merger but we didn't discuse terminology and change in definitions) (ie.: that entire anology of Universe vs galaxy vs solar system in regards to Bicycle vs motorized bicycle vs electric bicycle and having the correct definition for each term) That is why I think we should "Request the use of real names (or at minimum a login account... NO IP editing) to force editors to take responsibility for their behavior (although this is generally considered not desirable on Wikipedia). Hence only people with an account could change this wiki. (It would give us more chances to discuss the articles). p.s.: Sorry if I used some vulgar words that may have offended you or any wikipedian. however, I feel every wikipedian should take responsibility for their actions and if someone indicates to them that something is wrong in their edit, they should the chance to change it back. (this is only because of the one time I reverted a change, but in the mean time other people had made some spelling corrections, and other changes to the article that where fabulous.) So, this being said. What is the best way to do a revert? Simply going back to a certain time... or copy pasting the good stuff that was added in between? And if so, with the so many edits that are happening (ie.: one time I was changing the page like that and by the time I was done someone else had added something else), isn't it a little bit, un-nerving to constantly do that?

64.230.64.62 22:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...somebody sounds a bit cranky - no Wheeties this morning?  ;-)

If this gets changed to a page on motorized bicycles in general (which we just eliminated through a bunch of good collaborative editing and merging - remember power-assisted cycle?) then we really should work toward branching to a page dedicated entirely to ELECTRIC bicycles. This is a big, emerging vehicle class. It will become increasingly important as gas starts to run out and people start looking for green alternatives.

Just as the bicycle page has separate pages for recumbent bicycle and mountain bike and touring bike, the motorized bicycle page should have separate pages for electric bicycles, jet bicycles, gas power bicycles, solar bikes, whatever.

I second that proposition! Thank you user 64.230.64.6 for putting it so nicelly and as katefan would say colegiate. --CyclePat 23:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

letter to EVCO members

pertaining the the new changes (motorized bicycle) EVCO can be found at [www.evco.ca]

Hello EVCO members,

I need your help on this one. I'm currently working on the Wikipedia (an encyclopedia that everyone can go in and edit). My problem is that there are some possible miss-understanding and debates that are happening which seemingly requires more than one "expert" opinion on the subject. The article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_bicycle

It would be nice of some of you could join in on the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Motorized_bicycle

We have put down a lot of information but it just seems like things are getting, how do you say, "in hot water!" or something like that!

Essential a few people have decided that "electric bicycles" should be categorized as "motorized bicycles." They went and removed the article titled "electric bicycle" and changed it to "motorized bicycle" The problem is that "motorized bicycles" include a wide range of different sub-class bicycles... ie.: our electric bicycle that many EVCO members enjoys using. Well that's not really the problem the problem is WE/THEY/"Some People" have simply placed the term "motorized bicycles" in place of "electric bicycles." I see a misleading web page, that is based on add hock terminology that might not be appropriate.

Patrick --CyclePat 17:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, feel free to create a subsection on electric bicycles. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Jet propulsion

i sent a letter out to the exothermic@dangerouslaboratories.(whatever)

Hi there, Greating from Canada. I love your page. It is so great. I actually find its fabulous and funny to see someone go on with their dreams and show everyone it's possible. I've contacted you because I'm working on the wikipedia. (www.wikipedia.org) Who better to ask but the main testers themself. Is a jet propulsion bicycles considered a "motorized bicycle?"

if you can add your comments to the web page that would be cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_bicycle

Ontario Moped Registration

I moved your question to it's own categeory because I know this will be a lengthy discussion:--CyclePat 17:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC) here is what you asked:

64.230.64.62 04:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC) How can someone register a PAB as a moped if mopeds need to meet federal motor vehicle safety standards, and PABs do not meet these standards? Is it because nobody at the licence bureau actually checks out the vehicle to see if it complies?

Let's first find out if your information is correct, "about PABs not meeting the standards". Do "motor-assisted bicycles" trully have to meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Well... I'm not 100% sure but I believe every vehicle needs to conform to a federal definition to be able to be legaly classified. We can now technically classify a PAB, since 2001. In Ontario, nothing stipulated that Mopeds must meet the "classic" definition for this type of vehicle. (a limited speed motorcycle) Essentially, if you read further on in the the canada gazette on Power assissted bicycle, every province must make its own regulations governing PABs. Ontario lack of complacency to change the laws governing motor-assisted bicycle and PABs (which doesn't exist in ontario's H.T.A.) has made it mandatory for for PABs to be registered as mopeds.

Now, in Ontario a motor-assisted bicycle can be conform, non exclusively, to 2 federal standards (or regulations). One: a moped can be a "limited speed motorcycle". two: a moped can be a "power-assisted bicycle". Some people argue that the federal definition of a PAB is not a standard. However, when it comes to defining a limited speed motorcycle or an automobile, are those not standards also? (Perhaps this is something to look into!). You do however have a point, everytime you call the transportation bureau of canada, they seem to indicate that a PAB doesn't meet MVSR standards. No mater the case, according to the fact that I was able to register my PAB as a Moped, I must asume that the Ontario government is considering the PABs defintion as a standard.

Now let me explain a little more. When registering a vehicle, in particular a self-manufactured "motor-asssisted bicycle" (in Ontario), it is possible to do so by "swearing before a representative of law that you constructed a (type of vehicle)." (ie.: A justice of the peace, which b.t.w. doesn't cost a thing, and swear you built a motor-assisted bicycle conform to the H.T.A. section 1, and conform to the definition of "Power-assisted bicyle" as defined in the Motor Vehicle Safety Regualtions [C.R.C., c. 1038])(Essentially presenting an avidavit on the fact that your vehicle is conform to the definition of "motor-assisted bicycle" in the H.T.A. and the definition of the MVSR. For registration purposes, (That I know of), your vehicle doesn't neceserily needs to be conform to provincial standards. (ie.: lighting, helmets, proper display of license plate, etc..) However, to best of my knowlege, I ensured that my PAB was conform. (Here is where I believe we contradict) A PAB falls under or conforms to the standards of it's definition in the motor vehicle safety regulations. (And as long as you believe this fact, and swear before a judge, lawyer, etc. in the form of an affidavit. Then, present it to the MTO for registration, The world is your's to conquer by driving your PAB legally on road as a Moped in Ontario) (Eary! I feal like I'm in an episode of the Matrix...

Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Spoon boy: There is no spoon.

Neo: There is no spoon?

Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.[[1]]

Okay... and for your second question. (which I believe I partily answered) Nobody, (in my case), actually checked out the vehicle to see if it was conform. (They {the registration bureau} take your word via the affidavit you present to them).... {One reprensative indicated that they do not check out vehicles to see if they complie} (Keep in mind that last statement is objectional because it is "here say") So, I can only respond for my case and, no they did not inspect my vehicle. However, that's just for registration. Once you get your insurance they can request whatever (ie.: safety, appraisal, etc). Then you can get you plating and stickers.... A barage of inspections at various mechanic shops (essentially an "arms lenght" 3rd party opinion on your now PAB registered as a "moped"). etc.--CyclePat 17:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

64.230.49.232 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC) You built your own moped? Does it have signal lights and specified braking performance and approved lights and other stuff specified for mopeds in the MVSR? That is the only standard defining motor vehicles in Canada. I know a lot of moped manufacturers have spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get conformance with these standards and only a few have succeded. You are right that the PAB definition is not a safety standard, nor does it fall under MVSR - it is just the definition of a PAB.

Your question is legitimate and I will answer that but you seem to have missed the important point here. There are exist 2 types of federal classification, non-exclusive, (PAB) and (limited speed motorcycle), which in Ontario is considered a moped. And no it doesn't have signal lights, and others stuff specified for mopeds in the MVSR because the term MOPED is no longer used. I believe it has been strucken/removed/absolete from the act for while now.--CyclePat 03:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Some important information/discusion exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moped --CyclePat 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

64.230.49.232 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC) It sounds like your bike hasn't met ANY motor vehicle standards at all, whether for moped or motorcycle or limited speed motorcycle or whatever. There are no motor-vehicle standards for PABs either. How did you manage to register it? Why do you keep insisting that PABs are mopeds when they are clearly different vehicles. You seem to be the only one to have registered a PAB as a moped so I hardly feel that justifies throwing confusion into a Wilipedia article that will be a resource for so many.

Actually, I spoke with an safety inspector for MTO and showed him a picture of my bike. The only thing he brough up, that is infringing safety regulations (dunno witch ones, probably Ontarios), was the front bright light vs low light and the license plate light. Secondly... are you sure there are no standards for PABs? Is the definition in itself not considered a standard? My case is the only one that you know about. There are others that are doing the same (a few that I know) and how many more do we "not know about?" What we know about my case (and the few others, and the hundreds of other people that can do the same) is that my PAB is registered and is legaly operable on Ontario road as a moped. Hence, my PAB is a Moped (in Ontario). (now if I drive just on the other side of the bridge, on the Quebec side, I can remove my plates and my moped helmet and scoot along as a PAB)(even worse: those from Quebec, because of a reciprocity law can scoot marily along in Ontario with their PAB without registration. (under various conditions)) Analogy: just because the United States was the first and only one to travel to the moon, does that hardly justify "throwing confusion into a wikipedia article that will be a resource for so many? (that question was an example of the mistake that is being made in the question above from 64.230.etc.. )(You logic is a fallacy) I also suggest you take a look at Argument from ignorance and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Example_4:_Logical_Fallacy --CyclePat 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To properly demonstrate the political debate that exists in Ontario I sugest we base our article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Mobility_Multipurpose_Wheeled_Vehicle

--CyclePat 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (the political section in particular)

Spychological break down of the subject

here are some of the basic facts: (here are the basic facts/ the premises)

1. Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario (See the H.T.A. and my personal experience)
2. All PABs should be registered as a moped in Ontario (See the H.T.A.)
3. Some/(most) PABs may not be registered as a moped in Ontario (some peoples personal experience
4. Registered mopeds in Ontario may be operated on road
5. PABs in Ontario may not be operated on road

Induction:

• If Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario
• And Registered Mopeds in Ontario may be operated on road (in Ontario)
• ThenSome PABs may be operated on road (in Ontario)

However you may also be perfectly correct in thinking:

• If PABs in Ontario may not be operated on road
• But Registered mopeds in Ontario may be operated on road
• PABs may not be registered mopeds

(humm... I think there's a few things wrong with that 1) the first premise is totally contradicts my first induction 2) I think I have a falicy? but we'll go along with it)

Hummm...

• Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario
• PABs may not be registered as a moped in Ontario
• ???Some PABs are not PABs??? (hummm... I think I'm getting deeper into some falicy here!)

• Some PABs are not PABs
• Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario
• Then "not PABs" may be registered as a moped in Ontario

(That's the closest I could get to your reasoning... humm... I give up!) (Can you explain your side of the story to me!)

oh wait!:

1. Some PABs in Ontario may be operated on road
2. Some PABs in Ontario may not be operated on road

(that is where we contradict! And I don't think we can do anything about that)--CyclePat 16:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Second merger sugestion

I propose we merge moped with motorized bicycle. See the discusion on moped --CyclePat 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moped#Power-assisted_bicycles

64.230.49.232 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC) WTF? What started out as a separate page for electric bicycles has now become a re-creation of the existing moped page? This is nonsense. Electric bicycles are not mopeds. Maybe we need to start a page for electric bicycles?

I agree with you on this... as you said before for bicycles there is a different section for mountain, recumbent, hybrid, bikes. I think some people have rushed the idea of merging articles. Currently though we are working with "motorized bicycles," we... went into a totally new category a few days ago. (b.t.w. if you look on ebay you see some really cool motorized bikes gas bikes)(I personally prefer the clean, environmental electric bike/bicycles) I though it would be nice to see what people would say after adding all the different types of motorized bicycles. What do you think about the rocket engine bicycle? I like!  ;) LOL! (b.t.w. I'm just starting to learn how to take things light hearted around here, so can you be gentle if you're mad (humm! maybe I should preach what I say)) -- CyclePat 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, suggest we merge, "motorized bicycle" with "automobile." Automobile is a broader term that describes a vehicle in general.... OH! Better yet... let's merge it with vehicle. because that's even broader. (*sarcastically) LOL!!  :) Seriously, this is nonsense --CyclePat 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sugestion: Return the "electric bicycle" page and add a (disambiguation) to eliminate confusion. --CyclePat 04:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you think that others have been needlessly merging different forms of motorized/electric bike articles together, I'm sure you don't really think merging moped with electric bike/motorized bike/cyclemotor/autocycle would be a wise decision. I think there really is a fine distinction at times, (Is a Velosolex a moped or a bike with a helper motor?) but, overwhelmingly, I think there's usually a logical distinction (if not legal distinction) that can be drawn. --Charleschuck 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

CyclePat, don't set up a strawman just so you can knock it down. Merging all the "electric-assisted/electric/etc" articles into motorized bicycle was a perfectly fine decision. Suggesting then that we should merge moped and automobile together as well and then using peoples' (obvious) negative reactions to suggest once again breaking electric bicycle out into its own article is specious. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay! So What I see right now is two "yea" votes (cyclepat, Ipguy) for bringing back electric bicycles. And one vote that says "nea" (Katefan0). Anyone else have an opinion/vote on bringing back the sub-category of electric bicycle? (but keeping this new one of course)

64.230.49.232 03:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Well, it now it looks like - due to some over-ambitious merging this (previously electric bicycle) page has become a motorized bike/moped page. WIth electric bike stuff on it. We re-created the moped page here, and as soon as it has enough/too much stuff about electric bikes on it we will have to create a new page just for electric bikes. We should have a separate page for electric bicycles only. This was the page for it...now we need to create a new one.

Please lets keep mopeds and electric bikes separate - they REALLY are different creatures.

You misundersdtand, I think. This page is about motorised bicycles (i.e. bicycles with a motor attached, be it electric, IC or whatever). The VeloSoleX is a grey area, the Honda P50 is mentioned solely as the last production in-wheel IC engine (and i can live without that, actually, once the timline is expanded as per current emerging consensus). This article is about motorised bikes, which are generally treated differently from mopeds. I don't think there is any significant support for the merge proposal. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For the third time...

We do not use the top level heading (= Heading =) on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this again. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The revert I just did

I didn't see a consensus formed on merging moped into this article. I am trying to give CyclePat alot of leeway, but it's obvious to me what's going on here. This whole thing started because I made this article into a redirect to moped and that upset CyclePat. So why on earth would he now be wanting us to combine this article with moped? I think what's happened is that the other people working on this article made CyclePat very angry. Instead of discussing it, he's making rash changes to the page. It needs to stop. I don't see consensus on combining this with moped. And now this article is getting downright ugly (again) with formatting we don't use, sections that just consist of links, etc, etc. CyclePat, if you are angry with us, fine, but then talk to us about it instead of making this article into some odd mixture. Mopeds do *not* belong here. They are a completely different animal. You've said so yourself. If you don't think we should combine some of these forms of motorized bicycle into one article, fine, but discuss it with us instead of making these wholesale changes. One could argue that you are sabotaging the article. I'm hoping that's not the case, but you aren't doing yourself any favors with your actions the last couple of days.

Meanwhile, I'm going to fix the formatting...again. Empty sections are eyesores. If they have to be here, then they need to be at the *end* of the article, not the beginning. We're not going to attract people into reading this article if they see empty sections to start it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pat, give me an hour to fix the formatting ok? I am very close to asking for protection on this article. You are making changes without any kind of consensus. This is Wikipedia's article, not yours personally. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The current article that we are working on is motorised bicycles. (it used to be electric bicycle) We need to concentrate on the various types of motorized bicycles that exist. You are removing and deleting the various stubs I have added to the article. I think you are acting quite harsh and you should concentrate on improving the article not deleting. --CyclePat 18:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the merger notice from moped. --Charleschuck 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, my opinions where expressed when the article used to be "electric bicycle" now we are in a new category that we came upon consensus "motorised bicylce". We need to work on this and add all the relevant types of motorized bicycles. (or at least a link to it... Perhaps we should do the same for all the sub-classes of "motorized bicycle"... (ie.: what is currently happening to moped.) If so, then perhaps we should do the same with "electric bicycle." Hence returning to what it used to be. (But retaining this page as a main category!) --CyclePat 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Um Cycle Pat? Look at what I removed. I removed the section on mopeds since there was no consensus that we should merge mopeds into this article. Look at [2]. I reordered the sections. I did not remove any of the stub sections you had created. Not one. I put the empty sections at the bottom, which is what we usually do on here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I really wish you had told us about the fact that you didn't want these all merged into one at the beginning. Because obviously, you didn't want the merging, since apparently your goal is to recreate the electric bicycle article somewhere. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble to express my opinions on something that seems to make sense, however might not be something I wish to be totally involved with. And it's also hard to so once the changes have already been done. (Which is kinda what happened... well overnight!) Anyway, I looked at your changes. (thank you!... humm... I know that those = main titles aren't normally used but yah... anyway, sorry) Yup! I think your right, I didn't want the merger, but again it is at least a logical merger. And finally, well... dunno... Happy Halloween!--CyclePat 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

Are flywheel, nuclear rocket, Jet Propulsion and hydrogen run bikes real or hypothetical? I see no links on google to real bikes with those names. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I added some links on the wiki. (I hope they are still there) I believe they are real. They are at least hypothetically possible. (Symantics on the name might be argued (ie. internal combustion automobile vs a car) but I believe it has its place in this article. --CyclePat 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't remove anything except for the section on mopeds. I put the links at the bottom of the article under external links. Please look at some other articles and how they are formatted. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Nice defussal of the argument and good edit. Thank you. --CyclePat 19:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

types of motorized bikes

Are power-assisted bicycles and power-assisted cycles really separate classes of vehicles, or are they alternate names for electric or motorized bicycles, as was implied earlier? --Alynna 19:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we had discussed that a "power-assisted bicycle" is another name for electric bicycle. And we also discussed that "power-assisted cycles" are another name for both "electric bicycles" and "gas engine bicycles". (that was according to someone who provided some really interesting information on the subject). I believe that they are each their own seperate sub-categories of the "motorized bicycle." However, it would also be just as okay to say that "power-assisted cycles" .... well let me show you..

Option 1

1. (Main category): Motorized bicycles
2. sub category: power-assisted cycle
3. sub, sub, category: electric bicycle

Option 2

1. (main category): Motorized bicycles
2. sub category: Power-assisted cycle
3. sub category: Electric bicycle

--CyclePat 00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

rearranged

I've rearranged the sections a bit. I hope it's a little more coherent (and a little less messy-looking) now... No information was removed, just moved. --Alynna 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

laws by jurisdiction

Is this section about laws pertaining to electric bicycles only, or about all laws pertaining to motorized bicycles? The answer to that question affects where it should be placed (I was under the impression it was the latter, which was why i moved it.). --Alynna 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This section "laws by jurisdiction" is pertaining only to electric bicylces. That is why I put it back under electric bicycles. --CyclePat 22:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

b.t.w. I believe that this, getting confused with what goes where? (ie. "laws by jurisdiction" under electric bicycles vs "motorized bicyles") is a flagrant example of what is happening because of the merger. Again we need to seperate the articles. And have a disambiguation page to clarify any other terms that confuses people .--CyclePat 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that the articles should be merged or not? Yes or no. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. With my present knowlege of mostly canadian law, I think the article should not be merged.--CyclePat 16:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't see why we can't solve this with subcategories. There is absolutely no reason to have separate articles for power assisted cycles, power assisted bicycles, electric bicycles, etc etc. They're all variations on a theme. If the "laws by jurisdiction" sections are too unwieldy, well, then maybe they don't need to be included. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a valid point in here somewhere - but it's not that merging articles makes us confused about where the component parts came from and thus go. Yes, there are laws that only pertain to electric bicycles. But undoubtedly there are also laws that pertain to a wider subset of motorized bicycles. Things like that would make sense to include in this article. On the other hand, there does seem to be enough information specific to electric bicycles that I would not oppose having a seperate electric bicycle article (while keeping this article and doing one of those "main article: electric bicycle" things). --Alynna 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Discussion page!

I propose: Several conversations could be classed under one main category. Ex.: Ontario, Ontario moped registration, etc... all seem to have the same idea. Plus it will make things easier to find and read.! --CyclePat 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. We could also archive old business, but I don't know how to do archiving... --Alynna 20:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No. We don't do redos of the discussion pages. I will archive some of it, but again, we do not "organize" the discussion pages. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we don't really move peoples' comments, because it tends to alter the flow in which they were made. Archiving we can do though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I archived a bit. Link is at the top for those who aren't used to archiving talk pages. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits I made today

I took out a couple of exclamation points. We just don't use those on Wikipedia. And also, I changed header sizes a bit. I did that because for some sections (like PAB), the header text was smaller than the text in that section, which sort of defeats the purpose of the header. :) It makes less sense logically, but at least we can see the headers now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:57 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ontario

I've rearranged and reworded the section; I hope it's clearer now. I think it's still consistent with what it was saying, but if I've accidentally introduced error, I apologise and ask for your patience in correcting it. --Alynna 18:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume you've begun the section of conflict of laws "federal" vs "ontario." The last sentence states "They are not permitted..."? What do you mean they are not permited? Not permited... to do what? not permited... to be what? Not permited... where? (you know the standards 5W's questions!)--CyclePat 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That sentence was an attempt to capture the conflict that had previously been expressed in "PABs (as described here) cannot legally be operated on the road in Ontario because they fail to meet safety standards. (even though they meet federal standards for Power Assisted Bicycles)". My point was the contrast in safety standards, not the permissions. I see your point, though. I guess it's irrelavent now, anyway, since ipguy has decided that sentence is inappropriate altogether. --Alynna 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what we are doing?

Does anyone know where to find an existing definition for motorized bicycle? If no, why? If yes, please provide the link or the source so I can go by it. --CyclePat 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal definitions no doubt vary by jurisdiction as with anything else. Try Google, there's lots of 'em to pick from. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL!!! Not to be scinical or anything but that would sound really cool if I said that to the judge/worship, on Monday Nov. 7; "While googling the term of PABs I figured out that..." Comme on? There has to be some published material out there? --CyclePat 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, you have some sort of legal case or something involving this? But yes, alot of information is gotten through searching using Google. "Published" can include material online. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A Court date is schedules for a Mr. Joseph, Nov. 7th, 2005, at 10:00 am, in the Guelph local traffic offences court. He's being charged on 3 counts under the h.t.a. Sections 32(1), 7(1) and 104(1) for a M.-A. bicy. On Monday morning, before Mr. Joseph pleads, I will hopefully have the chance to ask the judge/worship to clarify the definition of a "power-assisted bicycle" (PAB) vs a "motor-assisted bicycle" (Moped). They are oblidged to define it before the trial. Most of Canada's other provinces have accepted the federal definition; clearly defining PABs.

The lack of definition for PABs in Ontario's laws has created the feeling that the government is being non-complacent and discriminate toward the users of such "vehicles." Though PABs maybe considered a "vehicle," there is actually an instance of case law that suggests that bicycles, and perhaps PABs, are not considered "vehicles". A PAB in Quebec, for example, is considered to be similar to a regular bicycle. Ontario is the last province to start compiling data so they can eventually recognize and define PABs, which were defined by the federal legislation in 2001. (almost 1/2 a decade ago!)

CyclePat's Electric Motor Assisted Bikes

p.s.: If you want a test drive a PAB, and you happen to be in the Ottawa area call me. --CyclePat 07:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone interested in helping out or simply attending to find out the real definition? (Perhaps the previous statement should be in a press release somewhere?)--CyclePat 07:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Not being critical here, but I do wonder if you are too involved in this whole thing to be objective. Passion is great (and I'm a passionate fella), but it also clouds objectivity and we need to be objective here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links to definitions of motorized bicycle or other motorized vehicles...

• Massachusettes definition
• North Dakota definition
• Kansas Attorney General report
• California definition

California's says..." SECTION 1. Section 406 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 406. (a) A "motorized bicycle" or "moped" is any two-wheeled or three-wheeled device ... and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on level ground. (b) A "motorized bicycle" is also a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that meets all of the following requirements: (1) Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts. (2) Is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on ground level. (3) Is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than 20 miles per hour."

And how did I get all of this? Google. :) Just look up "definition of motorized bicycle". I found many more hits than these 4, but I didn't want to overload you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Links

Is there any way we can trim the links a tad or at least have all of them at the bottom of the article? I counted 30 links overall and that's overdoing it a bit. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the page to the cleanup page, since this article seems to be getting uglier by the day. More eyes needed, I think. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of links, I remind anyone to whom it may apply that external links look like [linky], not [[linky]]. --Alynna 16:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. The problem I'm having is that external links should be at the bottom, but here we have sections that consist solely of links. That's just darn ugly. :) Gotta fix that somehow. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, because I've wondered about this on several articles, but what would be the appropriate way to handle external links that (a) relate closely to one section of the article and don't much relate to the rest of the article, or (b) are mainly resources for editors expanding the article rather than further reading for the user? --Alynna 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite this article.

There is nothing wrong with this subject having its own article; however, the entire article is so bogged down with links and is more focused on Canadian law than on motorized bicycles themselves. Please serve Wikipedia readers well and rewrite it entirely, and try to find a good replacement for the blurry picture as well. -Medude24 14:26, 4 November 2005 (PST)

If you read the rest of this talk page, you will see that the article is an ongoing collaboration of a number of editors who have put and are still putting large quantities of time into it. I will do some cleanup, but please have some respect for the collaboration going on here before you condemn the article. Yes, there are some questions about the scope of the article. But there's a lot of good stuff in it... a rewrite is not the answer in this case. --Alynna 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we do need a rewrite. If anything else, the sections that are just listed as links need to be written out. No way around it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I originally tagged this article for a rewrite, and still believe it needs one. Yes, technically, this article is the result of a collaboration, but, judging by this talk page and the history page, this collaboration has been mired in revert wars by stubborn editors. The ideal here is to have a clear and well written article about what motorized bicycles are, their history, how they work, and who uses them. Governmental regulations have a place in this article, but they should not be the focus. The article should conform more or less to the style standards of Wikipedia, and contain only relevant links. I don't intend to insult anybody, but I see very little in the current article that is of redeemable quality. A well-done rewrite may be needed to reestablish some consensus here. --Medude24 06:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been saying that for awhile now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree generally with Medude. The problem is that the only person here who fundamentally cares enough and has the information to devote the kind of attention to the sort of rewrite that's necessary is CyclePat, and he obviously isn't going to do it. Personally I think most of this detail about laws by jurisdiction should be excised. It's content, but is it meaningful? I would say no. If there's some inherent conflict in differences between jurisdictional statues, then delineate it. But just a laundry list of how they're treated in different statutes, absent context, is pretty useless. · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the huge laws section to a separate article, where they won't dominate an article that's not focused on them. I hope this helps. --Alynna 08:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you are my new hero. I worship thee. :) Excellent idea. And let's go through these links. From what I saw before, most of them are pretty redundant. I mean, one link per bicycle type is enough. I'll do that now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I have no problem with briefly summarizing laws about motorized bicycles. In fact, I wonder if that should be combined with the "names" section, which I've always found unwieldly and kind of ugly. I dislike lists right in the middle of an article if it can be avoided. You know, something like "In Canada, where motorized bicycles are referred to as x, laws generally", etc. I think that's what CyclePat doesn't quite understand. We can summarize laws, but it has to be summaries, not the law itself. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article is much better now, and probably no longer needs a rewrite. I hoped at least by suggesting one that I could help to spur some much-needed improvement on the article, and perhaps I did. Woohookitty and Alynna have done a great job so far improving the article and deserve most of the credit. The picture is much better as well. With a few more improvements, this can be a high-quality article without need for a cleanup tag. --Medude24 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Stub sections combined

A lot of the stub sections appeared to be simply notes that a certain kind of engine could be used on a motorized bike. I've combined these into a list, and moved the external links to the external links section. --Alynna 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)