Talk:Utility bicycle

Riding position

It would be nice if this "anatomically correct riding position" was explained or linked.- 213.216.199.10 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2005

Ute?

I've never heard the term Ute bike. Is it an Australian term? A play on words? (a Ute is an Aussie term for what's known in North America as a pickup truck) Maybe an Aussie out there could clarify that for me. I'm going to request a citation, and if one doesn't come, and if no one can at least give some explanation on the talk page, I think we should remove the term. --Keithonearth (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008

OK, I'm taking the term down, it's been more than long enough. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Roadster?

The article refers to African Roadster a number of times, this confuses me. I've never been to Sub-Saharan Africa, but I was under the impression that bicycles found there were mostly imported from India and/or China. Are there some African Countries that produce bicycles locally? If not, then I'd like to remove the term "African Roadster". Of course some info on Roadsters used in Africa would be most welcome, and useful. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is at least one recent example of bikes locally produced in Sub-Saharan Africa, Roadmaster Cycles Uganda Ltd, but they appear to have stopped products, sadly. You can read about it here: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/business_power/Roadmaster_loses_balance_on_the_road_70479.shtml

While they probably made an exact copy of a roadster from either Hero, Eastman, or some other Indian company, which in turn is probably supposed to be "nut-and-bolt interchangeable to the Raleigh DL-1", there are some differences between what I've seen in Uganda and what I've seen in the UK: mainly aftermarket modifications.

a heavy-duty rear rack, oops luggage carrier, with thick padding and usually foot pegs for carrying passengers,
some kind of front fork reinforcement usually made out of rebar. This appears to be a replacement for some kind of front suspension system that I only spotted once in a while.

One other main difference between European and African, and perhaps Indian, roadsters is continued use of rod brakes. I still see old examples still kicking around in Europe, but I saw many brand-new ones, still in their wrappings, for sale in Uganda.

A quick image search on Google for boda boda may provide you with more details. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good info Andrew. I'd love to get my hands on a old Raleigh and Flying Pidgin or Hero, and go at them with a thread gauge and a pair of callipers. But that's off topic. The African bikes you describe sound identical to the ones I've seen in China and India/Pakistan. Yes, in those countries too, they almost always have rod brakes. Anyways, googleing Boda Boda gave me lots of links about their use, but none about the manufacture in Africa. Reference.com does specify that Indian and Chinese bikes are used. Does it seem good to de-emphasize or remove the term "African Roadster" and refer to Roadsters used in Africa? --Keithonearth (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am actually hoping to take a look at an Eastman this weekend. A shop here in Madison Wisconsin says they have them, rod brakes and all. If I can convince them to sell me one still in its box, instead of already built up by them, I might get it. Anyway, without more compelling evidence, it's probably a good idea to replace "African Roadster" with "Roadsters used in Africa". -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as African roadster!

A Roadster is a traditional type of utility bicycle first exported throughout the world by the British, and later built under licence, are predominant in the "Orient" and in the "Occident" (West) popular now days in the Netherlands and Denmark and to a lesser degree in Germany and France and becoming quite popular once again troughout the Western world—while new contemporary lighter versions are being called city bikes—and altough they may vary somewhat from country to country according to their usage, they are all one type of bike and, Roadster (bicycle), Dutch bicycles, European city bikes and even the three-speed bicycles should be under one article, a.k.a.; utility bicycle, for less confusion, better understanding, and a more neutral and encyclopedic point of view ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! I'm glad that's settled. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Give Up, we still have some work to do ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and lets not hurry into things, we still need the opinions of other felow Wikipedians regarding this matter ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents sample:

Hi you all, after further research, I would start organizing by listing the following at the end of actual Design section, linking articles witch would remain independent! Commentaries please!

Design

Types of utility bicycles

Designed for commuting, errands, delivery and general urban transport.

Technologies

∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, some organization if necessary, and perhaps some mergers as well. The above looks like a good start. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and within utility bicycle, should'ent we combine Present day use and Use? ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Developing world vs in the Orient

Hi Moebiusuibeom-en. You recently changed my referenced addition that "The vast majority of bicycles can be found in the developing world,[ref] and are Utility bikes. As such Utility bikes are the most common form of bicycle globally." with the comment that:

“developing world” is used incorrectly here, transport in the “Western world” (poor or rich), is politically dominated by the car!

I suspect you are making a good point, if I understand you correctly: That many developing countries of the Western Hemisphere have high car use. That, however, doesn't make that fact that most bikes are in the developing world untrue, and importantly that is exactly what the reference says. Not that all developing countries have more bikes than cars, or that no developing countries use lots of bikes; just that there are more bikes in developing countries than in rich ones. I hope you can let that statement stand, but if not the ref needs to come out too, so it doesn't look like your statement is backed up by that reference. And of course I wouldn't like to see this article lose one of it's few referenced facts. Thanks! --Keithonearth (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keithonearth, how you doing, you have the reference but it's in printed matter, just kidding, and as a matter of fact, I do have The Bicycle by Pryor Dodge with an introduction by said writer David V. Herlihy, i'll have to re-read it to see what i can find there! Anyway, in reference to data, what you've written is also correct, especially with reference mentioned, nevertheless, i also have very good book sources for what I've written, its a little contoversial and we have to be carefull on how its worded, we could somehow include it further down in article later on!

I am also active in Spanish Wikipedia and i have included said statement including reference here → Ciclismo urbano

And about that “there are more bikes in developing countries than in rich ones”, that's debatable, at least in South America, where the mountainous terrain keeps them at bay, ...aren't there more bikes in rich countries, but parked in the garages unused?

Happy Cycling ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, and yes I still agree with you for the most part, but then what you are saying is not contradictory from what I am saying for the most part. if you look at it from the point of view of The Americas there could very well be more bikes in the rich countries. But if we look at it from a global point of view, and so take Asia into account (with something like 60% of the world population) then surely we must be able to say that there are more in the developing world. Of course we could also say that most of the bikes in the world are in Asia, and I think that would be true, so I'd totally welcome a reference to that effect. Happy cycling to you too! --Keithonearth (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

It seems that there is quite an overlap between this article, roadster (bicycle), Dutch bicycle and European city bike. What do people think about this? Parsonscat (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is quite some overlap between roadster (bicycle), Dutch bicycle and European city bike and I think a merge between those three articles would be worthwhile. However, I'm not so sure that here is the best place to put it - either we should describe all types of utility bicycle here and have no separate articles, or have summaries of them and links to their own articles. Merging the three articles here would leave a few other types of utility bicycle with their own article. European city bike also needs a bit of a rewrite. Severo^TC 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think it is a good idea, in general. Would we want to also merge "working bicycles" such as the Porteur bicycle into this article? That article is not likely to ever outgrow its stub status. Or perhaps we should have a separate merge discussion for a combined "Working bicycle" article for Porteurs, low gravity and butcher bikes.

In any case, if we go ahead with the merge, I would want each bicycle type to have its own section so that it is searchable from the Wiki search field. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that since these are all different types of bicycles (though many modern styles of city bike show a clear lineage to the early roadsters) they deserve their own pages. Just because they are used for the same purposes does not mean that they are the same type of bicycle. It is for this reason that I believe that each type of bicycle should have its own page. (However, the "Dutch bicycle" page should perhaps be merged with "Roadster (bicycle)" page as I believe it can be shown that the Omafiets is really just the classic ladies' roadster which happens to be thriving still in Holland.) So rather than the suggested merge I suggest that under "Types of utility bicycles" we replace the list of bicycle types and give each type its own heading, followed by a link to the main page for each bicycle type, together with a short summary. reinthal (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - I agree with Severo in that I too see alot of overlap and I too am not so sure that here is the best place to put it. Maybe we should describe all types of utility bicycle here and have no separate articles, or have summaries of them and links to their own articles.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to No as I now agree with Reinthal.

108.46.109.221 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)No I found this much too useful having just come back from Amsterdam. It is a unique style of bicycle.[reply]

No; I agree reinthal and Degen Earthfast above. Mainly because though they are used for the same purpose doesn't make them the same kind of bike. The Roadster (bicycle) article seems to be have enough material to stand on it's own, as do the other articles. I'm going to remove the merge tags as they've been up long enough and we do not have consensus to merge. --Keithonearth (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clunker bicycle

I find it very difficult to accept that "The vast majority of bicycles can be found in the developing world" [Herlihy] when, in my experience, most first-world households have bicycles. I see Herlihy uses the name "clunker" to describe these cycles, and that's what I remember from my times in Holland. I'd add mention of it myself except I'm unsure of the difference between the utility and the rather particular Dutch utility cycle and this article doesn't help me. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Herlihy's defination of "developing world" should be determined.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Utility bicycle be merged into City bicycle. I think that the content in the Utility bicycle article can easily be explained in the context of City bicycle, and the City bicycle article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Utility bicycle will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this type of subjects evokes a series of passionate and irrational comments, but we must be objective considering the technical features and not the purpose nor the usage. If you read the content of both articles, the technical features are basically the same. Of course we may use a city bicycle in the countryside, in the same fashion that we can use a road bicycle in the city. We may also change the name of the merged article for something more broad. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A not unreasonable proposal, but perhaps a merge in the reverse direction is broader, in part because the term 'utility' is broader and without the connotations Joao distantly hints at. It is also the older article. Klbrain (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal as a City bicycle is a type of Utility bicycle and a Utility bicycle is, "Designed for commuting, errands, delivery and general urban transport." I agree that Utility bicycle is a more appropriate target. Based on discussion here, it appears this revised proposal would work for Joao.pimentel.ferreira. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"no more than 3-4 miles a day"

I find this very confusing. Is a utility bike unsuitable for traveling more than this, or if you hit 4 miles suddenly it doesn't count as a utility bike? In general, the intro is somewhat discouraging. Almost it sounds like it was written by a road bike manufacturer.

I believe this to be the result of bad faith edits undertaken by a user of another site using this page to support an argument. As a user of a utility bike for distances of up to 40 miles a day I don't think this is at all correct! Ed1993 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]