Disclaimer: these are draft wiki pages that many people can edit. They are not in their final form and you should not assume that they represent official Cycling Embassy policy.
A brief summary of what is being claimed, variants of the claim, and the consequences of the claim. One short paragraph should suffice: further detail can go in the essay below.
Notable, influential, good quality or extreme examples of the claim. Again, keep it short.
A numbered list briefly introducing the main problems with the claim. One or two sentences for each should suffice (though perhaps some will merit nested lists), with further detail saved for the essay.
The cycle campaigning world has always been split, to a certain extent, along “vehicular” and “segregated” lines. Typically experienced cyclists prefer the “vehicular” idea, while novices and those with young families prefer the “segregated” approach.
What is needed is an approach that combines the best features of both, while realising that there are many different types of cyclist from time-trial riders and road racers, through cycle tourists and commuters, to children and families.
If the Embassy can bridge the gap between these two campaigning approaches, we should make cycle campaigning more effective by simplifying the message.
Bulleted list of links to relevant blogs, books, etc, which cover the topic of the page. If the link is to reinforce one specific point being made, it would be better to use footnotes and references.
1 Build the footnotes list like this.
fn2. To reference a footnote within the text, just add the number in square brackets, like this.1
Other claims from the same category in the Common claims and canards section of the Wiki.