# Motorcycles in bus lanes...



## 4X4RangeRover (13 Jun 2008)

It's about time they let Motorbikes in bus lanes. I am pleased that finally we have a Mayor who can see sense (on some things at least).

Thoughts?


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Jun 2008)

Why Linford I hardly recognised you with the Groucho Marx false moustache & glasses!

If you are not Linford, I cannot apologise enough.


----------



## yello (13 Jun 2008)

I think it's time for another beer now the football's started.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (13 Jun 2008)

That's an imaginative user name. Ha ha ha, it makes me want to find a 4X4 forum and register as something like carhatingyoghurtknitter...


----------



## spindrift (13 Jun 2008)

trolls are rubbish these days, no imagination. i blame thatcher, although she was a fine young filly in her day:









I'd giver her a huge mandate with no withdrawal etc etc.


Let's face it, who hasn't imagined maggie, her hair matted and sweaty, gasping for relief.

I've said too much.


----------



## LLB (13 Jun 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> That's an imaginative user name. Ha ha ha, it makes me want to find a 4X4 forum and register as something like carhatingyoghurtknitter...



http://www.pocuk.com/forums/

Nothing like reinforcing the stereotype is there


----------



## LLB (13 Jun 2008)

> That just makes you worry about what your fit wife will look like when she's older.



Look at the mother for reference


----------



## LLB (13 Jun 2008)

> Worry over.



Terror begins


----------



## jmaccyd (14 Jun 2008)

4 by 4s - what is the point?


----------



## LLB (14 Jun 2008)

jmaccyd said:


> 4 by 4s - what is the point?



Same a cycling, or driving sports cars, Everything has its rightful place and usefulness if used in the right context.

This shouldn't really need explaining. What has this to do with motorcycles in bus lanes


----------



## Absinthe Minded (14 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> http://www.pocuk.com/forums/
> 
> Nothing like reinforcing the stereotype is there


Meaning?


----------



## LLB (14 Jun 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Meaning?



It will become a self fulfilling prophecy


----------



## LLB (15 Jun 2008)

> What he means is that he's fed up of losing the argument over here and is desperate for one of us to join his forum where he's got some mates to hide behind and prod forward.



A suspicious little sausage aren't you MrP.

I don't belong to that forum, however it is one of the larger 4x4 owners forums and will illicit the response AM is after.

Why don't you join up there and have a go at them MrP as well. I have never hidden behind any alias either here or on C+, or encouraged anyone here by PM or any other means to gang up on others - but then I'm not a mod am I


----------



## hackbike 6 (15 Jun 2008)

It's when we get buses in the motorcycle lane then I get worried.


----------



## nethalus (15 Jun 2008)

For some alternative views on the subject you could always look at:

http://www.bloodbus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34873#34873


----------



## LLB (15 Jun 2008)

nethalus said:


> For some alternative views on the subject you could always look at:
> 
> http://www.bloodbus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34873#34873






> I hear Boris Johnson wants to open up bus lanes to Motorcyles in London. Me thinks this is slightly worrying like. I mean they want to let motorbikes into bus lanes, i*ts just one step closer to letting cars in and them getting rid of bus lanes all together*. Ok on my route there are only two bus lanes that it uses, and one of them is only in the evening. But at rush hour it does help my bus to escape the jam for a few minutes and get my heavily loaded bus full of commuters to their destinations quicker. If the bus lane is clogged full of cars, like all the other lanes, then we've lost all hope like. Found this site http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1145 (ok its mostly about cyclists). Like I say they want to be careful about opening up bus lanes to anything more than buses, cyclists and taxis.



Absolute shyte, Motorcycles are recognised as a mode of reducing congestion along with cycles


----------



## hackbike 6 (15 Jun 2008)

I suppose as i mix it with motorcycles in the rush hour then it will be okay.


----------



## andyfromotley (15 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Look at the mother for reference



F*ck F*ck F*ck oh sh1t Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. F*ck


----------



## LLB (15 Jun 2008)

> Why would I want to do that? It's enough with you over here jumping to the 4x4 and motorcyclists's defence, regardless of the issue.
> 
> Mind you, there may be some 4x4 owners over there who aren't blinded by their own insecurity.



You think it better to just ignore the criticism levied by the prejudiced and it will go away 

I spent half an hour in the town centre today with a cycling campaigner discussing cycling issues. One of the subjects hot on the local agenda is this

Best label all cyclists in a prejudicial manner given the seriousness of the crime which the rider has committed, or allow both sides of the argument to be viewed to give balance to it ?


----------



## PBancroft (15 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> I spent half an hour in the town centre today with a cycling campaigner discussing cycling issues. One of the subjects hot on the local agenda is this



Wow. That's sad. Sad for the girl, and sad that it got political real quick.


----------



## zimzum42 (15 Jun 2008)

> Why would I want to do that? It's enough with you over here jumping to the 4x4 and motorcyclists's defence, regardless of the issue.



I can understand that Linf may not be to everyone's liking on here, but it's good to have people argue 'against the flow'.

How boring would it be to have a forum where everyone just agreed all the time?

In the main, everyone on here is brought together by some level of interest in bikes, but that doesn't mean that we all have to be bike fanatics or 'cycling campaigners'.

Cycling is no doubt an aspect of all our lives, but it need not be the defining aspect...


----------



## Wolf04 (15 Jun 2008)

Just read this thread, no position on MC's in bus lanes as my commute doesn't include any. I've never had any problem with motorcyclists. However Spindrift for trying to make Thatcher a fantasy figure you should be made to cycle the end to end on a tandem sitting behind John Prescott in a thong! I'd rather use mine to stir coffee!
Ouch!! Ouch!!
I reluctantly withdraw my last comment.


----------



## LLB (15 Jun 2008)

andyfromotley said:


> F*ck F*ck F*ck oh sh1t Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. F*ck




Sorry bud


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_I've never had any problem with motorcyclists._ 


One yesterday, accelerating and doing wheelies. I don't want to share crowded lanes with them, the fact is that motorbikes pose twice the danger to cyclists than car drivers do. This would be a regressive step because the stated aim is to increase cycling, allowing PTWs in bus lanes would DISCOURAGE cycling.

The claim that on the trial routes the "number of motorcycle collisions fell by 42%" is wrong. Not even the report rejected by Transport for London made such a claim. That leaked report calculated a changed 'rate' of collisions by using traffic data estimated on only one day in a year, those estimates varied wildly by over 100% year by year. Any conclusions drawn from such dodgy data are dangerous nonsense.


What will happen, I confidently predict, is that if PTWs are allowed in bus lanes then they will start using cycle lanes. They already use ASLs every single freaking day.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _I've never had any problem with motorcyclists._
> 
> 
> One yesterday, accelerating and doing wheelies. I don't want to share crowded lanes with them, the fact is that motorbikes pose twice the danger to cyclists than car drivers do. This would be a regressive step because the stated aim is to increase cycling, allowing PTWs in bus lanes would DISCOURAGE cycling.
> ...



What cycle lanes, the shared pavement ones or the feeders for ASLs ?


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_However Spindrift for trying to make Thatcher a fantasy figure you should be made to cycle the end to end on a tandem sitting behind John Prescott in a thong!_

That's a mental image you may find hard to shake off.



The Evening Standard comments pages are full of references to "the cycling mafia" and our unreasonable demands.

Right. So they've no right to complain about having high powered, noisy and fast vehicles suddenly hurtling past them on their already cramped bit of road space, and they should just shut up and put up with it?

Anything that discourages people from cycling around town is a bad thing, IMO, and there's no doubting that this will put some people off.

It's supposed to be Boris's policy to encourage more cyclists on the roads. I can't think of a single thing in this proposed change that will do anything to encourage new cyclists - in fact,. I think it will have quite the opposite effect.


----------



## zimzum42 (16 Jun 2008)

It may encourage people out of their cars and onto motorbikes though, which IMO is a good thing. It may well reduce congestion a lot.


----------



## nethalus (16 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Absolute shyte, Motorcycles are recognised as a mode of reducing congestion along with cycles


The message you quoted does not dispute that. What it is saying, if you had read it properly, is that could allowing more vehicle types into bus lanes be a sign that they are slowly being erroded away? Like the title of the tread said "Motorcycles today, cars tomorrow?"


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Please don't drag that chap's desperate attention-seeking out of ignore lists.


Have you seen the evidence? 

LCC has written to London Mayor Boris Johnson asking him not to make a snap decision to allow motorbikes to use bus lanes, a move that could endanger the lives of cyclists and pedestrians, and is calling on LCC supporters to do the same. 
London Assembly Conservatives say that the ‘wheels are in motion’ and the Mayor will ‘rubber stamp’ the decision after technical requirements are met. LCC is advising the Mayor not to base any decisions on what Transport for London has described as unreliable evidence. 
LCC’s chief executive Koy Thomson told the Mayor that ‘making a snap decision on this key issue based on evidence that is ‘not statistically significant’, or is based on ‘flawed methodology’, is an enormous risk and could adversely impact the safety of many pedestrians and cyclists. 
‘This would be a decision taken not only against the advice of transport officials and without the input of cycling and pedestrian groups, but also in the face of a warning that this could ‘disbenefit’ cyclists and pedestrians.’ 
Managing Director for Surface Transport at Transport for London David Brown has stated: ‘The data used in the earlier report was not considered sufficiently reliable to inform a decision on such an important issue.’ Following a review of the data Mr Brown’s conclusion (April 2008) was that ‘there is no evidence to indicate that motorcyclists would see any significant safety benefits from being allowed to enter bus lanes but that there were potential disbenefits for both cyclists and pedestrians.’ 



Tom Bogdanowicz, LCC’s Campaigns Manager, said: 


_“Providing new high speed channels for motorcycles along major roads will inevitably increase motorcycle use. More motorcycle traffic will spread to all streets in London and will bring with it an increase in casualties for vulnerable road users. We’re asking our supporters to urge the Mayor to consider the safety impact on all London streets for every road user before any decision on allowing high-speed vehicles into bus lanes is made.” 
_It is well established that motorcycles are involved in a greater proportion of collisions per kilometre with pedestrians and cyclists than are cars. 
Sign our petition TODAY.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

Are motorcycles really involved in more collisions with peds? I have never heard this before.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_*Dangerous to themselves and to others.*_ Motorcyclists place not only themselves at risk, but they are also disproportionately hazardous to pedestrians' and cyclists' safety as well. Per mile travelled, PTWs are about 1.5 as likely as cars to be involved in collisions which cause serious injury to cyclists, twice as likely to be involved in causing them serious injuries and about three times as likely to be involved in killing them.
_*Polluting.*_ Compared with cars per vehicle-km travelled, PTWs emit 11.3 times as much methane, 6.3 times as much carbon monoxide, 9 times as much volatile organic compounds (VOCs other than methane), 7.2 times as much benzene, 12 times as much 1,3 butadeine and 8.2 times as much particulate matter. They are also a lot noisier. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stated that "_Although motorcycles, mopeds and scooters, take up less road space than cars, we have not received any information that would indicate that they would have an environmental advantage over cars in other respects_".
_*A threat to pro-cycling policies.*_ Encouraging more motorcycle use will undermine efforts to promote cycling, not only because those switching to motorcycling might otherwise have switched to a healthier, safer and cleaner alternative (e.g. cycling) but also by adding to the risk faced by those who do cycle or who might be thinking about doing so.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

I think I would like to see some valid statistics of the accident figures.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _*Dangerous to themselves and to others.*_ Motorcyclists place not only themselves at risk, but they are also disproportionately hazardous to pedestrians' and cyclists' safety as well. Per mile travelled, PTWs are about 1.5 as likely as cars to be involved in collisions which cause serious injury to cyclists, twice as likely to be involved in causing them serious injuries and about three times as likely to be involved in killing them.
> _*Polluting.*_ Compared with cars per vehicle-km travelled, PTWs emit 11.3 times as much methane, 6.3 times as much carbon monoxide, 9 times as much volatile organic compounds (VOCs other than methane), 7.2 times as much benzene, 12 times as much 1,3 butadeine and 8.2 times as much particulate matter. They are also a lot noisier. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stated that "_Although motorcycles, mopeds and scooters, take up less road space than cars, we have not received any information that would indicate that they would have an environmental advantage over cars in other respects_".
> _*A threat to pro-cycling policies.*_ Encouraging more motorcycle use will undermine efforts to promote cycling, not only because those switching to motorcycling might otherwise have switched to a healthier, safer and cleaner alternative (e.g. cycling) but also by adding to the risk faced by those who do cycle or who might be thinking about doing so.



Link ? Ignore lists are for chickens Tabernacle


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Motorcyclists represent a large proportion of road casualties in relation to their numbers. They make up less than 1% of road traffic, but suffer 14% of deaths and serious injuries.

Official statistics indicate that pedestrians are involved in a higher proportion of collisions per mile with PTWs than cars. 

In 2004, there were 1,059 pedestrians hit by a motorcycle. Of these:
· 20 were killed, and
· 229 were seriously injured [1]
*There were no bikers killed in these collisions. [2]*
In the same year, there were 253 collisions involving a pedal cycle and motorcycle. Of these:
· There were 226 pedal cyclist casualties
· One pedal cyclist was killed, and
· 35 pedal cyclists were seriously injured [3]
*There were no bikers killed in these collisions. [4]*
The fact that there were no bikers killed in any of these incidents shows that regardless of blame, people on foot or bikes come off worse in crashes with motorcycles.
Although motorbikes pose a much lesser risk to people on foot and on bicycles than cars do, the figures above show that they do injure and kill people.

*How do motorcyclists put their own lives and others’ at risk on the road?* The types of crash involving motorbikes are often different to those involving cars. Department for Transport research has shown that motorbike crashes are particularly likely to involve loss of control on bends, or overtaking manoeuvres.[5]
Excessive speed is more likely to be a factor in motorcycle crashes than crashes involving any other vehicle.
Exceeding the speed limit or driving too fast for the conditions are contributory factors for one in eight motorcycles that crash (13%), but are only contributory factors for one in ten cars (10%) and one in 17 trucks (6%) that crash.[6]

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=920


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

I think more people are killed by cars than motorcycles, just some quick math between these figures and ROSPA's figures say it all.

ROSPA


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I think more people are killed by cars than motorcycles, just some quick math between these figures and ROSPA's figures say it all.
> 
> ROSPA



Take a look at that link, again, I've no idea why you've posted this irrelevance. Despite there being far fewer PTWs, the accident rate is disproportionately high.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

It is not irrelevant, it is data, you can never have to much data.

I know you want to demonise PTW's to get this proposed legislation dropped but you still have to use balanced and checkable data, otherwise you just look like a one trick pony with a bee in his bonnet and no one takes you seriously.

You have time on your hands right now, use it, take the ROSPA data, find the real source of the PTW data, correlate it against percentages of different vehicle types and then post your findings with all the evidence backing it up about the pro rata dangers of PTW's.

Maybe then I will see you as being credible, until then I will keep shooting you down.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_It is not irrelevant_

You posted that cars kill more people than motorbikes. This has sod all to do with anything because, as at least two posters have explained to you already, the danger posed is disproportionately high for PTWs, that's why sharuing road space with cyclists is such a bad idea.

_I know you want to demonise PTW's to get this proposed legislation dropped but you still have to use balanced and checkable data_

I'm not demonising anyone, I'm posting the hard evidence. I did use checkable data, please read the TRL research above.

_You have time on your hands right now, use it, take the ROSPA data, find the real source of the PTW data, correlate it against percentages of different vehicle types and then post your findings_

I already have. You haven't read the whole thread, have you?


And the ROSPA link doesn't even mention PTWs.


No cigar.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

OK, perspective.

In 2004 there were 671 pedestrians killed in road traffic accidents, there were 134 cyclists killed, 585 motorcyclists killed, 1671 car users killed, 20 coach and bus users killed, 62 goods vehicle users killed.

So we can clearly see that motorcyclists are at more danger on the roads than cyclists, so maybe cyclists should have to use the normal roads and then motorcyclists can use the bus lanes.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_So we can clearly see that motorcyclists are at more danger on the roads than cyclists,_

No, we can't. This is basic maths, not even statistical analyses!


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

Ahem



> PTWs and Pedestrian Casualties
> 
> 1.08 Official statistics indicate that pedestrians are involved in a higher proportion of collisions per mile with PTWs than cars.
> 
> ...


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

I like the way catrike's argument is demolished, he acknowledges nothing and then immediately posts:

"OK, Perspective"

followed by yet more irrelevant guff.

Very hostile and aggressive for a newbie poster too, I reckon someone's desperate to sneak in under my ignore list....


Plonk, you're on it catrike, I suspect an ulterior motive I'm afraid.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

Throw in that there are an estimated 794,000 bicycles on the road in 2004 extrapolated from traffic figures and 1,060,000 motorcycles in use at the same time. So 25% more motorcycles yet nearly 5 times as many deaths. They are looking more vulnerable now aren't they? You see your figures are entirely subjective, you have quoted a single source and no relevant back up with regards usage.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike is linford, desperate for attention again. Same garbled syntax, same lack of comprehension when dealing with rudimentary stats, same obstinate refusal to listen to anybody, mr paul, can you trace ISPs?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

To be on the ignore list of a self serving fool makes no difference to me, hope you get well soon though.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> Ahem indeed.
> 
> Your point?
> 
> Or are you going to get all muddled over blame versus avoidance again?



IIRC, you were the one who got confused with the lane priority and drivers running into slow moving objects in their own lanes.

If a pedestrian steps off the kerb when a bus or cycle is coming, who's fault is it irrespective of who suffers the worst injury ??


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_To be on the ignore list of a self serving fool_

Such abuse, from someone who's just arrived!

Troll, do one you chuffing gay-legged wrong cock.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike is me, Ian Buck, the owner of Trikes and Stuff, www.trikesandstuff.co.uk, Catrike importer, you can ring me via the number on the website and make an even bigger fool of yourself. You will find I speak as I find. And I find your arguments lacking substance.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> Come on Catrike.
> 
> Look in any garden shed/garage and you'll most likely find at least one bicycle that comes out once or twice a year.
> 
> You really need to look deeper into this.



Did I see you in your car on the London to Brighton yesterday, I use my car maybe once a week, I cycle every day, I am in the cycle business.

In fact I have been cycling on the roads for over thirty years, what about you?


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Catrike is linford, desperate for attention again. Same garbled syntax, same lack of comprehension when dealing with rudimentary stats, same obstinate refusal to listen to anybody, mr paul, can you trace ISPs?



Be my guest, and it isn't ISP tracing, it is IP and you will find it in the control panel under my username MrP.

Any other users posting under the same IP address should come up within the listing 

You will be disappointed as I've never come across Catrike before and we have to be at least 140 miles apart.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _To be on the ignore list of a self serving fool_
> 
> Such abuse, from someone who's just arrived!
> 
> Troll, do one you chuffing gay-legged wrong cock.



Pop in the workshop and say hello some time, I'll make you a cup of tea while you apologise.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Pop in the workshop and say hello some time, I'll make you a cup of tea while you apologise.



I'll join him


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> Linf got this wrong as well.
> 
> You need to take into account, well everything really.
> 
> ...



Very few in the Urban environment


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Pop in the workshop and say hello some time, I'll make you a cup of tea while you apologise.




catrike, you've a very shaky grasp of analysing data.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Catrike is me, Ian Buck, the owner of Trikes and Stuff, www.trikesandstuff.co.uk, Catrike importer, you can ring me via the number on the website and make an even bigger fool of yourself. You will find I speak as I find. And I find your arguments lacking substance.



Very cool website BTW Ian


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> catrike, you've a very shaky grasp of analysing data.



Is that an apology Spindrift ?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> About the same as you Catrike.
> 
> What I was very simply trying to point out is that you can't just find a statistic and build your argment on it without understanding it properly.



Which is exactly what I was trying to point out to spindrift, his figures were incomplete. So I did the same thing and suddenly I was wrong but he was still not wrong, it's double standards being applied because you know him and not me. Plus sarcasm does not work well on these boards.


----------



## Fab Foodie (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _To be on the ignore list of a self serving fool_
> 
> Such abuse, from someone who's just arrived!
> 
> Troll, do one you chuffing *gay-legged wrong cock*.



One of your alter egos slipped-out there Tabbers ?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> catrike, you've a very shaky grasp of analysing data.



Listen, sorry I called you a fool but your data was no better than mine, that was the point I was making with it, I have the 2004 Road Traffic accident report with all the tables if you want it in .pdf. pm a mail address and I will send it to you. I assume following you altercation you have the time to extract real usable data from it to support your no motorcycles in bus lanes arguments along with other information sources. So do it and then present a full argument as to why it's a bad idea.

You should probably point out the average speeds of the current lane users, busses and cyclists compared to motorcyclists as well, that is a major reason why it will not work, you are mixing a high speed vehicle with two low speed ones.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> You've jumped to a conclusion because I haven't commented on spinny's stats.



I don't think so.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Very cool website BTW Ian



Thanks, although it is temporary until we get the new one finished, I have to add another model to the range today as well.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> Oh yes you have. Just because I haven't commented on Spinny's stats you think I support them.



I didn't say that, I said you support him, that has nothing to do with the stats. It has everything to do with human nature.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> So you're saying that I'm supporting spinny but not his stats?



Yes.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

I think it is only fair that you understand the lie of the land Catrike

I support a balanced view on all modes of transport.

Spindrift on the other hand is just unbalanced


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> I think it is only fair that you understand the lie of the land Catrike
> 
> I support a balanced view on all modes of transport.
> 
> Spindrift on the other hand is just unbalanced



I see. Glad you pointed that out.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> Oh right.
> 
> FWIW, I don't know spinny. I know his posting on here. Sometimes I choose to comment, sometimes I don't. As with everyone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

User said:


> Sorry Ian, but as a supposed cycling enthusiast, you're not coming over very well. Your posts appear antagonistic towards cyclists. Perhaps not the best stance in your line of business...



How many cyclists use more than one mode of transport ?

I think you will find those who cycle only to be in the minority on here as is the case on motorbike sites, but on car sites, many just seem to use the car and that is it.

This is where the balance comes into it.

A singular view


----------



## Paulus (16 Jun 2008)

Ok, ok enough of the antagonism, back to the original theme. As a cyclist of over 40 years and a motorcyclist of 31 years I have no axe to grind with letting motorbikes into bus lanes. Indeed, some bus lanes already let them in. The bus lane down the Finchley Road does allow, whereas the Holloway Road does not. Some sort of common use policy would be of great benefit i believe to the traffic problems in London. cyclists and motorcyclists share a common problem, i have no problem sharing a bus lane with motorbikes.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

User said:


> Sorry Ian, but as a supposed cycling enthusiast, you're not coming over very well. Your posts appear antagonistic towards cyclists. Perhaps not the best stance in your line of business... as a recumbent trike rider I know where I won't be looking for a new trike.



That's no problem, you were unable to read my post for what it was which is fine, as for your little dig there, well, your a bit sad. Have a good one.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

Paulus said:


> Ok, ok enough of the antagonism, back to the original theme. As a cyclist of over 40 years and a motorcyclist of 31 years I have no axe to grind with letting motorbikes into bus lanes. Indeed, some bus lanes already let them in. The bus lane down the Finchley Road does allow, whereas the Holloway Road does not. Some sort of common use policy would be of great benefit i believe to the traffic problems in London. cyclists and motorcyclists share a common problem, i have no problem sharing a bus lane with motorbikes.



I think there is a problem with mixing the two types of road user, motorcycles accelerate much quicker than, travel faster than and have a greater mass than cycles. Busses and cycles travel at similar speeds to each other with very often the cycle having the edge. I think motorcycles will be a danger to cyclists in this environment and their will be a lot of conflict between cyclists and motorcycles as a result of the shared use with motorcyclists assuming they have greater rights.

At the end of the day the only road users that contribute to both congestion and pollution reduction are cyclists, cyclists should be gaining more rights with regards to facilities and not having those rights encroached upon.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

User said:


> Have you been taking charm lessons from Robin Thorn?



If you want something to be nice to you, buy a puppy.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I think there is a problem with mixing the two types of road user, motorcycles accelerate much quicker than, travel faster than and have a greater mass than cycles. Busses and cycles travel at similar speeds to each other with very often the cycle having the edge. I think motorcycles will be a danger to cyclists in this environment and their will be a lot of conflict between cyclists and motorcycles as a result of the shared use with motorcyclists assuming they have greater rights.
> 
> At the end of the day the only road users that contribute to both congestion and pollution reduction are cyclists, cyclists should be gaining more rights with regards to facilities and not having those rights encroached upon.



Not everyone is in the position to cycle 30+ miles a day. This is where PTWs come into their own in the London area as many drivers would be happy to commute with m/cycles but are unable to do the same due to the distance with a cycle every day. If the risks to them were reduced by allowing Bus lane access, it would without doubt help to get more cars off the roads on those routes.
If you really want to reduce very polluting vehicles, get rid of the Bendy Buses


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Not everyone is in the position to cycle 30+ miles a day. This is where PTWs come into their own in the London area as many drivers would be happy to commute with m/cycles but are unable to do the same due to the distance with a cycle every day if the risks to them were reduced. Bus lane use allows this to happen with less risk.
> If you really want to reduce very polluting vehicles, get rid of the Bendy Buses



They should introduce park and cycle schemes in the burbs, people drive part way, get free parking and jump on the cycle they have with them or is locked up at the scheme and cycle the rest of way. Easy as pie.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> Oh right.
> 
> FWIW, I don't know spinny. I know his posting on here. Sometimes I choose to comment, sometimes I don't. As with everyone else.
> 
> ...



I don't take anything personal on the web although if I find a dog turd posted through the letterbox of the workshop I'll kick your head in.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

catrike I posted clear evidence that despite their relative scarcity PTW's hurt and kill cyclists out of proportion.


You posted ROSPA stats that don't even mention PTWs.


I know what I would choose to believe.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> catrike I posted clear evidence that despite their relative scarcity PTW's hurt and kill cyclists out of proportion.
> 
> 
> You posted ROSPA stats that don't even mention PTWs.
> ...



You copied and pasted something from a site with a clear agenda, I posted something with no clear agenda, the ROSPA figures come from the 2004 Road casualties Great Britain report which if you read it is a very complete document, with lots of interesting data, I was basically posting incomplete info the same as you were just to point out the trouble with it, if you cannot or will not see past that then so be it.


----------



## Jaded (16 Jun 2008)

What relevance does 30+ miles have? Or is that more bollocks?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

Jaded said:


> What relevance does 30+ miles have? Or is that more bollocks?



He is talking about people who commute in from outside of London but I do not see how allowing them motorcycle access to the bus lanes will actually encourage more to use motorcycles, if more used motorcycles then the roads would be better anyway.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_You copied and pasted something from a site with a clear agenda_

They are TRL and Dept OT figures. If you dispute them, say why.


_I posted something with no clear agenda, the ROSPA figures come from the 2004 Road casualties _


That, for the fifth time, didn't even mention PTW casualty rates and was therefore irrelevant.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

if more used motorcycles then the roads would be better anyway.

"Better" is an off word to use, given that PTWs have a greater chance of hurting cyclists than cars, despite there being fewer of them.

Why is placing cyclists in danger "better"?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

The report it comes from includes PTW's. If you are posting figures then post links to the source of those figures. That is first time you have given a source.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

My brother in law spends 3 hours a day on public transport commuting from St Albans to the City. If I were in his position, I'd be looking at other alternatives, It is a mega commute on a cycle 5 days a week, and whilst there are plenty on here who could do it, many would just not entertain doing it in all weathers. I wouldn't entertain doing it on 4 wheels at all.


----------



## Jaded (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> He is talking about people who commute in from outside of London but I do not see how allowing them motorcycle access to the bus lanes will actually encourage more to use motorcycles, if more used motorcycles then the roads would be better anyway.



It just seems odd to take one particular distance and use that to illustrate a biased point. 

I think I agree with you that it won't necessarily encourage motorcycle use, however I can definitely see it put off more timid cyclists.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

User said:


> I'm sorry Catrike - but the RoSPA figures you gave relate clearly to cars - not to all motor vehicles. The second paragraph makes this clear:
> 
> "This information sheet outlines what measures can, and are, being taken *to improve the design of cars* so that drivers are less likely to hit pedestrians in the first place, and so that when such collisions do happen, the pedestrian will suffer less severe injuries."
> 
> ...



Actually I have given quite a lot of the other figures in subsequent posts, the report I have quoted and as quoted by ROSPA is the same report relied upon by the source spindrift quoted, so if my statistics are no good then neither are his, that's simple and agreed by your own rules.

I notice he didn't report on the 210 pedestrians hit by pedal cycles, 1 of which was killed and 42 seriously injured.

Or in the collisions between motorcycles and pedal cycles where 18 motorcyclists were seriously injured.

Your figures are somewhat disingenuous as reported from the site copied.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> if more used motorcycles then the roads would be better anyway.
> 
> "Better" is an off word to use, given that PTWs have a greater chance of hurting cyclists than cars, despite there being fewer of them.
> 
> Why is placing cyclists in danger "better"?



I meant the roads would be clearer so negating the need for motorcycles to use bus lanes.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

User said:


> I haven't given any figures... do keep up!



I meant spindrift, as you well know.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_That is first time you have given a source._

Mate, you've only just arrived here:

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13248


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _That is first time you have given a source._
> 
> Mate, you've only just arrived here:
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13248



I meant on this thread, but yes I am a recent member here, I was on the cycling plus forum many moons ago but it died and became Bikeradar I think.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Kindly peruse that thread and the evidence posted. The LCC opposed this move. The CTC opposed this move. People have studied the trials, considered the negative effect especially on novice riders who are going to have to be enticed onto the roads for the cycling boom to continue, people used to dealing with figures. The move places people in harm's way for little discernible reward to anyone. This isn't an anti-motorbike issue, it's pro-road safety and we all know that more cyclists means safer roads.

There's still time for Boris to listen to sense and stop ignoring the cyclists who voted him in, I have confidence he'll make the right choice, in between shagging his interns.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

I don't disagree with not allowing the use of bus lanes by motorcycles as you will see if you read my other posts, and for good reason, motorcycles and bicycles just do not mix, we are the most vulnerable group of road users, we can hold our own with the busses just because they are slow-ish. Having a Hayabusa that accelerates from 0-60 in 2 seconds and weighs 500lbs at rest in the same space as a bicycle is a recipe for disaster both on safety grounds and because the two groups will invariably vie for superiority.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I don't disagree with not allowing the use of bus lanes by motorcycles as you will see if you read my other posts, and for good reason, motorcycles and bicycles just do not mix, we are the most vulnerable group of road users, we can hold our own with the busses just because they are slow-ish. Having a Hayabusa that accelerates from 0-60 in 2 seconds and weighs 500lbs at rest in the same space as a bicycle is a recipe for disaster both on safety grounds and because the two groups will invariably vie for superiority.





Oh, right. Thanks.












What were we arguing about again please?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Oh, right. Thanks.
> 
> What were we arguing about again please?



I didn't like the way the figures were presented.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Kindly peruse that thread and the evidence posted. The LCC opposed this move. The CTC opposed this move. People have studied the trials, considered the negative effect especially on novice riders who are going to have to be enticed onto the roads for the cycling boom to continue, people used to dealing with figures. The move places people in harm's way for little discernible reward to anyone. This isn't an anti-motorbike issue, it's pro-road safety and we all know that more cyclists means safer roads.
> 
> There's still time for Boris to listen to sense and stop ignoring the cyclists who voted him in, I have confidence he'll make the right choice, in between shagging his interns.



You weren't one of them, so it's no loss to him to see you going purple with rage


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I didn't like the way the figures were presented.




Which ones? You claimed the source was biased", offered no evidence that contradicts it and then denied they'd ever been posted!!?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Which ones? You claimed the source was biased", offered no evidence that contradicts it and then denied they'd ever been posted!!?



Because you did not post about peds hit by cyclists, you have no figures on the cause of the motorcycle bicycle collisions either, who was at fault in them, you failed to mention the serious injuries suffered by motorcyclists in said collisions while making a big thing of the cyclist injuries, I did not deny they had ever been posted, I said the source website presented it disingenuously and it does by the omission of the other stats.


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

_Because you did not post about peds hit by cyclists_

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13248


*Once again, it's TFL's report that says PTWs in bus lanes is a bad idea. As long as people misunderstand this, I'll keep correcting it.*


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _Because you did not post about peds hit by cyclists_
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13248
> 
> ...



That is an outrageously misleading article spinners, 7 out of 8 of the PTW and ped accidents are caused by the peds themselves.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> Where's the data on the cause of the accidents?
> 
> Are they all "pedestrian stepped into road without looking and bike rider was not able to stop in time"?



Pay attention at the back 

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=303168&postcount=49


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> I repeat-
> 
> Where's the data on the cause of the accidents?
> 
> ...





> 1.09 There is a need for further research in this area. However, Booth’s study (Characteristics of Urban PTW Accidents. IMC 1989) suggests that in PTW/pedestrian collisions, pedestrians are primarily at fault in seven out of eight cases.


 Lost the reading glasses MrP ?


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> It still doesn't answer the question.
> 
> What happened in the accidents?
> 
> You're struggling again aren't you?



It is one of those items of data that isn't collected despite it being likely to be the most important piece of information required to help avoid future similar events.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

> I know.
> 
> Somebody does know though. That's the frustrating thing about it.



I don't know if this info could be had from insurance companies?


----------



## jonesy (16 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> That is an outrageously misleading article spinners, 7 out of 8 of the PTW and ped accidents are caused by the peds themselves.



'caused by'? You mean they deliberately put themselves at greater risk of injury than they would with other vehicles?

A thought experiment for you LLB:

In your factory there is a dangerous piece of equipment. A number of employees have been injured by it. The HSE wants to know what is going on, so you look into it and conclude that in each case the employee made a mistake, so the accident was 'caused' by them and you therefore don't plan to take any further action. Do you think that would stop the HSE from prosecuting you?


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> I can't find anything on this-
> 
> * (Characteristics of Urban PTW Accidents. IMC 1989)*
> 
> Anyone know what IMC is?



It refers to the report written by Cheshires Chief of road safety John Moss (MBE)


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

mjones said:


> 'caused by'? You mean they deliberately put themselves at greater risk of injury than they would with other vehicles?
> 
> A thought experiment for you LLB:
> 
> In your factory there is a dangerous piece of equipment. A number of employees have been injured by it. The HSE wants to know what is going on, so you look into it and conclude that in each case the employee made a mistake, so the accident was 'caused' by them and you therefore don't plan to take any further action. Do you think that would stop the HSE from prosecuting you?



Eh, our workplace is a very safe place considering the amount of metal removed and the speeds which it is done. All the machines have the potential to kill if anyone were to get between the workpiece and the machining head. 

The only one of note which happened about 15 years ago was that one of the Turners was wearing an overall, He was stood next to the lathe and a hem on the overall got snagged in the lead screw (you know what this is ? ) The overall got drawn into the machine and dragged his arm in before the machine was stopped. He lost a couple of fingers.

Result, the company paid out, and the long hemmed overalls were changed to boiler suits for the lathe operators to avoid a re-occurrence. Some employers do have a sense of social responsibility. 

I don't really get your analogy


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

> Why is it referred to as 'Booth's study' in your link?
> 
> And where can it be found?



Oops, make that the Booth Report (1987). Cant find the report, but can find reference to it with a quick google


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

> 1987 or 1989?




How about paul and that tosspot take their mutual masturbation to pie fights and prevent ruining yet another thread?


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

> Calm down spinny.
> 
> I'm trying to get to the bottom of this data about pedestrian/PTW accidents.



You will never get it to admit a mistake.

That twat will misread a quote, waffle on about irrelevancies, sidetrack the whole argument and drag it back to its favourite subject, itself, and you're helping it every step of the way. It always stayed away from Commuting til its desperation for attention brought it here. Whoopee.


----------



## tdr1nka (16 Jun 2008)

There 'bain't be no bunfight fred no more.

With every respect to Mr. P(who's dogged tenatiousness and advice I have all the time in the world for), this thread is a bit like watching two people fencing with cooked spaghetti.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Jun 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> There 'bain't be no bunfight fred no more.
> 
> With every respect to Mr. P(who's dogged tenatiousness and advice I have all the time in the world for), this thread is a bit like watching two people fencing with cooked spaghetti.



Is that on you tube? Link please.


----------



## LLB (16 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> How about paul and that tosspot take their mutual masturbation to pie fights and prevent ruining yet another thread?



I rattled your cage asking again if you would honour the pledge - which 3 other people saw fit to do.

Spindrift, Tabernacle, Bimblyfimbly, etc, etc or whatever troll name you call yourself. You are the last one to lecture anyone about how to conduct themselves. You have disgraced yourself on countless forums on the net


----------



## tdr1nka (16 Jun 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Is that on you tube? Link please.



Sadly, and for the time being, we shall have to make do with our overactive imaginations.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (17 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> It will become a self fulfilling prophecy


It was a joke, you tiring bore.


----------



## jonesy (17 Jun 2008)

> He's trying to show you how your position -the blame based one-doesn't help road safety.



I thought I was pushing it a bit with asking LLB to do a thought experiment!


----------

