# Bus Lane Boris



## Aperitif (23 May 2008)

I have just "written to The Mayor of London" complaining about his decision to allow motorbikes etc into bus lanes. Am I just an old foamer who cannot come to terms with the changing roads or is there an impending safety issue here - even a discouragement to novice cyclists who are doing their best to contribute to London each day?
There is no 'primary' against fast moving, rapidly accelerating motorbikes, let alone daydreaming, veering mopeds - I know there are always some decent, patient folk but the temptation of open lanes, foot down, cut you up slowcoach..."beep beep"... must be a poor decision at best.
Sorry to harp on about London but this could be coming to a bus lane near you...


----------



## zimzum42 (23 May 2008)

I have no problem with it at all, I don't think it will be a problem at all. If anything, the roads will be far safer for bikers as they won't have to weave and filter.

I know some here like to see things only from the point of view of cyclists, but here I'd rather see the bigger picture and celebrate an improvement in the situation for bikers, and perhaps a potential decrease in the number of cars on the road.

Anyhow, now to step back and allow the foamers to moan about how we are all going to be killed by crazy bikers.......


----------



## domtyler (23 May 2008)

I see so many bikers going at thirty and above on the white line separating the bus lane from the line of slow moving cars, it fair makes me feel quite nauseous. I just hope there is not too much aggro between them and us, but I'd rather that than see yet another biker sprawled across the east bound Mile End road at five thirty pm.


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

j


----------



## BentMikey (23 May 2008)

I'm for the idea in principle, but against it in practice because too many twunts on PTWs come zooming past far too close.


----------



## domtyler (23 May 2008)

spindrift said:


> Motorcycles kill cyclists at 1.5 the rate of cars. A third of motorcyclists exceed 30mph limits. 10% of motorbikes are untaxed and uninsured, this is a disastrous move that places cyclists in direct danger, you can't mix fast and slow moving traffic.
> 
> OPlus, if motorcyclists are allowed in bus lanes they'll start creeping into cycle lanes even more than they do now.
> 
> ...



I think it will make things marginally, if at all, more dangerous for cyclists, but a whole lot better for bikers.


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

4


----------



## Origamist (23 May 2008)

Is the final TFL report on this subject still withheld? Didn't preliminary findings suggest that it made bus lanes safer? Not sure how robust it is though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/01/26/mflane126.xml


Motorcycles use bus lanes all the time on my route to work, even though they are not supposed to. It seems a mayoral legitimisation of a _de facto _situation.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (23 May 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> I have no problem with it at all, I don't think it will be a problem at all. If anything, the roads will be far safer for bikers as they won't have to weave and filter.
> 
> I know some here like to see things only from the point of view of cyclists, but here I'd rather see the bigger picture and celebrate an improvement in the situation for bikers, and perhaps a potential decrease in the number of cars on the road.
> 
> Anyhow, now to step back and allow the foamers to moan about how we are all going to be killed by crazy bikers.......




You're just saying that because you voted for Boris.

I thought undertaking was dangerous. Now Boris is letting motorbikes use bus lanes how many SMIDSY's do you think will happen with people flashing right turning cars through slow moving traffic?

ZZ I don't see how you can see a potential decrease in cars on London's roads with Boris making it easier for people to travel by car.


----------



## zimzum42 (23 May 2008)

It was a bit difficult to vote in Singapore!

Boris might increase car traffic, but hopefully he'll make all the traffic flow more smoothly too, no more 10 second green followed by 2 minutes red! I'm optimistic!

And I'm not 'just saying'' anything, I've always thought motorbikes should be allowed in bus lanes. Check the archive.....


----------



## Twenty Inch (23 May 2008)

Text of my email, sent to mayor@london.gov.uk


Dear Boris



I would like to express my disappointment and worry at your recent decision to allow motorcyclists to use bus lanes.



Bus lanes have been a godsend for cyclists, allowing us to move swiftly and safely through traffic, with only noisy and slow cabs and busses to think of coming up behind us. Motorbikes have been shown in many studies to be more dangerous to cyclists than cars. There are more and more idiots riding scooters, who seem not to have the most basic ideas about road safety. Your decision has increased the likelihood of serious injury or death to cyclists.



I am sure that you will regret this decision when the first reports of cyclist-scooter collisions and injuries start appearing. In order to ensure that you don’t miss any, I’ll forward them to this emial address.



Sincerely


----------



## zimzum42 (23 May 2008)

did you put your real name in the email?


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

4


----------



## zimzum42 (23 May 2008)

It shouldn't be a problem when you finally get off your arse and move to Prague


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

That's four threads with useful information and opinion you've caused to be deleted zimzum. This one will probably go the same as the others in Touring and Commuting and be deleted now.

Your kuntish behaviour is going to discourage people from posting here, disrupt the board and make you appear an unbalanced, spiteful person.

I'm asking you, politely, for the sixth time to stop doing this, find something to do with your life that doesn't involve being a full-time creepy kunt.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (23 May 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> Boris might increase car traffic, but hopefully he'll make all the traffic flow more smoothly too, no more 10 second green followed by 2 minutes red! I'm optimistic!




I thought the whole point in having the red lights staying on longer was to make it more of a pain in the arse for drivers thus discouraging them from using their cars in central London. I'd be happy if no cars were allowed into central London.


----------



## zimzum42 (23 May 2008)

that's nice and fair..... just ban everything you don't like eh?

and Spinners, oyu know what you've got to do to get me to stop, there's a thread waiting for you to make the admission we're waiting for.....


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> that's nice and fair..... just ban everything you don't like eh?
> 
> and Spinners, oyu know what you've got to do to get me to stop, there's a thread waiting for you to make the admission we're waiting for.....




So, because I choose not to discuss my future plans with some tedious anonymous talkboard self-gratification artist you are going to barge into any and every thread here, in Soapbox or in Touring and demand to know where I plan to live? Why?


Do you think that's gonna encourage people to visit the forum or encourage sensible debate here?


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

Whether it's a good idea I dont know.Good for motorcyclists but not so good for cyclists IMHO.

I already use a cycle lane anyway which we seem to share with motorcyclists.

Good point by domtyler.I don't particularly like seeing motorcyclists sprawled over The Mile End Road.

I don't mind that so much but I wish they would see themselves as "guests" and show a bit more consideration when using "our" cycle lanes.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (23 May 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> that's nice and fair..... just ban everything you don't like eh?



I never said that. I just don't see any need for people driving in central London _especially_ seeing as how Ken done so much for TfL.


----------



## Aperitif (23 May 2008)

Here's the mail I wrote before posting the 'OP'
(And please have a bit of a debate about this eg: Dom's valid point... not just act in a witless way - clear off to soapbox and leave 'us' minor players to talk rather than insult. Ta.)


Dear Mayor,
This is a ridiculous decision that will remove sanctuary for cyclists in 
their daily commute through London.
ALL engine powered vehicles can put cyclists at risk. Motorbikes, sometimes 
deadline hunting messengers, with their immense and quick acceleration will 
cause major problems if they are allowed to roam the whole road.
You are wrong to allow this.
This also means that mopeds and very inexperienced engine drivers will be 
allowed similar 'freedom'.
Whilst statistics can prove lots of things, they cannot account for the near 
misses, anger and plain difficulty in conducting a commute on a stop start 
basis when a clearer path for pedal power allows for reasonable 
concentration on the part of the cyclist.
Cyclists cannot compete against the acceleration of all powered vehicles, 
they cannot defend against the rapid braking technology allowed to be in 
front of them, around them...
You are wrong to allow this.
Forget this, and put more 'plain clothes' police, real police, on bikes to 
catch the couldn't care less idiots who drive their cars while texting, or 
holding a telephone to their ear. Ban cars altogether if you like but leave 
the cyclist a bit of space in which to contribute to London.
I thought that your election would be a 'change of air' in the stuffy room 
that is London Government - but, Boris, you are starting on the wrong foot - 
for sure.
Yours sincerely,
very sincerely,

Martin -
A cyclist in London


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

Go Boris


----------



## CotterPin (23 May 2008)

And here is my letter.... 

And Linford - if you haven't got anything constructive to say, go play with your bull bars. 

_I am very disturbed about your proposals to allow Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs) in bus lanes in London. _

_As a cyclist I feel that this will make my journey to and from work more dangerous. This is already happening to some extent when they illegally use bus lanes and travel at speed. I am a confident cyclist but even I feel unnerved when I hear a motorbike engine coming up behind me. I cannot be sure if it will come up on my inside or on my outside. At the moment it tends to be on the outside but if they are legally allowed to use bus lanes I could find myself buzzed on either side. Also if I have to move from my current line to go around a pot hole or similar in the bus lane then there is a greater chance that it may not be able to avoid me given the excessive speeds they travel sometimes._

_I do not want motorcyclists penalised but I feel that this is a step too far and in any case they are already exempted from the congestion charge._

_You have ambitious plans to treble cycle journeys in London. Allowing PTWs into bus lanes will have a detrimental effect upon these plans._

_Your sincerely_


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

The discouragement aspect is the most worrying. Nervous cyclists will be bullied off the roads, exactly what we don't want.


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

CotterPin said:


> And here is my letter....
> 
> And Linford - if you haven't got anything constructive to say, go play with your bull bars.
> 
> ...



Considering that motorcyclists are the most vulnerable of road users. I think it is a major step forward in their safety. I applaud Boris's recognition of this fact, where Red Ken totally ignored it.

The policy of m/cycles in bus lanes has worked very well in Bristol for the last 20 odd years.

Sorry, but your attitude comes across as a bit NIMBYist.


----------



## domtyler (23 May 2008)

spindrift said:


> The discouragement aspect is the most worrying. Nervous cyclists will be bullied off the roads, exactly what we don't want.



I must admit I am feeling a little trepidation myself. I can't help feeling that cycling is going to get a whole lot less enjoyable now.


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

*Considering that motorcyclists are the most vulnerable of road users.*

They aren't.Cyclists are.


----------



## spindrift (23 May 2008)

_The policy of m/cycles in bus lanes has worked very well in Bristol for the last 20 odd years._

Wrong:


_A subsequent survey of cyclists found that 31% of cyclists had experienced problems with motorbikes in these bus lanes, leading Bristol City Council to conclude_ it had a negative effect.
One of the reasons we are so worried is because of what happened in Bristol, where motorbikes have been allowed to use many bus lanes for several years. This started initially as an experimental scheme. There were - amazingly - no proper 'before' and 'after' studies, but a subsequent survey of cyclists found that 31% of cyclists had experienced problems with motorbikes in these bus lanes, leading Bristol City Council to conclude 

*'it appears that the experiment had a measurable effect on cyclists.'*

Nevertheless the scheme was made permanent, firstly because the local council said it could not afford to remove it. Secondly, the Chief Constable said that after allowing motorbikes into bus lanes it would be too difficult to enforce banning them again. 

So if motorbikes are allowed into bus lanes, even as an experiment, we might be stuck with them for good. It would also set a precedent for other towns and cities. Transport experts have told us that if powered two-wheelers are allowed into bus lanes in 'cycle city' Cambridge, then this will set a standard for elsewhere in the country. 

There is also concern that this would be the start of a 'slippery slope.' Once motorbikes and mopeds are allowed into bus lanes, we will see campaigns for them to be allowed into cycle lanes and advanced stop boxes at traffic lights, and even onto off-road facilities. In the Netherlands, mopeds are not only allowed to use cycle lanes, but also many off-road cycle paths. In west London, mopeds are allowed to use the cycle tracks alongside the A4.


----------



## CotterPin (23 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Considering that motorcyclists are the most vulnerable of road users. I think it is a major step forward in their safety. I applaud Boris's recognition of this fact, where Red Ken totally ignored it.
> 
> The policy of m/cycles in bus lanes has worked very well in Bristol for the last 20 odd years.
> 
> Sorry, but your attitude comes across as a bit NIMBYist.



(A) last time I looked this was a forum for CYCLISTS
( I live and cycle regularly in London whilst you apparently tootle around country lanes so I think I know more about the experience of cycling on major roads than you do and what the impact of PTWs close up to me will be.


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

spindrift said:


> _The policy of m/cycles in bus lanes has worked very well in Bristol for the last 20 odd years._
> 
> Wrong:
> 
> ...



As opposed to 100% of motorcyclists who have had trouble with car drivers when forced to mix with them 24/7 

They like cycles reduce congestion. This can be no bad thing.


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

CotterPin said:


> (A) last time I looked this was a forum for CYCLISTS
> ( I live and cycle regularly in London whilst you apparently tootle around country lanes so I think I know more about the experience of cycling on major roads than you do and what the impact of PTWs close up to me will be.



You want to discuss the politics of Boris's decision, don't expect a load of nodding dogs on here. Perhaps if you used a variety of transport modes, you might have a broader vision of the problems faced by all (as I do).


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

User said:


> ***Settles down with a cup of coffee to watch Linford making an arse of himself again...***



Given up on the other thread


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

*Popcorn*


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

User said:


> Actually - you're both wrong... pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users.



I was thinking about peds but I actually believe a lot of the time peds can bring it upon themselves.Whereas cyclists and motorcyclists are in some way aware.


----------



## CotterPin (23 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> You want to discuss the politics of Boris's decision, don't expect a load of nodding dogs on here. Perhaps if you used a variety of transport modes, you might have a broader vision of the problems faced by all (as I do).




Its 5 to 4 on a Friday afternoon and funnily enough I am currently at work with deadlines to meet before the bank holiday. Which is why this is only my 200th posting not 1588. When I have a moment I will expand upon why I feel allowing PTWs is a bad move for cyclists. I am afraid it won't be for a few days as I will be spending the weekend riding the bike.

Stephen


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

I've got my stupid head on today.What's a PTW?

Too much booze last night.(Day off after 7 commutes)

TIA.


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## Eat MY Dust (23 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> As opposed to 100% of motorcyclists who have had trouble with car drivers when forced to mix with them 24/7



I think the clue to them being "forced" to mix with them is in the name. ie *motor*cylists


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

User said:


> No problem. Can I nick some of your popcorn? Looks as though Linford's in for a pasting as he makes an arse of himself again...




Aye i've ordered a lorry load.


----------



## tdr1nka (23 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Given up on the other thread



Only because if you were able to make any bigger an arse of yourself you would then block out the sun and all life as we know it on this planet would cease to exist?


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Only because if you were able to make any bigger an arse of yourself you would then block out the sun and all life as we know it on this planet would cease to exist?



How do you work that out. There were some outrageous suggestions regarding road safety in the other thread which simply couldn't be substantiated. I put User right regarding the decline of deaths from over 3000, to 1000 over a 40 year period, and he came up with some waffle about ROSPA and the numbers being fiddled 

Back to this one anyway. The lanes are already full of buses, they have 'motors' in them as well. I see far more risk from buses than motorcycles. Lets face it Bendy Buses are downright dangerous where cyclists are concerned 'FACT'. The sooner Boris does the right thing and ditches them the better


----------



## Aperitif (23 May 2008)

The lanes are full of buses because they are 'bus lanes' linford.
Everything is predictable - not least the length, width and 'normal' speed and manoeuvres of these objects.
Left side, right side, stop on a sixpence things - they do not do. (Don't blow exhaust out at virtually mouth level either - although that's another topic...)
Think what the differences are - not attack positive concerns about individual safety.


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

Aperitif said:


> The lanes are full of buses because they are 'bus lanes' linford.
> Everything is predictable - not least the length, width and 'normal' speed and manoeuvres of these objects.
> Left side, right side, stop on a sixpence things - they do not do. (Don't blow exhaust out at virtually mouth level either - although that's another topic...)
> Think what the differences are - not attack positive concerns about individual safety.



And this argument applies to Black cabs which use the lanes as well ?


----------



## Aperitif (23 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> And this argument applies to Black cabs which use the lanes as well ?



Yes - sure. They too have a width greater than the 'minimum squeeze' to edge past a slower moving object. And they certainly do not have the pace so to do. Another factor is that they are PUBLIC CARRIAGE VEHICLES - and have a regulatory framework within which to work - not just a deadline or impatient whim...fulfilled by immense acceleration.
Most cyclists who are aware of these 'differentials' try to accomodate all types of transport - I do - but there's always the minority who couldn't give a reciprocal toss.
Is that you? Hope not.


----------



## MERV (23 May 2008)

We are going to be more vulnerable I would have thought.


----------



## LLB (23 May 2008)

> Thinking that we all still live in the houses we grew up in was all it took really.



I think we are on a different wave length with this one. Did I say that ?


----------



## LLB (24 May 2008)

> That's an interesting comment. What's the breakdown of their 'vulnerability'?
> 
> How many cyclists misjudge a turn out of Llangollen and headbutt a tree? Or regularly travel over 40mph?
> 
> I suggest that motorcycling vulnerability isn't comparable with cyclists, for reasons such as these. It's not simply a case of them being more vulnerable so let's get them out of the way of gridlocked traffic.



You would be the first one to bang on about the stereotyping of cyclists, so why do it to motorcyclists. I would say your post is fairly distasteful in the way you tar bikers in this manner.

There are plenty of cyclists who push it to the limit and beyond on here.
I visited someone from C+ a couple of years ago who had hit a deer at speed on a downhill trail and had spent a few weeks in the neurological unit in Frenchay. Accidents can and do happen to anyone.


----------



## LLB (24 May 2008)

MERV said:


> We are going to be more vulnerable I would have thought.



Speaks for itself really.



> Around 6,500 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured in 2006; 599 killed and 5,901 injured. We are 51 times more likely to be KSI'd than car drivers per kilometre travelled, and twice as likely to be KSI'd as pedal cyclists.




http://www.realclassic.co.uk/newsfiles/news08010300.html


----------



## MERV (24 May 2008)

Why fang you.


----------



## Tynan (24 May 2008)

I scootered for a fair few years and used to post on biker forums

Main cause of a wreck on a motor bike is loosing it on a left hand turn, second is loosing it on a right hand turn, I think another vehicle doesn't appear until fourth accident

I'm willing to give this a go but I'm doubtful, most motorbikes are well ridden but there's lot of crazee scooters out there

is this in effect as of now?

good post about the Bristol thing spindrift, thanks


----------



## LLB (24 May 2008)

Tynan said:


> I scootered for a fair few years and used to post on biker forums
> 
> Main cause of a wreck on a motor bike is loosing it on a left hand turn, second is loosing it on a right hand turn, I think another vehicle doesn't appear until fourth accident
> 
> ...



The problem with scoots is that lack of training gives rise to lack of discipline around others. Also there is the born again factor. Many return to m/cycling after a break, but have forgotten most of the skills which kept them alive as younger riders. I would favour short compulsory refresher courses if a break of 5 years off m/cycles is had.

We see this all the time in cycling also with RLJing, pavement riding etc etc

I would be happy to see some form of better compulsory training for both modes for both the sake of themselves and those around them.


----------



## summerdays (24 May 2008)

Are they allowed in all bus lanes in Bristol? or only the ones where its marked on the sign? I didn't realise it was different in Bristol to elsewhere in this respect.

I'm now trying to remember my experiences of them in bus lanes ... I would say I'm not overly worried by them, but perhaps more so than by a bus in the bus lane who tend to be politer than the taxi's. They irritate me more when motorbikes go in the ASL, and then position themselves incorrectly and assume I'm not going to set off at a reasonable speed when the lights change.


----------



## zimzum42 (24 May 2008)

Those who are moaning about bikers in bus lanes seem to be the same lot that moan about all traffic that's not a bike.

grow up dammit, it's so selfish to put the needs of cyclists over all others every time. I ride bikes, but i don't expect everything to be done with me in mind. this move will make life so much better for bikers, and so much safer, so am happy to see this change


----------



## LLB (24 May 2008)

> Yup. I said that I walked to school alone when I was seven. Then I said that I wouldn't let my boy walk to school alone at 7 because the roads are too dangerous.
> 
> Using your incredible logic you drew from this that I had double standards. Which means that you either had your Mr Thickie hat on last night, or you think that I still live in the same house and my kids go to the same school that I did.
> 
> Which is it?



Are you saying that if the logistical circumstances were the same for your kid now you would be happy for them to walk on their own at 7 years of age now ?


----------



## LLB (24 May 2008)

> Calm down. It was a realistic assessment of the situation, and absolultely no generalisation of motorcyclists. It's necessary linf, and your feigning offense will only halter a decent discussion.
> 
> So, if you can get over that, perhaps you'd like to comment on the differences in the vulnerability of the two groups that we are discussing.
> 
> ...



No generalisation my arse, I am both a cyclist and motorcyclist. I see both sides of the argument as I live with the circumstances which govern both of them.

If I thought you could put your prejudices aside, I'd be happy too, alas I fear I would be wasting my time after what you posted in the previous thread. You are always right, and cannot back down!

Getting back to the subject about Boris and his changes. I was in London today (using mixed mode transport - Circle line was closed and the District line was utter chaos with every train like sardines) and I think he is far more suitable than Ken ever was. Ken showed his prejudice to the majority of people who had the power to keep him there, and that is why he was turfed out on his ear  

A new broom sweeps clean as they say, and Boris has show determination to get the capital moving again. Ken just wanted to clog the public transport system with chavy kids and far from providing a better service, just added further burden to an existing one


----------



## simon l& and a half (24 May 2008)

This is a tad more complicated than the posts above would have you believe. 

I don't find PTWs in bus lanes a problem - I think of them as my personal snowploughs, piling into cars turning across. The difficulty is that cyclists who are perhaps less experienced or less confident, or just slower don't like mixing it with PTWs, and it's these less durable souls that the future growth of cycling is going to rely on.

And then....we now have bus lanes that are brimful of slow moving bicycles. Tooley Street is an example. On Blackfriars Bridge, Kennington Road and Stockwell Road there are times when bicycles outnumber cars. I can see PTWs working in bus lanes from zone 3 and out, but I can equally see a lot of conflict in zone 1.

And finally - every cyclists organisation campaigned against this. They were completely disregarded. You can say that it puts the CTC, LCC and Sustrans in their place, but those who voted for Johnson because he is a cyclist (of sorts) might like to ponder this. Actually he doesn't give a stuff. He was elected by the 'burbs, and the cycling vote is in zones 1 and 2. It's pay day.

None of which is going to stop the outpouring of personal reminiscence from LLB who knows nothing of London and cares less. And, lest any of you need reminding, cycling in London has been increasing dramatically, while motorcycling in London is in decline. Johnson has decided to offer a sop to the past for no reason other than to prove that he's a groovy libertarian. 

Apparently he cycles down Amwell Street on his way to the GLA building........


----------



## Milo (24 May 2008)

I know someone that nearly ran him over in a car (not on purpose apparently he was a rubbish cyclist).


----------



## LLB (24 May 2008)

simon l& and a half said:


> This is a tad more complicated than the posts above would have you believe.
> 
> I don't find PTWs in bus lanes a problem - I think of them as my personal snowploughs, piling into cars turning across. The difficulty is that cyclists who are perhaps less experienced or less confident, or just slower don't like mixing it with PTWs, and it's these less durable souls that the future growth of cycling is going to rely on.
> 
> ...



Which is more than Ken did


----------



## Milo (24 May 2008)

Why did we even need a London mayor?


----------



## MERV (24 May 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> Those who are moaning about bikers in bus lanes seem to be the same lot that moan about all traffic that's not a bike.
> 
> grow up dammit, it's so selfish to put the needs of cyclists over all others every time. I ride bikes, but i don't expect everything to be done with me in mind. this move will make life so much better for bikers, and so much safer, so am happy to see this change




Not particularly moaning.Im a bit nervous yes I already share my cycle lane with motorcyclists and I know how they can behave with no consideration sometimes.Generally I try and keep out of the way and let them pass.


----------



## LOGAN 5 (24 May 2008)

I think the decision to allow motorbikes in bus lanes is wrong. I regularly use the A23 Croydon/Streatham/Brixton stretch into Central London which is one of the experimental lanes. I try to keep a cental position in the bus lanes to stop close overtakes by buses and taxis. However, the bikes just buzz past really fast and really close irrespective of my positioning. If I'm avoiding pot holes or drain hole covers that leaves very little room to avoid getting in their way.

Just the other day i saw a motorbike swerve to undertake a cyclist pulling back into his lane at a busy junction.

Motorbike and cycling accidents will increase as a result of this decision.

I'm not anti motorbike as I've ridden them for many years and have always been in favour of using bus lanes until recent years when I've seen how irresponsibly most motorcyclists use them around cyclists- particularly in London.


----------



## MERV (24 May 2008)

* Motorbike and cycling accidents will increase as a result of this decision.*

I would have thought so.


----------



## Keith Oates (25 May 2008)

It seems that the new Mayor is behaving in a manner that many people were afraid would happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## zimzum42 (25 May 2008)

miloat said:


> Why did we even need a London mayor?



Exactly, this is the option I voted for in 2000, and have spoilt my ballot ever since.....


----------



## spindrift (25 May 2008)

Johnson was elected by the motoring-lobby -supporting Evening Standard. He's just paying back his masters. Expect more rank capitulation, broken promises and lies.


----------



## simon l& and a half (25 May 2008)

LOGAN 5 said:


> I think the decision to allow motorbikes in bus lanes is wrong. I regularly use the A23 Croydon/Streatham/Brixton stretch into Central London which is one of the experimental lanes. I try to keep a cental position in the bus lanes to stop close overtakes by buses and taxis. However, the bikes just buzz past really fast and really close irrespective of my positioning. If I'm avoiding pot holes or drain hole covers that leaves very little room to avoid getting in their way.
> .



Brixton Road was the example I had in mind, and Logan 5's experience will have been shared by many. If I'm doing 24mph then, fine - I'll move to the left, they'll come round, I'll tag on the back, leaving ten yards of so for the wreckage to dissipate if a car turns across (which they do). If I'm travelling with Mrs L that's a whole different thing. We're four feet or so from the kerb because the state of the road beside the kerb is poor, and we're being passed by cyclists and motorcyclists at the same time. It's not good, but it would be worse if Mrs L didn't have yours truly giving out '**** off and die' signals to motorcyclists trying to squeeze between cyclists - which happens. 

With respect, ZZ, neither you nor I are the future of cycling in London. Whichever Mayor can take us for granted - we can hold our own. It's Mrs L, the man on the Brompton or the fat boy on a full suss MTB that we need to think about.


----------



## historyman (25 May 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> _especially_ seeing as how Ken done so much for TfL.


. You mean how he increased prices massively, made buses slower, lied about the congestion charge? I'm no Borisophile but the worsification of transport under Ken is hard to deny.


----------



## simon l& and a half (26 May 2008)

historyman said:


> . You mean how he increased prices massively, made buses slower, lied about the congestion charge? I'm no Borisophile but the worsification of transport under Ken is hard to deny.



idiot


----------



## gambatte (26 May 2008)

I take it this is BUS LANES only? I noticed a couple of posts mentioned cycle lanes.....

A couple of years back Sheffield council started to allow this, but the bus lanes only. It seems to work ok - You still see the odd bike/scooter in the cycle lanes and past the ASLs tho


----------



## LLB (26 May 2008)

gambatte said:


> I take it this is BUS LANES only? I noticed a couple of posts mentioned cycle lanes.....
> 
> A couple of years back Sheffield council started to allow this, but the bus lanes only. It seems to work ok - You still see the odd bike/scooter in the cycle lanes and past the ASLs tho



Yes Bus lanes only, not Cycle lanes.


----------



## Aperitif (26 May 2008)

There are too many cars in cycle lanes to let motorbikes in there too...


----------



## LLB (26 May 2008)

Aperitif said:


> There are too many cars in cycle lanes to let motorbikes in there too...



It could be argued that cycle lanes have no place on the roads and pavements as they encourage segregation and give car drivers the idea that cycles shouldn't be on the roads with them.


----------



## zimzum42 (26 May 2008)

I'd agree with that, hardly ever use the useless, glass strewn shitty bits of green paint....


----------



## Aperitif (26 May 2008)

100% agreement with that and it has infuriated me no end (fuddy duddy alert) that a council pays top dollar to get roads resurfaced and flat - a la France for example...and three weeks later another crew turn up and stick a layer of green chippings onto a previously smooth surface (avoiding all lettering, therefore creating a 'bump') and then blasting a path of dull red everywhere else that a cyclist may ride.
Certainly makes the tyres and inside of mudguards look good but for what reason? Motorists are really that dumb that they cannot assimilate road graphics in black(tarmac) and white(conventional signeage)? See if you can spot this in another country.
We as a nation have been 'had' by the idiots at the local authority's safety wheel - and there's no going back.
But, back to Boris - please add unnecessary expense to your list.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 May 2008)

From reading the posts it seems to me that the real problems would ivolve inexperienced(lower cc)motorbikes and inexperienced cyclists coming into contact and not much else.

I returned to cycling after a long period of motorbike riding and my experience, and that of many motorcycling frieds is the danger of filtering down the outside of stationary traffic and getting right hooked. 
To put mototorcycles in the bus lane is in theory a good idea for motorcycle safety but I feel would not be quite so good, as pointed out by Simon, in areas where all lanes are already seriously congested.


----------



## simon l& and a half (26 May 2008)

there's another sort of consideration. What works? Forget what we want, forget what is fair, what's best for for the most? The answer is pretty simple. We are the most. We are more and more numerous, we cost very little to accommodate, and the cost to the planet of our pedalling is next to nothing. By comparison motorcycles are few, declining in number, and the cost to the planet is stratospheric - the fuel consumption of a 500cc bike is eyewateringly high, and their hospital bills are mega. So, although motorcyclists are fellow free spirits, although you can respect their endeavour, if not their dress sense, they're not sufficiently important or worthwhile. Sorry, but there you have it.

The same sort of consideration can work against cyclists. I've been part of a TfL committee that considered cycling along towpaths. My point was that some towpaths were at capacity and were more suited to walkers than cyclists. Embarrassing, because I designed a cycle ramp to one of the towpaths in question, but we have to realise that there are times and places where we are surplus to requirements.


----------



## historyman (26 May 2008)

simon l& and a half said:


> idiot


Love your manners simon. But the bus prices, did they increase faster than inflation under Ken's sway, or less fast? the average time it takes to get from Archway to Marble Arch by bus, did it increase or decrease? the congestion charge, did Ken lie about that, or does a one-legged duck swim in circles?


----------



## simon l& and a half (27 May 2008)

historyman said:


> Love your manners simon. But the bus prices, did they increase faster than inflation under Ken's sway, or less fast? the average time it takes to get from Archway to Marble Arch by bus, did it increase or decrease? the congestion charge, did Ken lie about that, or does a one-legged duck swim in circles?


idiot with previous


----------



## spindrift (27 May 2008)

historyman said:


> Love your manners simon. But the bus prices, did they increase faster than inflation under Ken's sway, or less fast? the average time it takes to get from Archway to Marble Arch by bus, did it increase or decrease? the congestion charge, did Ken lie about that, or does a one-legged duck swim in circles?




You can look this all up you know, instead of pursuing a dishonest campaign here.


----------



## spindrift (27 May 2008)

Dear Editor,
We are most concerned to read of your support for allowing motorbikes in
bus lanes (Open Bus Lanes - 22 May 2008) based on evidence that
Transport for London has described as 'not sufficiently reliable to
inform a decision on such an important issue.'
If the Standard is to be consistent in its support for reduced road
danger for cyclists and pedestrians then it should examine the TfL
reports on motorbikes in bus lanes more critically before advocating
such a move by the Mayor. The executive summary of the original report
says repeatedly that key data is not statistically significant. TfL
described the report methodology as 'flawed.'Following the final
report a TfL official wrote "'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 dis-benefits
for both cyclists and pedestrians.'For the Mayor to make a policy decision on the basis of flawed
methodology and insufficient evidence would be premature and open to
legal challenge should anyone be injured as a result.
Best regards,
Tony Armstrong


----------



## LLB (27 May 2008)

> Any motorcylists care to comment? I'm not fully up on this subject and would like to watch the debate.



It depends on who you want to believe. Spindrifts source on this ?

*



Bus Lanes
The government’s advice on bus lanes recommends against allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes, although Local Authorities can permit them if they choose. For several years now, motorcycle groups have called for motorcyclists to be allowed to use bus lanes, along with pedal cyclists and taxis, and several Local Authorities have allowed them to do so. Pedal cycle organisations are opposed to motorcyclists being allowed into the bus lanes.

Trials are underway and interim data has not identified any safety problems created by motorcyclists being allowed to use bus lanes. RoSPA has not supported the proposal for motorcyclists to be allowed to use bus lanes. However, this policy will be reviewed once the results of the various trials have been published.

Click to expand...

*
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorcycling/policy.htm


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2008)

*Interim Report from 2004: *​
*Powered Two Wheelers in Bus Lanes: Progress*
*on experiments*
*Project Development*​*(Network Performance Division) *

*http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Ptw-bus-lane-project-2004-results.pdf*

*More info from TFL:*

*http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/roadsandpublicspaces/2295.aspx*


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 May 2008)

It was notable that Ken only had a problem with the study's methodology and sample sizes after it came back with the 'wrong' result, not when that methodology and sample size was proposed and approved.

I'm an agnostic on the issue of motorcycles in bus lanes, but I do dislike politicians who commission a study with an agreed design and scope and then decide to ignore the results.

Ben


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2008)

The trial appeared to be flawed from the get go:

P2Ws in bus lanes Appendix III, p8.

In order to understand the lack of quality data provided it is necessary to refer to statements from the experiences of the original draft report authors who make reference to the frailties in each data set. These comments are listed below. 


Vehicle Count Data 
"_Given the limited data available, a statistical analysis is not possible, and even general trends are of doubtful reliability._" 

CCTV Camera data – Static cameras 
_"The static CCTV data obtained from TfL cover sections of bus lane not open to motorcycles" _

CCTV Camera data – Bus mounted cameras 
_"The cameras also record motorcycles using other lanes but the reliability of those counts is uncertain." _
_"The bus-mounted data were not recorded along the same sections as the static camera data, making correlation difficult." _

Cycle Count Data 
_There are no major issues with the data collected except for the A23 counts which was only available for 16 days within the month._ 

Speed data and journey time analysis 
_"TfL Marquis journey time data were available for this study, from which bus speeds were calculated.……. More comprehensive data require full traffic speed counts, which list, for each survey point, the vehicle speed, type, and lane. Unfortunately the data available do not correlate directly with the Marquis data, since they record point speed rather than average speed and, for the most part, predate the Marquis data by several years." _

And, tellingly: 

*Given these data limitations, this report concludes it is not feasible to carry out a robust casualty rate analysis using the available flow data.* 


_http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Appendix_III_Use-and-attitudinal-surveys.pdf_


----------



## Aperitif (27 May 2008)

A reply to my 'letter' - everyone get the same?

Our ref: SM034190/1

REF: Allowing Motorbikes in Bus Lanes

Dear Aperitif,

Thank you for your e-mail to Mayor Johnson, which has been passed to me by City Hall. We will look into all of the points you have raised and get back to you as soon as possible.

Under our customer services policy, we will do our best to respond within 10 working days. In most cases this is not a problem. However, should we take any longer than 15 days; we will write to you on day 15 with an update and also provide you with the likely timescale for a full response.

In accordance with the company procedures we will only use the information you supply us to respond to your correspondence.

If you have marked your correspondence as confidential, your contact details will not be passed on. Please be aware this may limit our ability to respond to your enquiry, suggestions or complaint.

If you are unhappy with the way we have dealt with your enquiry, you may wish to contact London TravelWatch. This is an independent watchdog body, set up by parliament to represent the interests of passengers. They can be contacted at the following address:

London TravelWatch
6 Middle Street
London
EC1A 7JA

Thank you once again for contacting Surface Transport at TfL.

Yours faithfully,


----------



## LLB (28 May 2008)

> http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1145



You don't honestly expect an unbiased view from a pressure group do you


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

TFL is not a pressure group, read the link.


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

Please don't let that idiot disrupt yet another thread by asking questions that demonstrate nothing so much as his inability to read links.


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

Can you imagine getting a new job, and three weeks later saying to your boss: 

_SEE YA, I'M OFF FOR A JOLLY ON A YACHT!!!_ 

Johnson's fleecing Londoners to line his own pockets, swan off on his hols and leave his press team to announce his disastrous policy decisions whilst he's safely out of the country. 

Didn't he realise when the election was? 

Let's hope he's not caught up in a terrorist atrocity as he suns himself whilst leering at the waitresses


----------



## LLB (28 May 2008)

spindrift said:


> TFL is not a pressure group, read the link.



No, but the LCC is 

Where is that £20 for the Macmillan Cancer care which you promised you lying dishonest gutter dweller ?


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

_No, but the LCC is_ 

The research wasn't from the LCC, so you've barged once again into a thread you haven't bothered to read properly to disrupt, annoy, and continue your petty feuds.

This makes threads hard to follow and discourages new users to post anything.

It interupts the flow of information and sidetracks the subject onto what you really want to talk about- yourself.

Why do you keep doing this?

Respond on Soapbox please, at least leave this area of the site free from your tiresome self-obsessed self-gratifying.


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

The TFL trial hailed to show that ptws in bus lanes was flawed: 

Tactics of BMF and allies The tactics employed by the pro-motorcycling forces is to use local trials of PTWs in bus lanes to "prove" that "there isn't a problem". These trials are far too small scale to produce statistically meaningful accident data [information to be added]. Meanwhile they are purposely ignoring [information to be added] the Department for Transport's national accident data, which shows clearly and consistently that motorcycles are, in fact, extremely dangerous to vulnerable road users; in fact, significantly more dangerous than cars. 

This page and its linked pages explain the true picture, referencing solid data from authoritative sources. 

Why shouldn't PTWs be allowed in bus lanes? Motorcycles and mopeds should not be allowed in bus lanes for multiple reasons: 

Safety: The BMF suggests that PTWs are not a serious danger to vulnerable road users. Yet DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-sided. 

Air quality: DfT measurements show that PTWs are far more polluting than cars. Croydon Health Authority and the Greater London Authority have both said that poor air quality kills many Londoners each year. Therefore, measures that may lead to an increase is the use of PTWs, and which will bring PTW exhausts nearer to both cyclists and pedestrians, should be avoided. 

Policy: Permitting PTWs to use bus lanes is likely to discourage the take-up of pedal cycling. This flies in the face of local and national government objectives to encourage green forms of transport. 

These issues are covered in more detail, with references, on other pages - just follow the links. http://www.croydon-lcc.org.uk/campaigns/ptw_bus_lanes.htm


----------



## LLB (28 May 2008)

spindrift said:


> _No, but the LCC is_
> 
> The research wasn't from the LCC, so you've barged once again into a thread you haven't bothered to read properly to disrupt, annoy, and continue your petty feuds.
> 
> ...



Yet again you use your gutter language outside the soapbox. This thread belongs there or in the political board. It has nothing to do with commuting.

Where is the money you promised ?


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

I would have thought that going on holiday so soon after the election wasn't the best message to send to the electorate. 

Boris was accused during the election of not being as committed to the job as his rivals and of not being committed to London. Taking a holiday while not being in the job a month may be seen as confirming what his rivals and opponents said. 


Oh poor old De PPfeffel "Ah'm soooo exhauuusted I have to go away and leave the running of London to those who probably actually know it more than I do. 

Oh. 

Well I jolly well hope so. 

Waiter? 

Another G&T please!"


----------



## Aperitif (31 May 2008)

> Dear Aperitif,
> 
> Thank you for your e-mail received 23 May 2008 with further reference to the pending introduction of Motorcycles in Bus Lanes.
> 
> ...



I replied - it is tiresome.


----------



## vodkalondon (31 May 2008)

To me the only fair way to solve this would be getting enough data on causalities before and after. If there's no change or improvement for either cyclists or motorcyclists, in fact if this whole thing will save a single extra life, - then all those arguments between "selfish arrogant red-light-jumping lycra-wearing" cyclists and "unlicensed speeding close-passing cycle-lane-riding" bikers does not mean a thing to me.

Just bring in some raw unbiased data (sorry, LCC) and job done.


----------



## Tynan (31 May 2008)

given this is already running in other parts of the country and data from that is already disputed, it ain't gonna happen is it, the lackadaisical way Boris's mob are already treating this means they're don't care about that anyway


----------



## vodkalondon (31 May 2008)

And that's what's most annoying. Neither Ken nor Boris care about safety, it's just their political agenda. That's who both cyclists and bikers should put the pressure on, not each other. Being both, I'll gladly agree with either decision based on research data (undoctored, Ken), not on political bulls@@t from either mayor or any pressure group, whether cyclists, bikers, environmental or gay rights.


----------



## simon l& and a half (1 Jun 2008)

....ahhhh. The 'gay rights' angle. Perhaps it was only a matter of time....


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Jun 2008)

One thing that can never be taken away from Ken and his influence on the Capital is the level of social acceptance of individuals no matter what their race, religion or sexuality. All things that Ken worked so hard towards in his GLC days and make London so colourful and varied.


----------



## LLB (2 Jun 2008)

Back to the title of the title of this thread. This report claimed positive benefits for cyclists and pedestrians by allowing motorcycles into the bus lanes but apparently Red Ken suppressed prior to being voted out as he is well known for his dislike for motorcycles.

The claim is that pedestrians take more care stepping into bus lanes if they know that motorcycles are using them and as a result helps to reduce the risk between cyclists and pedestrians!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/01/26/mflane126.xml



See the comment 



> I'm surprised Ken Leninshit allows any motorised vehicles into his empire.
> As for bus lanes and PTWs using them, surely we should be grateful for the fact that special traffic lanes are not restricted to bullock carts being driven by disabled lesbian marxist feminist muslim asylum seekers.
> Who hate the west.
> And men.
> Posted by paul atherton on February 20, 2008 6:49 PM



They could be posting from here


----------



## Absinthe Minded (2 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> The claim is that pedestrians take more care stepping into bus lanes if they know that motorcycles are using them and as a result helps to reduce the risk between cyclists and pedestrians!


(and motorcyclists).


----------



## Animal (2 Jun 2008)

Honestly. Why are you here? You just post crap. You don't belong here, so why are you actually _bothering yourself_ to post it?


----------



## LLB (2 Jun 2008)

Animal said:


> Honestly. Why are you here? You just post crap. You don't belong here, so why are you actually _bothering yourself_ to post it?



You are ?


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Jun 2008)

In fairness Animal, who the fu*k are you?

Linf may be a nutter, and I don't know how he has the patience to keep posting as he does, but he's been around for years, and we know the score.

You, animal, on the other hand, have appeared from nowhere and are just spouting childish, over-excited anti-car crap.

Maybe it's another bimblyfimbly alter-ego?


----------



## Tynan (3 Jun 2008)

this is the most placid board I've ever seen barring you two with all respect, zim and lin, you're both aggressive and dogmatic and worse do it in concert, I think that's something of animal's point


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Jun 2008)

I love it.

As long as you're 'right on' it's ok to be aggressive and dogmatic, but if you dare step out of line on the anti-car, anti-america, anti-whatever issues, you're slated....


----------



## BentMikey (3 Jun 2008)

LMAO at Tynan's comment. I don't agree with everything zimmers says, but IMO he's more often on the money than you are, Tynan.


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Jun 2008)

Just wish I was IN the money, not on it!


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

Tynan said:


> this is the most placid board I've ever seen barring you two with all respect, zim and lin, you're both aggressive and dogmatic and worse do it in concert, I think that's something of animal's point




These two charlies have now infected a helpful, constructive part of the site. linford and zimzum drag their petty quarrels into quiet backwaters of the forum and disrupt, insult and obsess about whatever their own concerns are. They're ruining the forum, new posters will be discouraged by the unpleasant abuse that follows these two around, that's a great shame.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> These two charlies have now infected a helpful, constructive part of the site. linford and zimzum drag their petty quarrels into quiet backwaters of the forum and disrupt, insult and obsess about whatever their own concerns are. They're ruining the forum, new posters will be discouraged by the unpleasant abuse that follows these two around, that's a great shame.



Can't say it popped up on my radar, at least by comparison with some of your rants. LLB, fair enough, he's on my ignore list.


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Jun 2008)

Spindrift, you really have no sense of self do you.....

You post plenty of drivel, and obsess about the strangest of things. What about your insane thread with literally hundreds of strange pics of Boris. Take a look in the mirror matey


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Can't say it popped up on my radar, at least by comparison with some of your rants. LLB, fair enough, he's on my ignore list.




llb was confined to Soapbox under a policy of containment, he's now spamming this board like an old alcoholic outside a bus station clutching peoples' sleeves and saying _"I've got a car!"._


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> They're ruining the forum, new posters will be discouraged by the unpleasant abuse that follows these two around, that's a great shame.



<OT>Have you ever read any of your own posts?</OT>


----------



## Origamist (3 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Back to the title of the title of this thread. This report claimed positive benefits for cyclists and pedestrians by allowing motorcycles into the bus lanes but apparently Red Ken suppressed prior to being voted out as he is well known for his dislike for motorcycles.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/01/26/mflane126.xml



Seemingly it did, but when the methodological flaws (particularly with regard to data gathering and exposure rates) were highlighted, the reports' findings were no longer credible.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

Origamist said:


> Seemingly it did, but when the methodological flaws (particularly with regard to data gathering and exposure rates) were highlighted, the reports' findings were no longer credible.




We've covered this in depth, lengthy explanations about the A13 trial have been posted already llb's seen all that research and now asks the same old questions agian in the hope that someone's gullible enough to engage with him and ruin yet another thread.


----------



## Origamist (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> We've covered this in depth, lengthy explanations about the A13 trial have been posted already llb's seen all that research and now asks the *same old questions agian in the hope that someone's gullible enough to engage with him and ruin yet another thread. *



Sorry, I forgot that that's your job.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

Origamist said:


> Sorry, I forgot that that's your job.



When?

What are you talking about?


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Jun 2008)

Spinners - your latest fetish is to accuse me and LLB of ruining threads, when you've been ruining threads since back in the day when you called yourself Bimblyfimbly and so on.

Not all of us are so stupid as to have forgotten your trolling past


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

Origamist said:


> Sorry, I forgot that that's your job.




Snide, unsubstantiated slag offs are sooo much easier than spelling out what you mean, eh?


----------



## LLB (3 Jun 2008)

Origamist said:


> Sorry, I forgot that that's your job.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

_Sorry, I forgot that that's your job._

In fact, vague shitty remarks like that are more likely to derail a thread than anything else.


----------



## Origamist (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Snide, unsubstantiated slag offs are sooo much easier than spelling out what you mean, eh?



I simply reversed what you intimated I was doing (so was your post meant as a snide and unsubstantiated slag off?). 

Anyway, it doesn' bother me, what concerns me is that the TFL report is not robust, and that is worth repeating.


----------

