# London-centric: motorbikes in bus lanes



## Twenty Inch (23 May 2008)

Text of my letter to Boris



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 email address.



Sincerely

Sent to: mayor@london.gov.uk

This is a severely retrograde step for road safety. Can we get a response going?


----------



## mandat (13 Jun 2008)

What about the tfl study which showed an improvement in road safety for cyclist, pedestrians & PTW's in the trial areas where bus lanes could be used?


----------



## zimzum42 (14 Jun 2008)

I think it's a good idea, should improve things for motorcyclists.....


----------



## spindrift (16 Jun 2008)

mandat said:


> What about the tfl study which showed an improvement in road safety for cyclist, pedestrians & PTW's in the trial areas where bus lanes could be used?




There isn't one.

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.


----------



## Andy 71 (1 Jul 2008)

Twenty,

I cycle in London, and my experience is that cyclists have much in common with bikers in that cagers seem to be out to kill us all regardless.

We often complain as cyclists that our voice is not heard and we are demonised. Well, I am an advocate of solidarity with our petrol-engined brothers. The motorcycle lobby is far more powerful, and I can see we have much to gain by us joining forces. We share the same problems and frustrations. 

Neither of us are isolated from the outside world in a steel box. Most bikers I know seldom whinge about cyclists. Yet cagers (I have a car) seem to constantly get away with the old SMIDSY routine, putting it down to just being an 'accident'. One of those things. Wasn't my fault guv. Could have happened to anyone. 

Enough is enough. Let's get the police off their backsides and see some real, substantive prosecutions. Causing death due to lack of due care should be reclassified as manslaughter. Put the onus on the cager to prove their innocence. Let's get that Highway Code re-written to knock out any ambiguity and set out enforceable rules for behaving towards cyclists. No wriggle room.

So, to me, I have no problem at all with bikers using bus lanes. They are the least of my worries. It's the other authorised users, i.e. cabbies and minimum-wage bus drivers that cause me the most grief.


----------



## lynx (1 Jul 2008)

Hola,

If its so bad whay are PTW allowed in bus lanes in westminster, and LB of Richmond. Oh and I forgot to mention a few towns and cities up and down the country such a Bath and Bristol, to name but two.

Where was the carnage there?


----------



## LLB (1 Jul 2008)

spindrift said:


> There isn't one.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



Don't judge the group by the actions of the individual spinners.
Motorcycles are at just as much a risk from cars in traffic as cycles, in fact more so as it is much easier to drop a motorcycle, and much more difficult to pick it back up if you get 'brushed' by a car.

Your attitude to exclude all others from what you see as your own personal lane smacks of nimbyism. It is a shame that they allow the buses and taxis in there isn't it


----------



## LLB (1 Jul 2008)

> That's one, very spurious example of where a biker may be at more risk than a cyclist (and I've never heard of one being squashed while trying to pick up his bike). It's certainly not conclusive proof that bikers are generally at more risk than cyclists.
> 
> You need to take a balanced assessment before you can come up with any kind of generalisation.



And yet again dismissive of other vulnerable users. You come across as a very selfish road user when you come out with this sort of comment MrP

It is well established that PTWs are more vulnerable than cyclists despite popular opinion. The stats speak for themselves


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Jul 2008)

... and here we go again!


----------



## LLB (1 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> ... and here we go again!



Just in case you missed it


----------



## LLB (1 Jul 2008)

> You accept that you're wrong then?
> 
> Good.



And I thought I was thick skinned 

Its all in your head, sometimes you get it wrong as well - however, I've yet to see you own up to it


----------



## LLB (1 Jul 2008)

> Look at Nethalus's video thread.
> 
> Thing is with you linf it's usually the same issue -you get defensive of those who share your interests. It clouds your judgment and view of the facts.
> 
> ...



This is the internet MrP, even highly qualified people spout bollocks on here from time to time (Ask User how this Q.E.D. thing works  )

Anyway how come you were so adamant about the motorcyclist being culpable when he was rammed off the road by the inattentive driver if you only post on things you know about ? You know naff all about riding motorcycles, but feel compelled to be judge, jury and executioner on all things motorcycle


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Just in case you missed it



 Very funny. I might nick that for my next avatar, if that's ok with you.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> And here's where you display perfectly your behaviour, as outlined by me above.
> 
> I wasn't adamant that the biker was culpable. *I said that he could have made other choices which would have resulted in him avoiding the collision.* They're two different things. Come back and have another go when you've understood this.
> 
> Then you'll see things far more clearly. Then you won't be compelled to come up with all the so obviously wrong guff that you did on the thread you'er referring to -the car swerved into the outside lane and hit the biker, the bike was travelling straight ahead and the car pushed it sideways etc etc.



Which was what - move into the overtaking lane whilst doing 20mph ?


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> You know what I said linf. You were wrong the. First time. And the next time you repeated the argument. And the next time, and so on...
> 
> There's really no need to go through it all again. But if you insisted on it you'd still be wrong, because you just can't assess the issue with correct awareness of your defensive bias.



If he had stayed in his original position, there is a very good chance that her coming past on the inside of him at the speed she was traveling would have removed his left leg. At least by moving more centrally into the lane, meant that the bike took the brunt of the force, and not the riders leg.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Jul 2008)

So you're now saying the rider deliberately put himself in the way of the car?

I watched this vid over & over while you & Mr. P. have been slugging it out and I still, for the life of me, can't see why the motorcyclist moved left across the lane as he did. Even if he was decelerating he had plenty of room to slow in the lane to his right and should have seen a car coming up that fast on the inside.

As for removing legs etc. This is pure speculation when the clip shows us all that we will actually know. You've been asked a million times not to exaggerate Linf.

The rider could have been avoiding a falling safe that a coyote had pushed off a rocky outcrop, it doesn't change the fact that if you were to show this clip to the rider concerned, he might well agree that there were better measures he could have taken to have avoided this incident entirely.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> So you're now saying the rider deliberately put himself in the way of the car?
> 
> I watched this vid over & over while you & Mr. P. have been slugging it out and I still, for the life of me, can't see why the motorcyclist moved left across the lane as he did. Even if he was decelerating he had plenty of room to slow in the lane to his right and should have seen a car coming up that fast on the inside.
> 
> ...



He was in the right hand side of the inside lane, not in the left hand side of the outside lane, and considering the mess made of the motorcycle, it is not speculative to say that the biker would have received a very substantial leg injury had it come between the car and the bike.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> We don't know what his original position was. The bike came into the picture travelling at an angle to the road. He certainly was not travelling in line with the road and so did not spend any time where you're saying he would have 'lost his leg', and we can't assume where his original position was.
> 
> For your benefit, I'll say this again.
> 
> If you watch the clip, you'll see that the next car along in the outside lane passed the incident a significant amount of time after the colliding car. This means that there was more space in the outside lane. The biker's choices were left, right or straight on. Right would have given more response time to both him and the following car.



He was in the inside lane and had slowed to 20mph due to the car in front of him slowing down to a similar speed to let the car out of the layby which had just been stopped by the police car. 
He then decided to move over to the left hand side of the lane prior to pulling in to report some debris on the road. He didn't change lane at the point of impact. This was reported in the paper as his testimony.

The car passing on the outside lane did so with a more considerable amount of time as he was paying attention and had slowed down to account for the variable vehicle speeds of those in front, and the driver in the silver passat who caused the accident hadn't because their eyes weren't on the road!


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Jul 2008)

Funny? You have previously said he was making a dash to the hard shoulder to report an accident on the opposite carriageway.

That aside.

No one has implied that he was changing lanes at the point of impact, simply the result of his changing lane put him in the more dangerous position.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> To use your words, and to follow what you claim to be a a common manoeuvre for motorcyclists on NSL roads, he 'dived across' the path of the following car. Not a manoeuvre that you'll find anywhere in the HC, or be advised to use in any driver/rider training. Anywhere. Ever.
> 
> 
> Bingo!! If he'd have moved right, into what was clearly a bigger gap behind him, everyone would have had more room and time to respond. As it was, he 'dived across' the path of the car in the inside lane, despite it being only a couple feet behind him.



Erm no, he was already in the inside lane, he didn't have right of way into the outside lane as a car was also approaching in it.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> Linford
> 
> A very simple question-
> 
> ...



A obviously, but he was in the primary


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> I can't believe I missed this.
> 
> The bike was nowhere near primary linf. He was nowhere near primary when he came into the picture, and his angle suggests that he was coming from a position further away from primary.
> 
> ...



No, he wasn't straddling two lanes, he was riding correctly in the tyre tracks of the car in front. If you follow a car on a motorcycle, and there is an object in the middle of the road, the car will straddle it. If you are riding centrally in the tracks, you will run the object over before you have a chance to respond to the situation. The difference between a cycle and motorcycle in terms of road positioning is very different on NSL roads as you match the speed of the other vehicles.

If you had any real motorcycling experience, I wouldn't need to explain this point!


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Jul 2008)

The drivers side tyre tracks by the look of it.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Jul 2008)

handbags?


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> No he wasn't. Watch the clip again. Unless the tracking was terribly out on the bike resulting in it travelling diagonally, he arrived at the position as he came into view.
> 
> That fact deems the rest of your post irrelevant.
> 
> With all your self-proclaimed biking world experience, have you never observed riders living either side of the lane markings and filtering from side to side through the traffic? If you had any real motorcycling experience, I wouldn't need to explain this point!



He was riding in the inside lane, he wasn't filtering, and Motorcycles don't have tracking


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Jul 2008)

He means steering dampers.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> You seem to have missed this simple question, and chosen instead to split hairs about things I've said that are irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> Care to have a go at answering it?
> 
> ...



You mean filtering


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

Seeing as we have had this one going around in circles yet again, I have had an accident investigator friend look at the clip and offer his opinion on this (yes he is called to court regularly as an expert witness on such matters)

It was posted on a forum which I moderate on, and has also been debated. Anyway, this is what he said :-



> Whether the bike is doing the legal minimum speed of 15 MPH on a dual carriageway/motorway or 70+ the car driver following behind has a statutory duty of care to ensure that firstly he (the car) is not too close too vehicles in front and can stop safely in the event of an unexpected occurrence.
> 
> In this case, the car driver should have anticipated the possibility of either a vehicle pulling into the layby or a vehicle emerging from the layby and should on that basis driven accordingly.
> 
> ...




[/quote]


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> You're really finding this blame thing hard aren't you?
> 
> That whole quote is about blame. I've never talked about blame in this incident, but avoidance and self preservation.
> 
> ...



Associated story & Youtube clip

What you will note is that the traffic in the outside lane is traveling substantially faster than that of the inside lane, and the silver car in the outside lane which is being obscured by the shogun is a few car lengths in front of it indicating that it was traveling much faster and was much closer to the point of impact than the shogun which directly follows the silver passat which caused the accident.

Anyway his name is Tony Carter  if you are suspicious of his credentials, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend his services to anyone on here who has been involved in an accident if they believed they were not themselves at fault.


----------



## LLB (2 Jul 2008)

> I haven't posted that to get into the blame argument, because I'm not interested in that. What I am interested in is road safety and maximising your control over your own safety. What he says contradicts your position.



He has already stated that lane position would not have prevented the accident, and I asserted that it would have been just as if not more dangerous to change lanes which is what you are advocating. He was doing 20mph in his own lane, and the traffic behind him in his own lane and that of the outside lane was traveling at a much faster pace giving him nowhere to go.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Jul 2008)

Isn't it time to acknowledge that you two are never going to agree on this and put it to bed? Or at least conduct the thread via PM or something.


----------



## LLB (3 Jul 2008)

> The bloke hasn't stated a fact, he's given his opinion. But that doesn't matter anyway, because the biker had a safer alternative option -to move into the outside lane.
> 
> You need to show how it would have been more dangerous to change lanes. I've displayed, using the clip and timings, how the biker would have had more room behind him, with a similar speed following car, than the inside lane. The traffic in the outside lane is not travelling at a much faster pace.
> 
> ...



A life saver wouldn't have saved him as he was already in the cars path so this line is irrelevant in this case - a car is 3 times the width of a motorcycle and was dominating the width of the lane by its size. If the bike hadn't been there, the passat would have most likely shunted the car in front given the excess speed at which it was traveling and the fact that it wasn't paying attention.

Your assertions for any alternative action wouldn't have saved the biker as the car was already on top of the bike when they came into frame.

If the bike was traveling at 20mph as asserted, then that would be approx 30 ft per second, The speed limit on a dual carriageway was 70mph, and cars in the outside lane look to be traveling at about 60mph which is just under 90 ft per second giving a difference of about 60 ft per second in approach speed to the moving bike or about 4 car lengths which there wasn't between the silver passat or the silver saloon on the outside of the shogun. 

Now given that he would have had to accelerate to at least 60mph to match the approaching vehicle in the outside lane whilst at the same time negotiating the overtake of the car in front of him in the inside lane after doing life savers over both shoulders, selecting the correct gear for maximum acceleration etc, do you honestly think that he could do this with any degree of safety margin when this type of manouver goes against all the training which riders AND car drivers are given and that it would have taken him a minimum of 4 seconds to match the speed of the car in the outside lane given that he would be in at least 2nd gear - maybe 3rd gear. 

Also your assertion of the polo leaving the layby is flawed as it had more space to come out because the car in front of the bike had already slowed to 20mph to let it out. The cars in the outside lane hadn't as there was nothing in their way to slow them, and nor had the silver passat which wasn't paying attention and matching the speed of the cars in the outside lane.

Your numbers just don't add up in the real world MrP, it is a bike not a tardis


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Jul 2008)

You two should really just start shagging


----------



## LLB (3 Jul 2008)

You cannot judge the standard of my riding on this debate. It makes you look ridiculous to attempt to do so.

An accident investigator has already stated that the accident was unavoidable given the speed of the passat irrespective of lane position. A life saver wouldn't have saved him.

You are now apportioning blame to the rider by accusing him of appalling riding, and this simply would be laughed out of court (which you have been previously been seeking to avoid to strengthen your stance).

Can you make up your mind whether you want to blame the rider or not please as your standpoint is changing from post to post.


----------



## lynx (12 Jul 2008)

Wow so this topic really is off course.

Several other areas outside london allow PTW in to bus lanes Bristol is a great example. So where was the carnage in Bristol?

In London westminster and London borough of Kingston allow PTWs in to buslanes not as part of the TFL survey but permanently. So where is the carnage there?


----------



## lynx (12 Jul 2008)

User said:


> You keep making this statement Lynx. It's wrong! PTWs are not allowed in bus lanes in Westminster and Richmond, except where they were part of the study. Bus lanes are controlled by Transport for London - not by the local authority.
> 
> 
> I accept that you have a bias on these matters - but at least get your facts straight.


Sorry meant kingston not richmond.

As for getting facts straight, can you answer me a few questions. First were these areas used by the TFL survey? Secondly if TFL do control the bus lanes how have LB of Westminster and LB of kingston upon thames done what they have done?

I have also noted your bias in this matter, but please check facts before calling them into question.


----------



## LLB (12 Jul 2008)

> I haven't. I said that the only reasons that I can think of for you defending a biker who could have done things better is that you were either just being blindly defensive of bikers or didn't have much of an idea of riding. And that I thought it was the former.
> 
> 
> Read my response to your bloke's thread. We're 99% in agreement.
> ...



Given your vast PTW experience, perhaps you can offer your opinion on how he could have manouvered to facilitate this and not endanger the other road users ?


----------

