# Would you class a 40% drop in cycling collisions as a good result ?



## very-near (31 Dec 2009)

I would 

It is a shame that the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) don't see it that way 

Lifted from the Motorcycle News Website:-



> Cycle group's silence over bus lane evidence
> By Steve Farrell - General news 15 December 2009 09:26
> Its purpose is to represent cyclists’ interests. So you might expect the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) would be quick to tell the pedal-powered fraternity that a pioneering trial has seen their collisions with other road users fall 40%.
> 
> ...



Given the trial has been running for nearly a year now it is looking very favourable, this is obviously very good news for both cyclists and motorcyclists in the capital 

Many other towns and Cities will look to the trial to set their own standards, so I'll be very happy to see bus lane use by motorcycles adopted in my town whether I am riding the cycle or m/cycle.


----------



## mangaman (31 Dec 2009)

Linf - this study was a leaked interim reort looking at 4 months of an 18 month trial

Exact quote

"The number of collisions for all modes within the trial areas during operating hours did not have a statistically significant difference in the before and after period (369 in the 2008 ‘before’ period and 374 in the 2009 ‘after’ period).
Casualties between motorcycles and pedestrians have stayed the same (at 16 before and after), while those between motorcycles and pedal cycles have reduced (from 5 to 3). Casualties for motorcyclists have increased (from 93 to 118), however, the data on vehicle usage required to calculate casualty/collision rates is not yet available. The rates will help provide a meaningful context for the data.
Furthermore, the current data is subject to a number of limitations: the data set covers a short time period which means that it cannot be considered conclusive, therefore, no meaningful comparison to previous years’ data can be made; it is also not possible to assess whether the collisions occurred in the bus lane or the main carriage way."

In other words there was no statistical significance

The time frame was so short they feel no meaningful comparisons can be made

Your 40% drop in cycling casualties is from 5 to 3.

So I think this shows more about the credulousness of motorcyclenews than anything else


----------



## John the Monkey (31 Dec 2009)

People don't understand statistics.

Journalists in particular seem to have a blind spot for this area of mathematics, regardless of the publication they work for, as coverage of any science story proves time and again.


----------



## very-near (31 Dec 2009)

mangaman said:


> Linf - this study was a leaked interim reort looking at 4 months of an 18 month trial
> 
> Exact quote
> 
> ...



What about this ?

It IMO shows a deliberate attempt by the LCC to sabotage the trial through irrational and unfounded fear. This was 10 months into the trial



> Cycling group: ‘We know of no crashes but still want motorcycles out of bus lanes’
> By Steve Farrell - General news 30 September 2009 11:50
> A cycling group demanding motorcycles be booted out of London’s bus lanes is not aware of a single crash to back up its call.
> 
> ...



They run the risk of losing any credibility amongst either the cycling or motorcycling community if they keep coming up with scare stories like this to whip up misguided support.

I'm not impressed with what they are trying to do


----------



## mangaman (31 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What about this ?
> 
> It IMO shows a deliberate attempt by the LCC to sabotage the trial through irrational and unfounded fear. This was 10 months into the trial
> 
> ...



It's MCN that's whipping up stories about nothing.

The LCC / CTC / TfL are awaiting the results of the study.


----------



## very-near (31 Dec 2009)

mangaman said:


> It's MCN that's whipping up stories about nothing.
> 
> The LCC / CTC / TfL are awaiting the results of the study.



I'm sorry Mangaman, but they are campaigning to have the trial stopped. They are using an unrelated incident to support their stance. MCN is entirely right to raise this matter with them as they are deliberately misrepresenting motorcyclists to bolster their argument.



> After the recent death of a cyclist in a collision with a motorbike, LCC is urging people to make their views known on the motorbikes in bus lanes trial before 5 January 2010.
> 
> A female cyclist died in hospital on 29 October 2009, nine days after the incident that took place while she was cycling eastbound along the Embankment.
> 
> ...


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Dec 2009)

even if the number of accidents were to decline for all time, the CTC might well campaign against allowing the experiment to continue. The Mayor wants to see more cycling (or so he tells us). Motorcycles in bus lanes discourage cyclists, particularly the less adventurous.

And motorcyclists are badly dressed. Which is worse.


----------



## gaz (31 Dec 2009)

I have no issue with motorcycles in the bus lane, as long as they don't think they are Valentino Rossi. There seams to be a lot of V. Rossi's in london bus lanes.


----------



## marinyork (31 Dec 2009)

It's quite simple Linford, London is London. They don't like the things and they tend to do things very differently to everywhere else. If they don't want them they don't have to have them.


----------



## very-near (31 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> It's quite simple Linford, London is London. They don't like the things and they tend to do things very differently to everywhere else. If they don't want them they don't have to have them.



This is all well and done, but other LA's look to trials like this to set their own guidelines on safety issues.

If the TFL decided to follow the request of the LCC and stopped it, then there is a real risk lives could be jeopardised because of their selfish attitude.

If they are using the guise of 'safety on the roads' as an excuse, it makes them a fairly obvious example of a self serving attitude with little else to back it up.


----------



## marinyork (31 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> This is all well and done, but other LA's look to trials like this to set their own guidelines on safety issues.
> 
> If the TFL decided to follow the request of the LCC and stopped it, then there is a real risk lives could be jeopardised because of their selfish attitude.
> 
> If they are using the guise of 'safety on the roads' as an excuse, it makes them a fairly obvious example of a self serving attitude with little else to back it up.



I know they pay attention (quite wrongly in some cases to what London is doing) but in this particular case you have to take into account the number of major cities that allow motorcyclists in some or all bus lanes. There was a consultation on motor bikes in bus lanes here and I can tell you you'd probably be pretty chuffed with the response from cyclists in this city .

Ultimately it really does come down to London does things totally differently on a number of issues to many other places and if they don't want motorbikes in bus lanes they don't have to have them...


----------



## Lurker (31 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> ...If the TFL decided to follow the request of the LCC and stopped it, then there is a real risk lives could be jeopardised because of their selfish attitude.
> 
> If they are using the guise of 'safety on the roads' as an excuse, it makes them a fairly obvious example of a self serving attitude with little else to back it up.



Hardly. The preliminary data (see upthread) would seem to suggest that motorcyclists are one of the groups that are particularly at risk. I'd hypothesise that this would be because of an observed tendency for them to switch in and out of bus lanes, where the trial is in operation. Changing lanes at speed is always likely to be hazardous.

It also looks from the report as if allowing motorbikes into London bus lanes will not - contrary to what the motorcycle lobby suggest - result in increased safety for motorcyclists. However, as the report authors have stated, the data are highly provisional.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Dec 2009)

in the end it's about numbers. Motorcyclists are a small minority with no future in cities. Cyclists are a bigger minority and we are the future in cities. Johnson made a promise to a crony, but, if he wants cycling to increase he's going to have to make it congenial. 

In fairness what Linford doesn't know is that some bus lanes are reaching capacity for cyclists at rush hours - the southbound A24 in the early evening is rammed with cyclists. Adding motorcyclists to the mix is, for those of a gentler disposition, terrifying, because motorcyclists being motorcyclists they tend to fly along at silly speeds, changing lanes as and when they feel like it, and generally making themselves a nuisance. 

Speaking personally I like trailing motorcyclists down bus lanes at just under the speed limit, and, thus far, my snowplough strategem has borne fruit twice - once when a car coming the other way turned right in to the motorcyclist, and once when a car changed lanes in to the motorcyclist.


----------



## Norm (31 Dec 2009)

mangaman said:


> It's MCN that's whipping up stories about nothing.
> 
> The LCC / CTC / TfL are awaiting the results of the study.


Whilst MCN has use in the smallest room, and it's not for reading, are the LCC still actively campaigning to get the trial stopped? They appear to be worried that the trial won't support their bluster.



mangaman said:


> "The number of collisions for all modes within the trial areas during operating hours did not have a statistically significant difference in the before and after period (369 in the 2008 ‘before’ period and 374 in the 2009 ‘after’ period).
> Casualties between motorcycles and pedestrians have stayed the same (at 16 before and after), while those between motorcycles and pedal cycles have reduced (from 5 to 3).


I think there is a significance in that the number of collisions has not increased. The numbers are too small to draw much positive but at least allowing motorbikes into bus lanes has not resulted in the whole-scale slaughter which many (in the LCC, for instance) anticipated.



dellzeqq said:


> in the end it's about numbers. Motorcyclists are a small minority with no future in cities. Cyclists are a bigger minority and we are the future in cities.


Almost right. Cars have no future in cities, which would make the infrastructure big enough for cyclists, motorbikes and maybe even bendy buses.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Jan 2010)

LCC and CTC campaigned against the 'trial' for the best of reasons - most cyclists don't want to ride in the bus lane with motorcyclists. Given that both organisations represent present and future cyclists would anybody have them do anything else. The result of the 'trial' is an irrelevance.


----------



## Tollers (1 Jan 2010)

I have to recommend a book here "Bad Science" by Ben Goldsworthy. Its all about the media and how studies are presented to us as meaningfull, but as mentioned earlier and showing results with no statistical significance. It also has recurring theme of hatred towards Gillian McKeith which is very entertaining!


----------



## very-near (1 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> LCC and CTC campaigned against the 'trial' for the best of reasons - most cyclists don't want to ride in the bus lane with motorcyclists. Given that both organisations represent present and future cyclists would anybody have them do anything else. The result of the 'trial' is an irrelevance.



You have missed the point entirely on this Dell.

Unfortunately, many Cyclists have demonstrated that they only want to consider what suits their world view whether there is foundation in it or not (like those in the LCC & CTC). The Trial was an attempt to improve road safety for vulnerable users by allowing them access to the Bus lanes. 

The core of the LCC & CTC argument was that the trial would increase deaths amongst cyclists through collisions in the bus lanes with motorcyclists. This has after 12 months of trials not proven to be the case.

You need to separate perceived threat with actual threat as you and the NIMBY crowd in the CTC seem to be struggling with this concept.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> The result of the 'trial' is an irrelevance.


Hardly! The results of the trial, when available, will tell us whether our lives are more at risk or safer with motorcycles in bus lanes. The rest is just about publicity and education.


----------



## benborp (1 Jan 2010)

very-near, dellzeqq has been stressing the significance of perceived threat and how incomplete figures from a trial attempting to quantify actual threat have no relevance to said perceived threat. Pay attention.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 Jan 2010)

Policy needs to be determined by reality; perceptions then need to be addressed by publicity and education.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Jan 2010)

it's about preference based on perception. The rest doesn't really matter.

people will cycle if they like the experience. Having motorcycles pass you by at close quarters is perceived as unpleasant and intimidating by many cyclists. Allowing motorcyclists in to bus lanes will hinder the growth of cycling whether or not the increase in risk is real. Motorcyclists will have to be sacrificed on the altar of perception. Which may or may not be fair, but is fine by me because most of them smell. And dress badly. Which is worse.


----------



## Norm (1 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Motorcyclists will have to be sacrificed on the altar of perception. Which may or may not be fair, but is fine by me because *most of them smell. And dress badly. Which is worse.*


We must have met, dell, but I can't think where.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Jan 2010)

the shame of it is that large people on speed-limited scooters are an absolute boon to cyclists. I've trailed one all the way up the Embankment.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it's about preference based on perception.


Perceptions can be changed by education; reality can't.



> Allowing motorcyclists in to bus lanes will hinder the growth of cycling


Not if it turns out to make cyclists safer, and this fact is publicised.



> Motorcyclists will have to be sacrificed on the altar of perception.


Neither cyclists nor motorcyclists should be sacrificed on the alter of ignorance.


----------



## benborp (1 Jan 2010)

I would argue on several grounds that discounting the subjective perceptions and experiences of road users would be a mistake when considering what factors influence road safety.

In terms of accurately reflecting the reality of road use in London can the subjective opinions of road users be said to not provide any illumination in to their behaviour and interactions?

Can the results of even high quality trials ever be said to be free from the influence of the perceptions and agenda of those that commission, execute, analyse or report on those data?

Once such a trial is completed the use to which its results are put is unlikely to be rigorously objective. Will policy be applied that positively affects the reality on the road or positively affects the figures in the next analysis?

An acknowledgement that such human factors are at play would help support the analysis, diminish the risk of mis-interpretaion of the data and its misuse.



Ben Lovejoy said:


> Policy needs to be determined by reality; perceptions then need to be addressed by publicity and education.



Policy, reality, perceptions, publicity/education are all such interrelating factors on peoples behaviour and each other that attempting to formulate their application from a statistical analysis while discounting any psychological factors would be like jellying a wall to a nail.

Due to the complexities involved and the fast changing nature of our society, possibly unfortunately, the effective delivery of policy that will deliver a reduction in death, injury and fear and maintain or improve mobility on the roads will probably require a balance of intuition and ideology as well as an informed and developing knowledge of transportation planning.


----------



## very-near (1 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> The LCC and the CTC act as lobby organisations for cyclists. It is not their job to evaluate the big picture but to argue for what I* want. Motorcyclists can pay for their own lobby group. Once everyone has argued their respective positions, it is someone else's job to reach a balanced decision. Unfortunately that is not likely in this instance for obvious reasons.
> 
> What I want is motorcyclists out of bus lanes. There are two reasons for this.
> 
> ...



I don't find either group reasonable in their demands. All 2 wheelers should be sticking together and looking out for each other whether powered or not. Your attitude comes across as that of an impatient ('get out of my way') car driver on 2 wheels


----------



## benborp (1 Jan 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Perceptions can be changed by education; reality can't.



If education can't change reality what's the point?


----------



## very-near (1 Jan 2010)

> But linfy, your interpretation shows that allowing motorbikes into bus lanes will result in more motorbike collisions.
> 
> Does that not bother you?



What are you smoking tonight MrP ?


----------



## very-near (1 Jan 2010)

> Nothing. I was just hoping you'd explain why you support motorbikes in bus lanes because you claim it's safer for them, when the stats you link to plainly say the opposite.



You must be looking at a different set of stats to me. Can you be a bit more precise as the data is incomplete to prove or disprove any assertion you can make


----------



## very-near (1 Jan 2010)

> Click on the 'source' link from your own OP-
> 
> _It found there were just three collisions between cycles and motorcycles on the bus lane routes compared to five during the same period the previous year._
> 
> ...



You forgot this bit:-



> However the report says the data is inconclusive due the short period covered, adding: ‘It is also not possible to assess whether the collisions occurred in the bus lane or the main carriage way.’
> 
> The British Motorcyclists Federation’s Chris Hodder said: “There was a fall in collisions for all road users in an earlier, smaller London trial, so there’s no reason these results should be any different.”


----------



## very-near (1 Jan 2010)

> No I didn't. And I was hoping you would quote it.
> 
> Pay attention now-
> 
> ...



Can I quote you on that ?


----------



## CopperBrompton (2 Jan 2010)

benborp said:


> Can the results of even high quality trials ever be said to be free from the influence of the perceptions and agenda of those that commission, execute, analyse or report on those data?


attempting to formulate their application from a statistical analysis while discounting any psychological factors would be like jellying a wall to a nail.[/QUOTE]
No-one is suggesting _discounting _psychological factors, rather that they be specifically addressed by education and publicity.


----------



## very-near (2 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Contrary to the title, motorcyclists are not cyclists with a motor, they are car drivers with only two wheels. The only things we have in common are all the things that people might have in common. That and the fact that motorists in cars tend to pull out in front of us. This is not sufficient grounds to form an alliance. Our interests do not overlap here.
> 
> *I am a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I see it from all viewpoints and that is how I can make a comparison. From this statement, you obviously only drive and cycle as you seem to be incapable of seeing the 3rd viewpoint.
> The difference between cyclists and motorcyclists is that as soon as the traffic starts to flow freely, every vehicle on the road will attempt to pass a cycle (or moped), but will only do so with a motorcycle if they are intent on breaking the speed limits
> ...



*I expect you would do what many cyclists do and ride on the pavement when the road is blocked by a stationary vehicle.*


----------



## very-near (2 Jan 2010)

> Linfy
> 
> *Proper bikes are allowed in bus lanes for a reason*. And as such, they're allowed to take their place in the flow of traffic. If this means slowing a bus down to protect themselves, then so be it.
> 
> ...



The preliminary findings after 16 weeks are that motorcycles don't increase the risk to cyclists whilst in these lanes. The LCC were unable to quote any accidents between cycles and motorcycles in Bus lanes after 40 weeks of trials so that is an indicator that the perceived threat does not actually bear a relation to the actual threat. 

The bottom line is Motorcycles are being allowed into these lanes to reduce risk to them as they are by far the most vulnerable users on the road (above cyclists). You being a 'road safety campaigner' should really be welcoming any measure which makes the roads safer and not just ones which fit your small world view.


----------



## thomas (2 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Contrary to the title, motorcyclists are not cyclists with a motor, they are car drivers with only two wheels. The only things we have in common are all the things that people might have in common. That and the fact that motorists in cars tend to pull out in front of us. This is not sufficient grounds to form an alliance. Our interests do not overlap here.




I am for motorcyclists in bus lanes, in principle. Motorcyclists do in general face some similar problems to cyclists, though I think that cyclists do suffer more problems. I think that as motorcyclists can keep up with the speed of traffic easier they can avoid incidents, like some close overtakes which can be very scary!! (for instance, my commute if traffic was free-flowing then it would be doing between 30-60mph, I obviously cannot keep these speeds up, so people have to overtake me. Some get impatient and squeeze past...if I was on a motorbike, I would be more likely to be doing the same speed as traffic in these situations).

All we need really is for everyone to have a little bit more time for everyone else.


----------



## very-near (2 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> When they are prepared to play nicely I will reconsider my position.



Your attitude betrays your depth of ignorance towards motorcyclists.

It demonstrates that you always consider yourself to be in the right. I hope I don't come across you when you are behind the wheel


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Jan 2010)

Thomas - the thing is that this isn't in any way general. It's particular.

Let me confess - when the idea was first mooted I was in favour. I like motorcyclists as a breed (despite their malodorousness, and their distinct lack of interest in couture), and, as I've said, I do use them as a training device. But - time and experience proved me wrong. The motorcyclists took to bus lanes like bats out of hell. They whizzed through the throngs of cyclists without a care in the world. It takes a fair bit to alarm stout fellows like AdrianC and yrs truly, but they did - and they terrified the less experienced - the love of my life included. In other words - they blew it.

I think cyclists have got to get over the shy and retiring bit. In a world running out of oil, and government expenditure on transport under the cosh, we are the dreamboats of mobility - the chosen ones, the shining lights of the world, God's anointed, the Salvation of Streets, the Ones Who Must Be Propitiated.........civilisation needs us to ride bikes, and we're due a whole shedload more consideration than we're getting at the moment. By contrast nobody actually needs motorcyclists. Which is tough, but, hey, that's the way it goes.........


----------



## thomas (3 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> When they are prepared to play nicely I will reconsider my position.



Hmm. Well be overly aggressive then. I am not saying that I am always calm and patient, but if everyone was less worried about shaving a few seconds off we'd probably all get there a lot safer and no slower.



dellzeqq said:


> Thomas - the thing is that this isn't in any way general. It's particular.
> 
> Let me confess - when the idea was first mooted I was in favour. I like motorcyclists as a breed (despite their malodorousness, and their distinct lack of interest in couture), and, as I've said, I do use them as a training device. But - time and experience proved me wrong.



I can't comment for London as I don't really have any experience of it other than the odd critical mass and getting lost riding back to the station . Actually, that night motorcyclists were a God send as they all tried to give directions for us to get back to the station.

Around where I live, there are obviously less cyclists than in London and less motorcyclists. The bus lanes around here are predominantly empty and I think it makes sense for motorcyclists to be able to benefit from them like I do on the bike.

Even in London, I like the idea in principle, but if some motorcyclists (as you say) take the piss and don't ride appropriately then unfortunately they should all loose out.


----------



## StuartG (3 Jan 2010)

I am strongly in favour of motorcyclists using bus lanes. I would challenge anyone here to ride along a certain 4 lane road (two of which are 24/7 bus lanes) on a motor cycle at night at a legal speed. You would be terrified. I only do it by speeding so no car will bushwack me.

I concur with Dal et al that allowing my M/B in the bus lane will cause inconvenience, even nuisance to cyclists (I am one too). Personally I prefer a whiff of burnt rubber to a well exercised Helly Hansen baselayer - but the issue is surely inconvenience/nuisance secondary to death?

So lets wait for the figures - if at the conclusion there is a significant improvement in casulties overall then give way gracefully. If it doesn't then we should revert. 

I agree that pedal cycles should be preferable to motor cycles but if you live on the side of a 200ft hill, are of a certain age and need to carry a bit of a load then things even up a bit. They are certainly preferable to 4 wheels in London.


----------



## stowie (3 Jan 2010)

In theory, allowing motorcyclists access to the bus lanes is a good idea. They are vulnerable road users as well. But the problem is in the practise. Being on a bicycle with motorbikes going past significantly above the speed limit is at the very least intimidating, if not dangerous. Buses and Taxis are driven by professional people, and on the whole they act responsibly around cyclists in bus lanes. As far as I am aware, if you have a license before 2001 you need no further training to ride a moped.

I think that, if motorbikes are to be allowed in bus lanes, then there needs to be severe fines for speeding in these lanes - I would prefer the speed limited to 20mph.

Cyclists have next to bog-all infrastructure, if we are to encourage cycling, then we need to make the road less intimidating for cyclists, not more. So, my suggestion would be to get the meagre cycling provision we have to be enforced (especially ASLs) before allowing other vehicles into space cyclists use.


----------



## very-near (3 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Thomas - the thing is that this isn't in any way general. It's particular.
> 
> Let me confess - when the idea was first mooted I was in favour. I like motorcyclists as a breed (despite their malodorousness, and their distinct lack of interest in couture), and, as I've said, I do use them as a training device. But - time and experience proved me wrong. The motorcyclists took to bus lanes like bats out of hell. They whizzed through the throngs of cyclists without a care in the world. *It takes a fair bit to alarm stout fellows like AdrianC and yrs truly, but they did* - and they terrified the less experienced - the love of my life included. In other words - they blew it.
> 
> I think cyclists have got to get over the shy and retiring bit. In a world running out of oil, and government expenditure on transport under the cosh, we are the dreamboats of mobility - the chosen ones, the shining lights of the world, God's anointed, the Salvation of Streets, the Ones Who Must Be Propitiated.........civilisation needs us to ride bikes, and we're due a whole shedload more consideration than we're getting at the moment. By contrast nobody actually needs motorcyclists. Which is tough, but, hey, that's the way it goes.........



Is that another way of saying that you and he are used to throwing your weight around to get your own way, but can't handle it if others do the same ?

The problem is that you only remember the badly behaved ones. Those who have ridden by the book don't even register on your radar. There are many good motorcycle riders out there, and I don't appreciate the notion that I should be judged by the actions of a few bad ones.

If you have come across a couple of knobs who have not shown consideration, then penalise them, but don't pidgeon hole the entire group for the actions of the few idiots you have had bad experiences with.


----------



## Origamist (4 Jan 2010)

Given that cycling numbers in London have very likley increased in 2009 perhaps the decrease could also be attributable to the Safety in Numbers effect...


----------



## spen666 (12 Jan 2010)

there is far more to the concerns of LCC than simply the number of accidents. Having motorbikes whizzing past cyclists closer & at a higher speed than other traffic causes fear & concern for cyclists and puts off nervous cyclists from using the bus lanes.

The OP has managed to ignore we are talking about a statistically insignificant number of accidents to draw any conclusions. 3 or 5 accidents is statistically insignificant

Also the OP is ignoring the concerns of other road users and trying to base an argument on statistics alone. This ignore the fact that people have feelings & concerns


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2010)

What I find "interesting" is the Mayor's double-standards. When asked why he wanted to get rid of bendy buses one of the mayor's responses was: 

_



The perception of safety is an important element in whether people decide to cycle or not. The bottom line is bendy buses contribute to the perception that cycling is unsafe, and it is my intention to correct this perception in order to get more people cycling.

Click to expand...

_However, it is hard to see how allowing PTWs in bus lanes is going to contribute to the perception that cycling is a safe activity. I seriously doubt this move will encourage more people to cycle.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2010)

Spen - I missed your 666th post! Or was it not intended for mortal eyes?


----------



## spen666 (12 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Spen - I missed your 666th post! Or was it not intended for mortal eyes?




sh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I missed it as well


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2010)

with apologies to the OP

Spen - the text of your 666th post will be forever immortal

*Take a trailer then?* 

I'm sure that these will be analysed in minute detail, and that people will find prophecy in them


----------



## very-near (14 Jan 2010)

spen666 said:


> there is far more to the concerns of LCC than simply the number of accidents. Having motorbikes whizzing past cyclists closer & at a higher speed than other traffic causes fear & concern for cyclists and puts off nervous cyclists from using the bus lanes.
> 
> The OP has managed to ignore we are talking about a statistically insignificant number of accidents to draw any conclusions. 3 or 5 accidents is statistically insignificant
> 
> Also the OP is ignoring the concerns of other road users and trying to base an argument on statistics alone. This ignore the fact that people have feelings & concerns



Look at it another way. The Motorcyclists and families of motorcyclists having to risk life and limb on the roads of London no doubt appreciate that access to these bus lanes will lower the risk of serious injury substantially.

Oh, Welcome Back Spen


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2010)

and anyway, who cares? Motorcyclists are creatures of endless invention and will get themselves killed wherever. It's what they do best. And they're not numerically significant. And they are not so hot on hygiene


----------



## very-near (15 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> I expect that their mums care, but it is not for nothing that A&E doctors call them donors.



Twat


----------



## very-near (15 Jan 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Your insult is misplaced, it is not me who uses the term.



It has been used to describe cyclists as well. Your prejudice of motorcyclist's has already been noted. There are many people who do both on here. It make you come across as someone who has a bit of an inferiority complex when in the company of people who you struggle to identify with...


----------

