ctc and motorcycles - Page 2

Re: ctc and motorcycles

In article <46030a3f$0$763$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net>, Mike Sales
mike.sales@zetnet.co.uk says...

> I remember reading the statistic I mention because it surprised me on risk
> compensation grounds. I attempt to explain it by supposing that motorbikers
> have a high setting on their risk homeostat.
>
How about motorcycles going quite fast and people not seeing them?
Everyone knows that cars pull out in front of motorcycles because we're
always being told to "think once, think twice ...", why not pedal
cyclists and pedestrians too?

Re: ctc and motorcycles

in message <1174602471.455224.247640@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
raisethe ('raisethe@yahoo.co.uk') wrote:

> On 22 Mar, 21:25, Anthony Jones <n...@antjones.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> raisethe wrote:
>> > The anti-motorcycling arguments on the link are unsustainable and
>> > should be removed and the ctc's campaigning should be amended
>> > accordingly.
>>
>> What is it that you disagree with in particular? Having read through the
>> page their logic seems sound enough to me.
>
> Firstly, I am shocked that everyone doesn't agree with me - especially
> the motorcyclists. To be labelled a troll is also rather bizarre.
> Surely it is not in the interests of cyclists to be anti-motorbike?
>
> This is what is unpalatable:
>
> 1. 'policy decisions in relation to motorcycling also need to reflect
> the threat which motorcycling poses to other road users and to the
> environment.'
>
> Motorcycles, like buses, lorries , cars etc pose no meaningful threat
> to cyclists when they are properly driven.

While this is true, on the whole motorcycles, like cars and buses, are not
properly driven. Lorries, on the whole, in my experience, are rather
better.

> They cause pollution, as do
> other vehicles including bicycles. This weeks MCN had an amusing
> letter suggesting that the flatulence caused by a bean-eating tree-
> hugging cyclist far outweighs anything coming from a motorbike
> exhaust. Whilst that is silly,

This is the same argument the electric bike monomaniac was making a week or
so ago. It is silly, because even if it were true, the flatulence of the
beer-swilling, burger-munching motorcyclists has not been taken into
account.

> Despite
> the fact that motor vehicles in general create more pollution than
> bicycles, they will always have a place on the roads and it is absurd
> to imply otherwise.

I don't believe that private motor vehicles will have a place on our roads
in the long term, and I don't think it's in the least absurd to say so.
The overwhelming majority of people won't be able to afford to run them,
and the population as a whole is much less deferential to the very rich
than they were in the Edwardian period.

> 2. 'Dangerous to themselves and to others. Motorcyclists place not
> only themselves at risk, but they are also disproportionately
> hazardous to pedestrians' and cyclists' safety as well. '
>
> The danger that motorcyclists choose to expose themselves to is
> nothing to do with the cycling community.

Yes, but the majority of motorcycle accidents are not one-vehicle
accidents. Someone else often gets killed as well.

> 4. 'PTWs <motorbikes> should not be allowed in bus lanes, cycle lanes,
> advanced stop lines or vehicle-restricted areas.' The ctc should not
> be advocating the use of bus lanes which are a waste of road space.

Bus lanes are not a waste of road space, on the contrary. They expedite the
progress of public transport on crowded urban roads. If they didn't, fewer
people would use public transport so more people would use cars so the
grid-lock would get worse. Whether cyclists should be allowed or
encouraged to use bus-lanes is of course an entirely separate issue.

> It would therefore appear that cyclist paranoia about other road
> vehicles is not limited to the new president, Snow, but is
> institutionalised within the ctc. I will have nothing more to do with
> them and I hope others will follow suit.

I'm an ex-motorcyclist. I don't see anything 'anti-motorcyclist' in the
CTC's statement; nor do I see anything unreasonable about it. All I see is
a clear recognition of the fact that motorcycles are different from pedal
cycles, and that the interests of cyclists and motor cyclists do not
coincide. All that is true - and obvious.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

in message <1174610587.455278.162640@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
raisethe ('raisethe@yahoo.co.uk') wrote:

> Nevertheless, it is still not relevant unless the call is to banish
> motorbikes from all roads. This is not a policy that would be in the
> best interest of cyclists. Alternatively, what is it about bus lanes
> that makes motorbikes so dangerous to cyclists?

But no such call has been made by anyone, so what's the fuss?

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

raisethe wrote on 23/03/2007 00:43 +0100:
>
> Nevertheless, it is still not relevant unless the call is to banish
> motorbikes from all roads. This is not a policy that would be in the
> best interest of cyclists. Alternatively, what is it about bus lanes
> that makes motorbikes so dangerous to cyclists?
>

The speed that some of them go given the unobstructed lane in front of
them. Many are OK but in London there are sufficient of them going too
fast and using their narrow width to move around the lanes that I find
them the most uncomfortable part of riding in London and in bus lanes.
Give me a bus or taxi anyday, I can control it by lane positioning.
Motorbikes I can't.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re: ctc and motorcycles

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:29:26 -0700, raisethe wrote:

> Following on from the problems recently discussed about John Snow as the
> new ctc president, I have to point out my considerable displeasure with
> the ctc's position on motorbikes.
>
>
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4790
>
>
Accident figures; using per mile figures makes it look bad but motorbikes
travel far fewer miles than cars. How many people are actually killed per
year in relation to cars?

Speaking as a cyclist, allowing motorbikes into the bus lane would increase
risk to cyclists. Indeed, allowing more of anything into bus lanes would
increase the risk.

Pollution figures; quite surprising, maybe they didn't use a motorbike
with a catalyser. Most cars have them these days while most bikes still
don't.

Last paragraph, "A threat to pro-cycling policies" sounds like paranoia.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

Re: ctc and motorcycles

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
newsdednT5yGoaFYJ_bRVnygQA@bt.com...
>
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4796
>
> "CTC does not want bikes banned"
>
> "This week's Motor Cycle News has dreamt up an attention-grabbing headline
> which is in fact wholly untrue. It suggests that CTC wants motor cycles
> banned - this is not the case.
>
>
> We do not believe that motorcycles should be admitted into bus lanes, and
> therefore object to the Government's latest advice that this option should
> be for local authorities to decide (overturning previous advice against
> admitting motorcycles). But that is very different from suggesting that we
> want motorcycles banned, as MCN's headline and first paragraph states.
> This, we believe, is wholly misleading.
>
>
>
> Our webpage sets out the issues where we have common ground with
> motorcyclists - for instance we were with the motorcyclists' lobby in
> opposing the European Commission's recent proposals for Daytime Running
> Lights on all motor vehicles."
>
>
I speak as a CTC member cyclist who owns, and enjoys, a motorcycle and a car
also. I live in a borough (Colchester) where motorcycles are permitted to
use the bus lanes. Being able to use them _reduces_, IMHO, the risk to
pedestrians and cyclists.

Why do I believe this? The statistics used by the CTC not only relate to a
vanishingly small and unreliable sample size, but also relate to the risk
_as a whole_, including incidents occurring on all types of roads and in all
situations. So, for instance, the figure _might_ include an incident where
an out-of-control motorcycle has killed or injured a cyclist riding on the
pavement. Whilst this would be regrettable, it certainly would not be
grounds for banning m/c's from bus lanes!
In my experience the big area of conflict between m/c's and peds/cyclists
is when m/c's are filtering through slow and stationary traffic, and peds
cross between vehicles, and cyclists weave between them to make progress.
Obviously the onus is on the motorcyclist to keep out of trouble, but
filtering _is_ allowed, and can be risky.

A motorcycle in a bus lane, however, has far clearer lines of sight, as do
the pedestrians crossing it , and the cyclists using it, who by and large
don't weave when they're in it. So by removing slow moving cars from the
equation, and as long as the motorcycle is being ridden sensibly, cyclists,
pedestrians and motorcyclists are _safer_ when sharing the bus lane.

Unless, of course, the CTC or anyone else can come up with data to
demonstrate that motorbikes _in bus lanes_ are a danger to cyclists and
pedestrians _in bus lanes_. Until then it probably is reasonable to suspect
that they are anti-motorcycle per se.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

On Mar 23, 10:54 am, Tony Raven <j...@raven-family.com> wrote:
> raisethe wrote on 23/03/2007 00:43 +0100:
> >
> > Nevertheless, it is still not relevant unless the call is to banish
> > motorbikes from all roads. This is not a policy that would be in the
> > best interest of cyclists. Alternatively, what is it about bus lanes
> > that makes motorbikes so dangerous to cyclists?
> >
>
> The speed that some of them go given the unobstructed lane in front of
> them. Many are OK but in London there are sufficient of them going too
> fast and using their narrow width to move around the lanes that I find
> them the most uncomfortable part of riding in London and in bus lanes.
> Give me a bus or taxi anyday, I can control it by lane positioning.
> Motorbikes I can't.
>
This is why I think motorbikes shouldn't be allowed in bus lanes as
well.

TBH, I think they ought to be able to use advanced stop boxes - but I
think the boxes need to be deeper in London at least.

But motorbikes will go too fast in bus lanes - the same way as some
cars do in the part time bus lanes. Fortunately, the majority of cars
don't use the bus lanes they can use after 7pm but a few drivers do
(and they hurtle up the inside of the traffic that's already moving at
~25mph, squeeze past you by straddling the two lanes and then pull
back in as soon as they have got along side you)

Tim.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:07:26 -0000 someone who may be "Budstaff"
<budstaffdotusegroup@btinternetdotcom> wrote this:-

>So by removing slow moving cars from the
>equation, and as long as the motorcycle is being ridden sensibly, cyclists,
>pedestrians and motorcyclists are _safer_ when sharing the bus lane.

Unfortunately a large proportion of those riding motorbikes don't do
so sensibly.

I would also ban taxis from bus lanes, as a large proportion of the
drivers of these vehicles also don't drive sensibly.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Re: ctc and motorcycles

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1qn703p31fn5j84n3787dgldokb9h0qhv3@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:07:26 -0000 someone who may be "Budstaff"
> <budstaffdotusegroup@btinternetdotcom> wrote this:-
>
>>So by removing slow moving cars from the
>>equation, and as long as the motorcycle is being ridden sensibly,
>>cyclists,
>>pedestrians and motorcyclists are _safer_ when sharing the bus lane.
>
> Unfortunately a large proportion of those riding motorbikes don't do
> so sensibly.
>
> I would also ban taxis from bus lanes, as a large proportion of the
> drivers of these vehicles also don't drive sensibly.
>
>

This is a little bit 'holier than thou' surely? _All_ categories of road
user (cyclists included) have members whose behaviour leaves somehting to be
desired. A sweeping generalisation about motorcyclists is just shorthand for
prejudice.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

"Budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroup@btinternetdotcom>typed


> This is a little bit 'holier than thou' surely? _All_ categories of road
> user (cyclists included) have members whose behaviour leaves somehting
> to be
> desired. A sweeping generalisation about motorcyclists is just
> shorthand for
> prejudice.

I don't think I'd call anything with good statistics to back it up
'prejudice' or 'a sweeping generalisation' myself.

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ztu*MWpGr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Quoting Budstaff <budstaffdotusegroup@btinternet.com>:
>>This is a little bit 'holier than thou' surely? _All_ categories of road
>>user (cyclists included) have members whose behaviour leaves somehting to
>>be
>>desired.
>
> However, there is a big difference in how likely their carelessness is to
> kill people.
> --
Agreed. More pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists are killed by car
drivers who are to blame than any other category of road user.

Re: ctc and motorcycles

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Quoting iarocu <iarocu@hotmail.com>:
> >As far as motorbikes being polluters so what? All motor vehicles
> >pollute and I don't think the CTC should be getting involved in any
> >argument about which class of motor vehicles is better than the other.
>
> The CTC seeks (rightly) to promote cycling as an environmentally superior
> option. To do that, it's necessary to document the alternatives; if the
> perception that motorcycles pollute less than cars is false, of course it
> ought to be challenged.

I must admit, I was truly surprised by that figure. It is particularly
odd considering that they are, in my experience at least, considerably
more fuel-efficient.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Re: ctc and motorcycles

Ekul Namsob <notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com> wrote:
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> Quoting iarocu <iarocu@hotmail.com>:
>> >As far as motorbikes being polluters so what? All motor vehicles
>> >pollute and I don't think the CTC should be getting involved in any
>> >argument about which class of motor vehicles is better than the other.
>>
>> The CTC seeks (rightly) to promote cycling as an environmentally superior
>> option. To do that, it's necessary to document the alternatives; if the
>> perception that motorcycles pollute less than cars is false, of course it
>> ought to be challenged.

> I must admit, I was truly surprised by that figure. It is particularly
> odd considering that they are, in my experience at least, considerably
> more fuel-efficient.

The figure derives from the existing population of two stroke engines,
which are pretty filthy in combustion terms. They're increasingly
being made illegal, and manufacturers have either stopped making them
or are planning to do so. The figures are an artefact of history and
the fact that pollution legislation for motorcycles has always lagged
behind that for cars.

Speaking as a lifelong motorcyclist and cyclist I think the CTC should
keep their page on motorcycles unedited. It very usefully makes very
clear what passes for thinking and research in that organisation.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Re: ctc and motorcycles

Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
> raisethe wrote on 22/03/2007 22:55 +0100:
>> On 22 Mar, 22:39, Mark Thompson
>> <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:
>>>> Is there any evidence that
>>>> they are 'disproportionately hazardous to...cyclists' safety'?
>>> Yes....
>>>
>>>> The quoted statistics are hard to take at face value.
>>> ... but you disregarded them out of hand.
>>
>> I don't think that is fair because:
>>
>> 1. I won't take those statistics at face value because the ctc has an
>> agenda. Do you have a reference for the data?

> Not without digging but Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 26 has
> motorcycles killing four times as many pedestrians per vehicle km as
> cars and seriously injuring four times as many. That seems in line with
> CTC's figure of 3 times for cyclists.

Of course motorcyclists injure more cyclists and pedestrians than car
drivers. But the average motorcyclist is a young man, well known to be
most dangerous kind of person around, whereas the average car driver
is a middle aged person of indeterminate sex, well known to be much
safer. The average motorcycle mile also contains a lot more urban
miles, with plenty of nearby cyclists and pedestrians, and a lot less
open road miles, which are relatively free of pedestrians and
cyclists, so even if they weren't testosterone-intoxicated young
lunatics they's hit more of them because they spend more of their
road miles in their proximity.

Anyone who compares vehicle dangerousness without factoring out these
large well known differences between drivers and miles of cars and
motorcycles is guilty of being in charge of motor vehicle statistics
without a clue.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]