Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew



N

Nuxx Bar

Guest
The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:

http://tinyurl.com/36kls5

Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as
are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage
to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).

"A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other
road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half
the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing
negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
Spindrift, who isn't really a cyclist at all] returned their forms,
which is statistically insignificant compared with total cycle usage
in London). So although the move would clearly prevent many injuries
and save lives, it might be greeted with disapproval from a
significant number of voters who harbour a prejudice against
motorcycles."

So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist
fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more about their bizarre,
perverse, ideological, absurd crusade against powered private
transport than they do about even their own safety. They don't mind
if they're being put in unnecessary danger by a policy as long as the
sinners, aka motorists and motorcyclists, are being given a hard time
by that same policy. They would vote for such a policy
unhesitatingly, each and every time. It just goes to show how utterly
warped, spiteful, prejudiced, interfering, illogical and unrelentingly
negative the cycling trolls really are. Absolutely staggering. Yet
no-one who is familiar with the transport debate will be the slightest
bit surprised. It is by no means the first time that the extremists
have placed the persecution of motorists and motorcyclists far above
their own safety. Their continued, obstinate and ridiculous support
of speed cameras, which beyond doubt put all road users in danger and
cost many lives, is just one other example of their unbelievably
screwed up priorities. It's cutting one's nose off to spite one's
face on an unprecedented scale.

Quite what it is about cycling which attracts such twisted viewpoints
is a mystery to me. Of course, there are also plenty of pleasant
cyclists who genuinely want to see all road users coexisting
peacefully, and they must be outraged that the extremist trolls
continue to tarnish the image of their mode of transport with their
misguided hatred of motorists, as well as their red light jumping,
hypocrisy and non-stop obnoxiousness. Why can't the trolls accept
that not everyone wants to cycle wherever they go? Why is the idea of
sharing the roads with cars and motorcycles so fundamentally difficult
for them to accept? Why can't they be positive, campaigning for
things which will help them rather than hinder others, like car
drivers, motorcyclists and sensible cyclists are doing? Why the
constant militancy, belligerence and unpleasantness? What is the
point? Will they not rest until every last car driver and
motorcyclist is persecuted off the face of the planet? Are they that
utterly intolerant of differing creeds and beliefs in other areas of
their lives as well? Why do most of them lie and pretend not to be
anti-motorist? Is it because they know they don't have a leg to stand
on? (Saying "I drive myself", assuming it's even true, doesn't mean
that they're not anti-motorist, it just means that they're hypocrites,
and that they think they're somehow more entitled to drive than
others.)

Most importantly, how do they sleep at night, knowing that they are
advocating measures which have been shown to be costing lives? How do
they manage to twist things round and justify that to themselves? Or
are they such monsters that they don't even feel the need to try? How
many tens of thousands have to die before they decide that it's not
worth it after all? Is there any number of deaths that will tip the
scales? Do these people have so much as a shred of compassion or
common decency? What on earth happened that caused them to put their
discrimination against powered private transport above saving even one
life, let alone the eye-watering numbers that die every year on our
roads? How dare they? How DARE they?

Let's all share the roads peacefully, happily and considerately.
Tolerance in transport. A new era of understanding and positivity.
An end to trolling cyclists once and for all. Those who feel an
overwhelming need to be obnoxious and intolerant should take up a new
cause which doesn't involve people dying in their thousands, or better
still, see their doctors. It's high time that the lying stopped.
It's high time for proper policies that are not dictated by spiteful,
deranged, hateful extremists. You know it makes sense. You know it
needs to happen. And you know it will happen, sooner or later, one
way or the other. So let's make it happen now.
 
Personally, I wouldn't mind if motorcyclists were allowed to use bus lanes.
Motorcyclists rarely cause me any bother, and I'd rather more people used
motorbikes rather than cars.

But I don't believe any *sensible* motorcyclist need be at more risk if they
do not use bus lanes.

Hard luck. It's not my fault, so don't be rude to me please (by posting
offensive messages aimed at *all* cyclists). No one surveyed me.

~PB
 
"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36kls5


Telegraph alert - the home of dodgy reporting. I recall a story about a
religious order 'forced' to spend £400K on 'disabled access' according to
the journalist; but if you read what was said by the nuns interviewed, there
was no question of being 'forced' to spend that sort of money. The quotes
actually refuted the journalist's spin.

Similarly, the 'environmentism correspondent' who put a wind generator on
his house in a totally unsuitable south London suburb to 'prove' that they
are worthless.

> Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as
> are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage
> to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).
>
> "A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other
> road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half
> the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing
> negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
> Spindrift, who isn't really a cyclist at all] returned their forms,
> which is statistically insignificant compared with total cycle usage
> in London). So although the move would clearly prevent many injuries
> and save lives, it might be greeted with disapproval from a
> significant number of voters who harbour a prejudice against
> motorcycles."


You have no compunction about misquoting the article then!

> So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist
> fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more about their bizarre,
> perverse, ideological, absurd crusade against powered private
> transport than they do about even their own safety.


I note that you don't mention TfL's concerns about the methodology and
irregularities about the way that data was collected.

What conclusive proof? . . .
 
OG wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/36kls5

>
>
> Telegraph alert - the home of dodgy reporting. I recall a story about a
> religious order 'forced' to spend £400K on 'disabled access' according to
> the journalist; but if you read what was said by the nuns interviewed, there
> was no question of being 'forced' to spend that sort of money. The quotes
> actually refuted the journalist's spin.
>
> Similarly, the 'environmentism correspondent' who put a wind generator on
> his house in a totally unsuitable south London suburb to 'prove' that they
> are worthless.
>
>
>>Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as
>>are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage
>>to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).
>>
>>"A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other
>>road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half
>>the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing
>>negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
>>Spindrift, who isn't really a cyclist at all] returned their forms,
>>which is statistically insignificant compared with total cycle usage
>>in London). So although the move would clearly prevent many injuries
>>and save lives, it might be greeted with disapproval from a
>>significant number of voters who harbour a prejudice against
>>motorcycles."

>
>
> You have no compunction about misquoting the article then!
>
>
>>So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist
>>fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more about their bizarre,
>>perverse, ideological, absurd crusade against powered private
>>transport than they do about even their own safety.

>
>
> I note that you don't mention TfL's concerns about the methodology and
> irregularities about the way that data was collected.
>
> What conclusive proof? . . .


What's an "unsuitable ... suburb"?
 
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:26:43 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/36kls5
>
>Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as
>are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage
>to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).


Perhaps it should be called TaL - Transport Against London.
 
Terry F. <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:26:43 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/36kls5
>>
>> Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again),
>> as are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much
>> damage to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).

>
> Perhaps it should be called TaL - Transport Against London.


Speaking as a pedestrian who's never ridden a bike in my life, I think
TfL have made the right decision. I'm glad motorbikes aren't being
allowed in bus lanes. I just wish ordinary bikes weren't allowed in
them either.
 
Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist
> fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more about their bizarre,
> perverse, ideological, absurd crusade against powered private
> transport than they do about even their own safety. They don't mind
> if they're being put in unnecessary danger by a policy as long as the
> sinners, aka motorists and motorcyclists, are being given a hard time
> by that same policy. They would vote for such a policy
> unhesitatingly, each and every time. It just goes to show how utterly
> warped, spiteful, prejudiced, interfering, illogical and unrelentingly
> negative the cycling trolls really are. Absolutely staggering.


You're only half right. What about us pedestrains? Cyclists _are_ scum
who should be made to suffer, but so are _all_ motorists. Why should I
have to suffer but not them?

I was born with serious damage to to hand-eye coordination centres of my
brain. My coordination will _never_ be good enough to let me ride a
bike or drive a car. I'm _forced_ to rely on shitty public transport
whenever I want to go anywhere. But those lucky bastards are free to
ride or drive anywhere they like, whenever they like!

Personally, I'd love to see all forms of private transport banned, and
force them to suffer the way I do!
 
"solar penguin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Terry F. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:26:43 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/36kls5
>>>
>>> Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again),
>>> as are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much
>>> damage to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).

>>
>> Perhaps it should be called TaL - Transport Against London.

>
> Speaking as a pedestrian who's never ridden a bike in my life, I think TfL
> have made the right decision. I'm glad motorbikes aren't being allowed in
> bus lanes. I just wish ordinary bikes weren't allowed in them either.

Sop now you've made your _feelings_ clear, and identified the narrow range
of experience on which they're based, any chance of enlightening us as to
_why_ you are thusly prejudiced?
 
Budstaff <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sop now you've made your _feelings_ clear, and identified the narrow
> range of experience on which they're based, any chance of
> enlightening us as to _why_ you are thusly prejudiced?


See my other post.
 
"solar penguin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Budstaff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sop now you've made your _feelings_ clear, and identified the narrow
>> range of experience on which they're based, any chance of
>> enlightening us as to _why_ you are thusly prejudiced?

>
> See my other post.
>
>

All is clear now

PLONK (in a caring way, you understand)
 
Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:



> So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist
> fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks


And there we have it. Conclusive proof that you are trolling. If you
would like to come back when you've calmed down enough to use rational
arguments rather than abuse, then perhaps you will get some more
meaningful responses.

Ta ra,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Just Visiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What colour's the sky in your world?
>>

>
> The sky has no colour, it's just refracted light.
> Did you do science?


<peers out window> Ok, it's refracted blue. Happy?
 
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:58:20 -0000, "solar penguin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Speaking as a pedestrian who's never ridden a bike in my life, I think
>TfL have made the right decision. I'm glad motorbikes aren't being
>allowed in bus lanes. I just wish ordinary bikes weren't allowed in
>them either.


I don't personally think cycles (small, lightweight, able to maintain
a constant but relatively slow speed) and buses (large, heavy, can
maintain a higher speed but need to stop frequently) are even slightly
compatible in traffic terms. The trouble is, where do you put the
bikes in London, where there isn't room enough for a wide cycle lane,
then the bus lane, then the car etc lane? I suspect the only real
option is to allow cycles in the bus lane as is the case.

That said, the vehicles causing the biggest disruption to bus
operations are taxis which frequently stop blocking bus lanes. I
believe this is permitted, but I strongly believe it should not be
permitted for any vehicle other than a bus to stop in a bus lane for
any reason other than mechanical breakdown, at any time.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
 
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:08:15 -0000, "solar penguin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Personally, I'd love to see all forms of private transport banned, and
>force them to suffer the way I do!


While I imagine your situation is not a fun one to be in, it is not
sensible to restrict everyone because of one person's disability,
rather just to accommodate that person in society as best as possible
(such as by the existence of public transport, in your case).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
 
x-no-archive:Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Just Visiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What colour's the sky in your world?
>>

>
> The sky has no colour, it's just refracted light.
> Did you do science?
>
>
>
>

No matter has colour as an intrinsic property. Colour is a perception of
the individual mind viewing the subject matter.

Did you do philosophy? :)
 
Neil Williams wrote:
>
>
> I don't personally think cycles (small, lightweight, able to maintain
> a constant but relatively slow speed) and buses (large, heavy, can
> maintain a higher speed but need to stop frequently) are even slightly
> compatible in traffic terms.


Cycles and buses sharing roads are compatable. Cycles are also
compatable with cars, vans and lorries. The mistake of bus lanes is to
segregate traffic, without dealing with the problem (congestion) which
has caused them to be required in the first place.
 
On Feb 3, 10:26 am, [email protected] (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:58:20 -0000, "solar penguin"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Speaking as a pedestrian who's never ridden a bike in my life, I think
> >TfL have made the right decision. I'm glad motorbikes aren't being
> >allowed in bus lanes. I just wish ordinary bikes weren't allowed in
> >them either.

>
> I don't personally think cycles (small, lightweight, able to maintain
> a constant but relatively slow speed) and buses (large, heavy, can
> maintain a higher speed but need to stop frequently) are even slightly
> compatible in traffic terms.


Indeed, and you get the insane racing tha tbus drivers attempt to do,
straining their engines to overtake a bike going at 20mph, then
pulling in 200 yards later.

It's rare for a bus to be faster than a cycle, even ignoring traffic
congestion, when they stop every 200 yards. Buses should be banned
from overtaking all vehicles.

> The trouble is, where do you put the
> bikes in London, where there isn't room enough for a wide cycle lane,
> then the bus lane, then the car etc lane?


What's a car lane? Why aren't bikes allowed in that? I know that bus
drivers on the 94 think that cycles should be riding on the pavement,
I know that taxis and vans think that cycles are invisible, but I
rarely see any incidents between normal private cars and cycles. The
average car in London are the best behaved vehicles by a long shot.

When there are cycle lanes, they are to the left of where buses go --
leading the the dangerous bad-for-environment stop/start procedures
that buses undergo. They're also pointless, dangerous, and 90% or more
of them (at least in Hammersmith, Kensington and Westminster) are only
"advisory" anyway.

If you wanted to segregate traffic, keeping the lowest speeds to the
left, in central london, you'd need

Pavement
Bus lane
Bollards to prevent buses causing congestion to normal road users
Rich people lane (taxis)
normal traffic lane
bollards
cycle lane
motorcycle lane
central reservation

> I suspect the only real
> option is to allow cycles in the bus lane as is the case.
>
> That said, the vehicles causing the biggest disruption to bus
> operations are taxis which frequently stop blocking bus lanes. I
> believe this is permitted, but I strongly believe it should not be
> permitted for any vehicle other than a bus to stop in a bus lane for
> any reason other than mechanical breakdown, at any time.


I think taxi's shouldn't be allowed in bus lanes anyway. They are used
for private transport, same as cars, but they're more expensive per
mile than a car, and therefore are used by the rich hoi-poloi.
 
> Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as
> are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage
> to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's).
>
> "A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other
> road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half
> the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing
> negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
>
> So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist
> fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more...

What part of "bus lane" don't you get? Its a lane for buses, not
motorcycles.