Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew

[Adrian]

Nick (Nick <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>>> I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a
>>> responsible manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do
>>> so.

>> Well done for at least admitting it. Although I fear that you still
>> think that motorists can never exceed the speed limit safely or in a
>> responsible manner, which would be a logical continuation of what you
>> say. If I'm wrong about you thinking that then I apologise.

> Its not a logical conclusion at all. The only conclusion is that I do
> not believe laws are absolute or always right.
>
> In actual fact I'm happy for motorists to go over the speed limit on the
> motorway.

But not off the motorway? Ever?

> However when it comes to towns and areas where motorist mix with
> pedestrians and cyclists I do not believe it is ok to exceed the speed
> limit because this does put additional risk on the pedestrian and I
> believe the risk posed to pedestrians should be decreased not increased.
> It is worth remembering that cars do kill and maim a very considerable
> number of pedestrians where as bikes don't.

So all non-motorway roads have pedestrians about at all times? Because if
they don't, it would be an inconsistent application of your otherwise
consistent views.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:Budstaff wrote:

>
> The CTC position (and I'm a member) on motorcycles is a disgrace. Despite
> the special pleading on previous threads here, it is clearly anti motorcycle
> (explicitly stating that motorcycling should be discouraged).
>
>
What was most telling on those threads was that even when the specific
words were quoted from the ctc site, some prominent members of urc, eg
Tony Raven and Simon Brooke, seemed to be incapable of comprehending
that the ctc stance was anti-motorcyclist.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
> "I do not feel sympathy for those who become
> advocates for their own pastime, and screw the rest."
>
> Provide examples of anyone here doing any such thing.
>
>
> Sixth time.
>

Calm down!

Thats the first time you've replied to me.

I can refer specifically to the anti-motorcyclist lobby among certain
members of urc and yourself on this thread.

 

[calum]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So if he hadn't stopped anyone using the ASL, would you have objected to
him using it?<


His use of the ASL renders the area that he occupies unavailable to a
legitimate user, so yes.

Calum

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 14:35, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1ccf399a-a975-4414-8308-1ed5d58f78cc@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5 Feb, 12:30, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> spindrift (spindrift <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
>>>> much like they were saying:
>>>>>>> It's becoming clear that they can't.
>>>>>> Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>> I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
>>>>> danger.
>>>> No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like it" -
>>>> and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
>>>> were valid.
>>>> Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how about
>>>> posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces which
>>>> I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.
>>> "you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
>>> were valid. "
>>> I did nothing of the kind, stop posting silly lies.
>>> PTWs are more likely to be involved in accidents with cyclists.
>>> Increasing the mix makes no sense and addds to the danger. Try the
>>> cycle lane on Bishopsgate to see how the mix is so incredibly
>>> dangerous.
>> I find it interesting that you'll spend half your day bickering with people
>> on an 'Oh yes you are'/'Oh no I'm not' basis, but haven't managed to find
>> the time to address my clear response to your challenge to demonstrate your
>> anti-motorcycle views. So as you'r not averse to a bit of cut-and -paste
>> repetition yourself, here it is again:
>>
>> <quotes self>To refer you to your own post in which you cited three url's
>> (I'm assuming
>> you were citing material you agree with):
>>
>> The cambridge site is reporting campaign against the 'threat' that
>> motorcycle might be allowed to use bus lanes in Cambridge, despite their
>> being no such intention on the part of the council, and is doing this in
>> oppostion to a motorcyclists group. The only evidence that it offers is
>> 'unpleasantness' in Bristol.
>>
>> The CTC does not believe that the use of motorcycles can be justified.
>>
>> The croydon site discounts the data syuggesting that PTW use of bus lanes
>> may improve safety as being insufficient, and instead uses the irrelevant
>> safety statistics applicable to the roads as a whole. If the these
>> statistics were applicable then there would be no safety benefit to cycles
>> using the lanes. <quote ends>
>>
>> I'd also be interested to know just how 'incredibly dangerous' Bishopsgate
>> is. Are you aware of any casualties caused to cyclists by PTW's, where the
>> cyclist was blameless? And did any of these occur as a direct result of the
>> PTW being permitted to use a bus lane.
>>
>> As a cyclist who also owns a motorcycle, I'm not much enamoured of zealots
>> who would block safety improvements on the basis of personal prejudice,
>> which is all you've demonstrated so far on the specific issue of PTW's in
>> bus lanes.
>>
>> I'll ask once more, behind all the invective, where is the data?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The data, posted above, is that PTWs are 1.5 times more likely to be
> involved in accidents with cyclists. My own experiences reinforce this
> view.

I have not snipped any of the above. Where is the data posted above to
show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc. Your argument is as
substantial as wind blown sea spray.

 

[spindrift]

"Where is the data posted above to
show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc."

Please don't barge into threads you haven't read.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
> "Where is the data posted above to
> show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc."
>
> Please don't barge into threads you haven't read.

I read the message three times, every word 'above' your comment. I read
it upside down and standing on my head. I still didn't see any data.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> Hang on, you've been claiming for 180 posts that I'm anti-motorist! I
> asked for evidence, you provided none, you claimed I never **** off
> cyclists and I show you I did! Just a bit of exposition there, think
> you may have missed it...
>
> The bridge cycle lane's daft cos it's segregation, yes of course I
> support fines for driver who "stray" or "wander" or "drift" into a
> place they shouldn't be because cemeteries are full of people hit by
> straying, drifting and wandering cars.

Not those elusive multiple cemeteries of yours again?

I'm sure that this time, since you are so bullish about it, you'll be
able to name just one of them (perhaps give us the grid reference of a
Google Maps URL). Make sure it's *full* of people hit by straying,
drifting and wandering cars, though. A few names and Coroners' reports
wouldn't go amiss, either.

 

[John Rowland]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, "John Rowland"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>
>>> How else do you explain the
>>> bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?
>>
>> Where? TIA.
>
> Kew Bridge for one.

There are buses on Kew Bridge, the 65 for a start.

 

[Budstaff]

"Jim Harvest" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
>> "Where is the data posted above to
>> show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc."
>>
>> Please don't barge into threads you haven't read.
>
> I read the message three times, every word 'above' your comment. I read it
> upside down and standing on my head. I still didn't see any data.

I think, for fairness' sake, he meant 'above in the thread'. And as I
accepted the data but not its relevance, I must admit that I too can't quite
fathom your need to get involved.

 

[Richard J.]

John Rowland wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, "John Rowland"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>>
>>>> How else do you explain the
>>>> bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?
>>>
>>> Where? TIA.
>>
>> Kew Bridge for one.
>
> There are buses on Kew Bridge, the 65 for a start.

And the 391. The bus lane on the bridge was removed because it slowed
down the buses (not on the bridge itself, but in the jams on Kew Road
before reaching the bus lane).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

 

[John Rowland]

Paul Weaver wrote:
>>
>> I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be
>
> I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
> transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

I think it's because MPs use taxis.

 

[JNugent]

John Rowland wrote:

> Paul Weaver wrote:

>>> I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be
>> I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
>> transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

> I think it's because MPs use taxis.

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public transport
lane". All there in in most places is part of the public road the use of
which is forbidden to those who have paid for it umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:
>
> With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
> Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
> early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public transport
> lane". All there in in most places is part of the public road the use of
> which is forbidden to those who have paid for it umpteen times over.
>
> The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
> places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
> alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.
>

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis) will be paying for the
privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a reduced tax bill.

Too easy.

 

[JNugent]

Jim Harvest wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
>> Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
>> early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public
>> transport lane". All there in in most places is part of the public
>> road the use of which is forbidden to those who have paid for it
>> umpteen times over.

>> The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
>> places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
>> alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.

> Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
> traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
> traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
> these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

> will be paying for the
> privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a reduced tax bill.
> Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:
>
>> Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
>> traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
>> traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
>> these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)
>
> Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
passengers, or the rest?


>
>> will be paying for the privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a
>> reduced tax bill.
>> Too easy.
>
> You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
> customers, do you?

You have just said on another thread that you try to post> in an urbane
and non-confrontational manner.

Care to rephrase?

 

[JNugent]

Jim Harvest wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>>> Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
>>> traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
>>> traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
>>> these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

>> Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

> Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
> passengers, or the rest?

Is there any distinction between the first three as far as you are
concerned? Context strongly suggests not.

>>> will be paying for the privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a
>>> reduced tax bill.
>>> Too easy.

>> You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
>> customers, do you?

> You have just said on another thread that you try to post> in an urbane
> and non-confrontational manner.
> Care to rephrase?

I was being factual - and asking a question, which you can answer either
in the affirmative or the negative.

Do you have any knowledge of the economics of the taxi-trade, or are you
working on the erroneous thesis that only the rich ride in taxis
(whereas, outside London, the rich rarely ride in taxis, and even in
London, they comprise only a tiny proportion of the riders)?

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>> Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?
>
>> Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
>> passengers, or the rest?
>
> Is there any distinction between the first three as far as you are
> concerned? Context strongly suggests not.
>

I was providing some examples of those who may wish to continue using
motor cars in an area with a high congestion charge.

I still don't understand your reference to Queen MA though.





>
> Do you have any knowledge of the economics of the taxi-trade, or are you
> working on the erroneous thesis that only the rich ride in taxis
> (whereas, outside London, the rich rarely ride in taxis, and even in
> London, they comprise only a tiny proportion of the riders)?

Thats better.

I see what you mean now.

I have a little knowledge of the trade, and it wasn't in my mind that
rich people are the main users of taxis.

By 'keen', I meant to cover in a concise way those who were not
necessarily rich, but who would nevertheless choose to use a car despite
a high congestion charge, because to them it was still worthwhile to use
a car, despite the extra cost.