Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew



On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:24:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Cycles and buses sharing roads are compatable.


Cycles and buses (cars, lorries, whatever) are compatible on normal
single and dual carriageway roads, on which there is typically enough
room at some point to make a safe overtaking manoeuvre. On London's
roads, in which such a road would often be split into bus-car-car-bus
lanes, each of which being quite narrow, they aren't particularly
compatible because the lanes are too narrow for a safe overtaking
manoeuvre to be performed, especially with a vehicle as wide as a bus.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
 
On Feb 3, 12:39 pm, lonelytraveller
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.


Oh for goodness' sake. It's just an easy shorthand name. What about
the bus lanes in other parts of the country that allow motorbikes?
What about the fact that even the London bus lanes allow taxis (as
well as bicycles)? Should they not be called bus lanes?

And anyway, no matter what we call them, the fact is that everyone is
safer when motorbikes are allowed in "bus" lanes. Are you saying that
those who are dying unnecessarily because of motorbike prohibition
should be dying, just because bus lanes are called bus lanes and not
bus/taxi/bicycle/motorbike lanes?

Your argument is the lamest and most ill thought out that I've read
for quite some time. However, bearing in mind the intention behind
them, bus lanes probably should be called anti-powered private
transport (no matter how much danger and congestion results) lanes
instead. How else do you explain TfL's determination to get the
"right" result from the motorcycle study? How else do you explain the
bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses? How else do
you explain TfL's bullying of councils who wish to remove bus lanes
(because that's what the people want, and this is supposed to be a
democracy)? I mean really.
 
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 04:14:26 -0800 (PST), Paul Weaver
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.


Which would be plainly silly. Instead, they should be provided with a
dedicated lane in which to operate their service; this is the most
efficient way to operate them.

>What's a car lane? Why aren't bikes allowed in that?


I didn't say they weren't. For the purposes of my post, "car" meant
all other traffic.

>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


The Dutch approach would be pavement-cycle lane-kerbstone-bus lane-all
other traffic, with the cycle lane usually going around the back of
the bus shelter at stops. This seems to work, but it does require the
Dutch approach to the cycle lane in that it has absolute priority over
all other traffic including when crossing side roads.

However, London roads don't really have enough space for this.

>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.


I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be
the case that they should not be permitted to *stop* in bus lanes,
other than perhaps at marked bus stops. Options might be to provide
"taxi stop" lay-bys or just require them to stop on side-streets
instead of Red Routes, on which *nothing*[1] should be stopping except
for buses at marked bus stops.

[1] No, not even bin lorries or contractors' vehicles, without
applying in advance for a bus lane closure or special traffic order in
which someone could design the temporary road layout to minimise
disruption. Bin collections could be sensibly carried out overnight,
perhaps, rather than in the morning rush.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
 
x-no-archive:Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:24:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cycles and buses sharing roads are compatable.

>
> Cycles and buses (cars, lorries, whatever) are compatible on normal
> single and dual carriageway roads, on which there is typically enough
> room at some point to make a safe overtaking manoeuvre. On London's
> roads, in which such a road would often be split into bus-car-car-bus
> lanes, each of which being quite narrow, they aren't particularly
> compatible because the lanes are too narrow for a safe overtaking
> manoeuvre to be performed, especially with a vehicle as wide as a bus.
>
> Neil
>


You make my point for me Neil. The bus lanes should be removed.

In any case, if there is no room to overtake safely, then no overtaking
should occur. I cannot see any incompatability issue here.
 
On Feb 3, 9:55 am, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> 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>


Thanks for that. At least now you know not to read, or reply to, any
more of my posts.

I made it quite clear that there are plenty of pleasant, well-meaning
cyclists. My dissatisfaction was intended for those who have an
inherently spiteful and intolerant attitude towards other modes of
transport. Are you one of them? It would explain why you didn't like
my post.

I think my arguments were perfectly rational, being based on
experience on the Internet and the roads. Perhaps you should try to
refute one or more of them rather than making hopelessly generalised
complaints. But thereagain I would expect those sort of tactics from
someone who refuses to admit that all regular, remotely competent
drivers speed (or at any rate at least 99.9% of them).

Ta ra. You silly, silly boy.
 
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:57:49 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You make my point for me Neil. The bus lanes should be removed.


Only if there is enough room on the road to run an effective bus
service. In Central London, there usually is not.

>In any case, if there is no room to overtake safely, then no overtaking
>should occur. I cannot see any incompatability issue here.


Depends on your view of incompatible. Putting modes together with no
overtaking just results in everyone moving at the slowest possible
speed. Thus, it makes sense to either segregate, or ensure there is
space for overtaking[1], in order to gain maximum throughput from the
road.

[1] One way systems are a way to provide for this if the roads aren't
wide enough but there are sufficient of them.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
 
On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.


As above, I wasn't trying to be rude to reasonable cyclists, and I
tried to make that clear. I apologise if I didn't. Would you not
agree with me that the militant cyclists who hate all other forms of
private transport (and care about that more than saving lives) are
tarnishing the reputation of you and other reasonable cyclists?
 
x-noarchive:Neil Williams wrote:
> > The bus lanes should be removed.

>
> Only if there is enough room on the road to run an effective bus
> service. In Central London, there usually is not.


Agreed, but this problem can be removed with a congestion charge set at
a level that causes a reduction in demand for road space great enough
for traffic to be allowed to flow.


>
>> In any case, if there is no room to overtake safely, then no overtaking
>> should occur. I cannot see any incompatability issue here.

>
> Depends on your view of incompatible. Putting modes together with no
> overtaking just results in everyone moving at the slowest possible
> speed. Thus, it makes sense to either segregate, or ensure there is
> space for overtaking[1], in order to gain maximum throughput from the
> road.
>


In your example, overtaking space is achieved by removing the bus lane,
and reverting to a single carriageway.



> [1] One way systems are a way to provide for this if the roads aren't
> wide enough but there are sufficient of them.
>


For me, one way systems are an unacceptable restriction on our right of
way, and I would have them removed.
 
On Feb 3, 1:08 am, "OG" <[email protected]> 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' accordingto
> 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!


What do you mean? I put the bit about Spindrift in square brackets,
thereby indicating that it was my addition.

> > 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.


Option 1: TfL genuinely had concerns about the way that the data was
collected, which only came to light after the conclusion of the trial,
and would have stated those concerns whatever the outcome of the trial
had been.

Option 2: TfL didn't want to open up the bus lanes to motorcyclists
for political reasons, and were hoping that the data would give them
an excuse not to. When it didn't, they extended the trial, hoping
that there would be a turnaround. When there wasn't a turnaround,
they went to "plan B", and suddenly decided that the data was invalid.

Given that TfL are quite openly anti-car and anti-motorbike, and given
that they have a vested interest in as many people as possible using
public transport, which option do you think is the more likely?

> What conclusive proof? . . .


I quoted it above, dear fellow. If you don't agree then fine, but
don't pretend not to know what I mean. The militant cyclist trolls
(i.e. not all cyclists) said that they didn't want motorcycles in bus
lanes, even though it would make them (and everyone else) safer. That
to me says that they care more about persecuting motorcyclists than
they do about safety, even their own. This is backed up by the fact
that they have previously expressed support for other motorist-
persecuting measures even though they are dangerous to cyclists, e.g.
speed cameras. I've already explained all this, and I'm not going to
bother again, because I don't think you're sufficiently open-minded,
and I think you may be one of the people who want motorcyclists and
motorists to be given a hard time whatever the cost. If you are, I
think you should ask yourself if it's really worth it. Wouldn't it be
much easier to coexist peacefully with other road users, and campaign
for positive measures which help cyclists (as well as not
automatically objecting to any measures which help motorists)? Why
the hatred? Why the spite? What is the ultimate aim of it all?
 
"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.
>


Why?

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
 
"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:61f6e60b-b2f1-4d65-92f0-e4261471cdf3@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 12:39 pm, lonelytraveller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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.

>
> Oh for goodness' sake. It's just an easy shorthand name. What about
> the bus lanes in other parts of the country that allow motorbikes?
> What about the fact that even the London bus lanes allow taxis (as
> well as bicycles)? Should they not be called bus lanes?
>
> And anyway, no matter what we call them, the fact is that everyone is
> safer when motorbikes are allowed in "bus" lanes.


No that is not a 'fact' because the report has not been issued so it is not
possible to comment on its findings; quite apart from the fact that they are
based just 3 test areas on London A roads, one of which had to be removed
from the test.
 
Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

>
> As above, I wasn't trying to be rude to reasonable cyclists, and I
> tried to make that clear. I apologise if I didn't. Would you not
> agree with me that the militant cyclists who hate all other forms of
> private transport (and care about that more than saving lives) are
> tarnishing the reputation of you and other reasonable cyclists?


Divide and rule, eh?

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.
 
solar penguin wrote:
> 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!


Before bandying words like "scum" around, you should have a good look at
yourself.
 
Jim Harvest wrote:
> 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.


No such thing as an 'individual mind' - it's just a machine.

>
> Did you do philosophy? :)


Possibly, depending on how you look at it.
 
Neil Williams wrote:
>
> That said, the vehicles causing the biggest disruption to bus
> operations are taxis which frequently stop blocking bus lanes.


That seems incredibly unlikely, because taxis do not frequently stop, but
buses do, so taxis very rarely have buses behind them to hold up. The most
likely way for a taxi to get immediately in front of a bus is to have just
overtaken it, in which case the road is probably free-flowing and the bus
will have no difficulty re-overtaking the taxi. The only exception would be
where the taxi was loading or unloading a wheelchair, so next time you are
in a bus held up by a taxi, look for the taxi's boot open and/or wheelchair
ramps deployed. How often does this really happen, and in which road do you
find it to be a regular problem? (not a rhetoric question, because I can
think of no place where it happens).

The biggest obstructions to buses are pedicabs riding, pedicabs parked in
bus lanes, and other buses blocking box junctions.

> 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.


You haven't thought this out at all. Bus lanes almost always briefly stop
before any junction where cars are allowed to turn left. Your plan will
force taxi-hailers, some of whom are disabled taxicard holders, to walk to
these spots where the taxis will be able to pick them up. The tourists (and
indigenous population) will not understand this, so the taxis will end up
waiting at these spots for the punter who hailed them 200 yards back to
walk/hobble/wheel to the taxi. This will cause stopped taxis to become an
impediment to buses and other taxis, which IMO they are not now: it will
also make it harder for cars to turn left into side roads, because the
turning left lane will always be blocked by taxis waiting for asthmatic
tourists to walk to them. So, what a terrible idea!
 
Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> How else do you explain the
> bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?


Where? TIA.
 
On Feb 3, 4:15 pm, "John Rowland"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > That said, the vehicles causing the biggest disruption to bus
> > operations are taxis which frequently stop blocking bus lanes.

>
> That seems incredibly unlikely, because taxis do not frequently stop, but
> buses do, so taxis very rarely have buses behind them to hold up. The most
> likely way for a taxi to get immediately in front of a bus is to have just
> overtaken it, in which case the road is probably free-flowing and the bus
> will have no difficulty re-overtaking the taxi. The only exception would be
> where the taxi was loading or unloading a wheelchair, so next time you are
> in a bus held up by a taxi, look for the taxi's boot open and/or wheelchair
> ramps deployed. How often does this really happen, and in which road do you
> find it to be a regular problem? (not a rhetoric question, because I can
> think of no place where it happens).
>
> The biggest obstructions to buses are pedicabs riding, pedicabs parked in
> bus lanes, and other buses blocking box junctions.
>
> > 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.

>
> You haven't thought this out at all. Bus lanes almost always briefly stop
> before any junction where cars are allowed to turn left. Your plan will
> force taxi-hailers, some of whom are disabled taxicard holders, to walk to
> these spots where the taxis will be able to pick them up. The tourists (and
> indigenous population) will not understand this, so the taxis will end up
> waiting at these spots for the punter who hailed them 200 yards back to
> walk/hobble/wheel to the taxi. This will cause stopped taxis to become an
> impediment to buses and other taxis, which IMO they are not now: it will
> also make it harder for cars to turn left into side roads, because the
> turning left lane will always be blocked by taxis waiting for asthmatic
> tourists to walk to them. So, what a terrible idea!


Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

Yes, people do it anyway, but you seem to be suggesting that the
restrictions around bus lanes should be adapted to accommodate such
behaviour.
 
MIG wrote:
> Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
> illegal in any case


How so? What laws are being contravened and by who?
 
MIG wrote:
>
> Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
> illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.


It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for it being
illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking of minicabs?