Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1902588f-168f-4a6c-97fe-ee0f0103fe8f@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Feb, 10:41, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jim Harvest wrote:
>> > I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
>> > but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
>> > the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.
>>
>> I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti
>> anything
>> that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which
>> actually
>> makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.
>
> I know what you think, thanks.
>
> You've claimed repeatedly that I'm "anti-motorist".
>
> I'm asking, for the fourth time, if you can provide a shred of
> evidence for this.
>
> Where have I ever said anything about cycling at "breakneck speed"?
>
> Is this some kind of weird creepy internet stalking thing?
>
> Argue with what I've said by all means, but stop posting mad made-up
> bum gravy.
>
> In my direct, personal experience, shared with the cycling groups
> linked to above, PTW's in bus lanes make it more dangerous.
>
The links above do _not_ support the contention that they make them more
dangerous, merely that they make them 'unpleasant'. What is your personal
experience of them being dangerous?

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).

 

[spindrift]

Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London)
shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm



A Government survey of 30 mph areas found that 52% of powered two-
wheelers were breaking the speed limit and 34% were doing over 35 mph.
These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.

Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
unpleasant for cyclists. This would undermine both national and local
policy which is to encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and
non-hazardous form of transport. It would also send out a strong
message that the convenience of private motor vehicles is being placed
before the convenience and safety of cyclists


DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice
as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as
dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as
much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet
DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-
sided.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote:
> Jim Harvest wrote:
>
>> I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
>> but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
>> the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.
>
> I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti anything
> that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which actually
> makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.
>
>

I know what you mean. I do not feel sympathy for those who become
advocates for their own pastime, and screw the rest. In many cases, not
being able to see another persons POV is due to a lack of intelligence
or experience.

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London)
> shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm
>
>
>
> A Government survey of 30 mph areas found that 52% of powered two-
> wheelers were breaking the speed limit and 34% were doing over 35 mph.
> These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.
>
> Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
> unpleasant for cyclists. This would undermine both national and local
> policy which is to encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and
> non-hazardous form of transport. It would also send out a strong
> message that the convenience of private motor vehicles is being placed
> before the convenience and safety of cyclists
>
>
> DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice
> as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as
> dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as
> much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet
> DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-
> sided.
>
>
The data you cite is indeed compelling, but it does not address the issue
which started this thread, which is that, despite the antipathy that
cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists, allowing them to share bus
lanes appears to make the roads in question safer for both the PTW's and the
cyclists. If that does prove to be the case, then will you withdraw your
opposition? Or do you have _evidence_ to the contrary?

 

[spindrift]

"despite the antipathy that
cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"

And your evidence for this is?

Fifth time.

 

[Adrian]

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

> Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London)
> shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm

Umm, has it crossed your mind that the 40% of "untaxed" motorbikes may
well not actually be on the road?

> These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.

No, they're restricted by design to 30mph. Derestricting a typical
twist'n'go 50cc is a matter of minutes, and 40mph is then possible, with
more available via a few simple modifications.

> Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
> unpleasant for cyclists.

Yes, and?

> This would undermine both national and local policy which is to
> encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and non-hazardous form of
> transport

You need to accept that cycling is not viable for all journeys, and that
motorcycling is also less congesting - and therefore less polluting -
than car use. Yet you seem to be trying to discourage that.

You're in imminent danger of turning a potential valid safety message
into a selfish "But I don't like it!" message.

 

[spindrift]

"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.

 

[Adrian]

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

> "despite the antipathy that
> cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"
>
> And your evidence for this is?

Read your own posts. It's clear.

Oh, and learn to quote.

 

[Nick]

spindrift wrote:
> Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
> fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.
>
That just isn't true.

Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
cyclists numbers.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 11:18, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift (spindrift <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
> > Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London)
> > shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm
>
> Umm, has it crossed your mind that the 40% of "untaxed" motorbikes may
> well not actually be on the road?
>
> > These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.
>
> No, they're restricted by design to 30mph. Derestricting a typical
> twist'n'go 50cc is a matter of minutes, and 40mph is then possible, with
> more available via a few simple modifications.
>
> > Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
> > unpleasant for cyclists.
>
> Yes, and?
>
> > This would undermine both national and local policy which is to
> > encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and non-hazardous form of
> > transport
>
> You need to accept that cycling is not viable for all journeys, and that
> motorcycling is also less congesting - and therefore less polluting -
> than car use. Yet you seem to be trying to discourage that.
>
> You're in imminent danger of turning a potential valid safety message
> into a selfish "But I don't like it!" message.

Suggesting that according to the evidence PTWs in bus lanes is
dangerous for road users is no more "anti motorist" than saying
drivers shouldn't try to cross flooded roads.

One of the reasons we are so worried is because of what happened in
Bristol, where motorbikes have been allowed to use many bus lanes for
several years. This started initially as an experimental scheme. There
were - amazingly - no proper 'before' and 'after' studies, but a
subsequent survey of cyclists found that 31% of cyclists had
experienced problems with motorbikes in these bus lanes, leading
Bristol City Council to conclude 'it appears that the experiment had a
measurable effect on cyclists.' Nevertheless the scheme was made
permanent, firstly because the local council said it could not afford
to remove it. Secondly, the Chief Constable said that after allowing
motorbikes into bus lanes it would be too difficult to enforce banning
them again.

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:432bfbb2-b531-4376-b8b3-81c65a5bf584@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> "despite the antipathy that
> cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"
>
> And your evidence for this is?
>
> Fifth time.
>
Actually the first time you've asked me

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.

 

[MIG]

>
> > So how come safely responding to a street hail is specifically tested in the
> > taxi driving test?
>
> Because I was failing to distinguish between where they can ply their
> trade and where they can passively allow themselves to be hailed.
>
> No doubt their is some exemption that covers stopping at traffic
> lights with their light on.

All of which pales into insignificance compared with that typo, for
which I am prepared to submit myself for the dealth penalty.

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9125b5e0-d82b-4b8f-aa55-30756e2c001a@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Feb, 11:18, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift (spindrift <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying:
>>
>> > Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London)
>> > shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.
>>
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm
>>
>> Umm, has it crossed your mind that the 40% of "untaxed" motorbikes may
>> well not actually be on the road?
>>
>> > These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.
>>
>> No, they're restricted by design to 30mph. Derestricting a typical
>> twist'n'go 50cc is a matter of minutes, and 40mph is then possible, with
>> more available via a few simple modifications.
>>
>> > Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
>> > unpleasant for cyclists.
>>
>> Yes, and?
>>
>> > This would undermine both national and local policy which is to
>> > encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and non-hazardous form of
>> > transport
>>
>> You need to accept that cycling is not viable for all journeys, and that
>> motorcycling is also less congesting - and therefore less polluting -
>> than car use. Yet you seem to be trying to discourage that.
>>
>> You're in imminent danger of turning a potential valid safety message
>> into a selfish "But I don't like it!" message.
>
> Suggesting that according to the evidence PTWs in bus lanes is
> dangerous for road users is no more "anti motorist" than saying
> drivers shouldn't try to cross flooded roads.
>
> One of the reasons we are so worried is because of what happened in
> Bristol, where motorbikes have been allowed to use many bus lanes for
> several years. This started initially as an experimental scheme. There
> were - amazingly - no proper 'before' and 'after' studies, but a
> subsequent survey of cyclists found that 31% of cyclists had
> experienced problems with motorbikes in these bus lanes, leading
> Bristol City Council to conclude 'it appears that the experiment had a
> measurable effect on cyclists.' Nevertheless the scheme was made
> permanent, firstly because the local council said it could not afford
> to remove it. Secondly, the Chief Constable said that after allowing
> motorbikes into bus lanes it would be too difficult to enforce banning
> them again.

Repeated posting of flawed logic. 31% of responding cyclists claiming
'problems' do _not_ a safety case make. Where are the data?
>

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
> > fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.
>
> That just isn't true.
>
> Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
> per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
> London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
> cyclists numbers.

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205

More cycling is making UK roads safer
Oct 20th
CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
cycle on UK roads.
Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
more than 34
per cent over the same period.

Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:

"The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/More-cycling-is-making-UK-roads-safer

The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
roads are for cyclists.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/4188.aspx

CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!

Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase
in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers
who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more
cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are
more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and
pedestrians.

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx


After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be
for all road users, not just for cyclists - hence the conference
title:

"Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer
Cycling = More Cycling ....."

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802

Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many
people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more
cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers
get used to them."

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/features/article1088929.ece

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 11:20, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift (spindrift <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
> > "despite the antipathy that
> > cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"
>
> > And your evidence for this is?
>
> Read your own posts. It's clear.
>
> Oh, and learn to quote.

You should have no trouble finding examples then?

 

[Adrian]

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.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 12:13, 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. If this strikes you as being "anti-motorist" then I take it
warning signs telling drivers to avoid flooded roads is also "anti-
motorist"? Speed limit signs? restrictions on vehicles allowed on
motorways?

The reality is that since you can't counter my view with logic, you
instead make up a view I don't hold, then attack that.

Exactly the kind of response I'd expect from a man who punches ginger
colour-blind orphans (remember how false accusations are annoying...?)

 

[Adrian]

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.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 12:27, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> spindrift wrote:
> >> > Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
> >> > fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.
>
> >> That just isn't true.
>
> >> Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
> >> per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
> >> London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
> >> cyclists numbers.
>
> > Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
> > bicycling
> > P L Jacobsen
>
> > Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
> > and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
> > the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
> > route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
>
> >http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205
>
> You and apparently the author of this report are not being careful with your
> language. The above statement is at best ambiguous and at worst deliberately
> misleading.
>
> If you wish to use statistics to help you arive at valid conclusions you
> need to be very precise linguistically. You should take the time to
> understand the statistics clearly before you post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Which part of Jacobsen's research do you disagree with and why?


So many vague accusations on this thread.....

 

[Nick]

spindrift wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 12:27, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
>>>>> fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.
>>>> That just isn't true.
>>>> Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
>>>> per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
>>>> London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
>>>> cyclists numbers.
>>> Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
>>> bicycling
>>> P L Jacobsen
>>> Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
>>> and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
>>> the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
>>> route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
>>> http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205
>> You and apparently the author of this report are not being careful with your
>> language. The above statement is at best ambiguous and at worst deliberately
>> misleading.
>>
>> If you wish to use statistics to help you arive at valid conclusions you
>> need to be very precise linguistically. You should take the time to
>> understand the statistics clearly before you post.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Which part of Jacobsen's research do you disagree with and why?
>
>
> So many vague accusations on this thread.....
>

The statement

"A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
bicycling if more people walk or bicycle."

The statement is clearly ambiguous. If no people walk, clearly a
motorist has no chance of colliding with a walker.

A lion is less likely to eat a specific antelope if there are a herd of
antelope. However at the same time the lion is much more likely to eat
an antelope if it finds a herd rather than an individual. The individual
may be fast enough to escape but one of the herd is likely to be slow.

If you can't distinguish between these cases with your language you are
not understanding the issues or you are attempting to mislead.