Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 14:00, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's also true to say collsions would be unlikely if there were no
motorists.

This is another example of the bum fluffery I mention upthread, you've
taken a truism, backed up with evidence, changed it to a completely
different scenario and then used that as an argument against the
original contention.

Yes, if no people walk then there will be no collisions with walkers,
well done.

In the real world, where people , um, DO walk, the evidence shows that
increased numbers reduces accidents.

It's thought that the mindset of drivers changes since:

1/

they are more used to encountering cyclists and

2/

the drivers cycle themselves


The "them and us" attitude displayed by your probably subconscious
decision to cast motorists as lions and vulnerable road users as
antelopes is telling. In reality cyclists own cars at the rate of 85%-
higher than the general population- and so they are well acquainted
with responsible driving.

 

[spindrift]

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.

 

[Budstaff]

"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?

 

[spindrift]

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.

 

[spindrift]

"I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. "

I am asking for evidence for this.

I've asked seven times now.

If my views were as "anti-motorist" as you claim it strikes me a
strange that you can't actually find any examples....


"Can you name any anti-motorist
or anti-motorcyclist measures (which are not also intended to be
anti-
cyclist) which you oppose? "


I'm asking you what these mythical "anti-motorist" measures are. Once
you do so I'll be happy to give my opinion.

Perhaps you missed my question, what on earth made you think any of
the Telegraph quotes are mine please?

 

[Budstaff]

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

And this piece of data is wholly irrelevant. Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be?

I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist.

 

[spindrift]

I'm like a homophobe because of my antimotorist stance which you,
errrr, don't actually have any evidence for?

Quote

"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. "

And this new reach-out stance involves claiming someone you've never
met isn't a cyclist, is a militant, has blood on his hands and does a
disservice to cyclists all based on evidenc you are unwilling to share
with us?


You seem obsessed, seriously, tell me what it is i wrote that provoked
such and unbalanced attack.


What, exactly, is your problem nuxx bar?

 

[spindrift]

"Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "


Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.

There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
methodology of the study is also in question.

I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
bullying cyclists in these.

I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
bus lane thanks.

"I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "

I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.


Still waiting.

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Apparently there is evidence to
> suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> bus
> lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
>
> Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
> methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
> cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> bullying cyclists in these.
>
> I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
> speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
> bus lane thanks.
>
> "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
> issue
> with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
> now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
>
You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I gave from
this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite what,
you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.

Take your pick.

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Apparently there is evidence to
> suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> bus
> lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
>
> Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
> methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
> cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> bullying cyclists in these.
>
> I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
> speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
> bus lane thanks.
>
> "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
> issue
> with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
> now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
>
> Still waiting.
>

"I have a general problem with motorbikes/ I'm not anti-motor cyclist."

ROTFL

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Apparently there is evidence to
> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> > bus
> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> > bullying cyclists in these.
>
> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
> > bus lane thanks.
>
> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
> > issue
> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I gave from
> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite what,
> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.
>
> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.

Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.

Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 15:03, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Apparently there is evidence to
> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> > bus
> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> > bullying cyclists in these.
>
> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
> > bus lane thanks.
>
> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
> > issue
> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
> > Still waiting.
>
> "I have a general problem with motorbikes/ I'm not anti-motor cyclist."
>
> ROTFL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have a general problem with snails in the garden. I'm not anti snail
-

 

[spindrift]

"I have absolutely no idea who that reply is to"

Read the thread.

Nuxx, you're still here, got that evidence yet?

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Apparently there is evidence to
>> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
>> > bus
>> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>>
>> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>>
>> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
>> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
>> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
>> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>>
>> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
>> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
>> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
>> > bullying cyclists in these.
>>
>> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
>> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
>> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
>> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
>> > bus lane thanks.
>>
>> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
>> > issue
>> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>>
>> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
>> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>>
>> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I gave
>> from
>> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite
>> what,
>> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.
>>
>> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
> cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.
>
> Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.
>
> Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
> policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
> how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
> more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
> the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.

I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident rates
for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of bus-lane
sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you
anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the
feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of
secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'.

Really not much point in discussing the matter further.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 15:14, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > "Apparently there is evidence to
> >> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> >> > bus
> >> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
> >> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> >> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> >> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> >> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
> >> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> >> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
> >> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> >> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> >> > bullying cyclists in these.
>
> >> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
> >> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> >> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> >> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
> >> > bus lane thanks.
>
> >> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
> >> > issue
> >> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> >> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
> >> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
> >> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I gave
> >> from
> >> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite
> >> what,
> >> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.
>
> >> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
> > cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.
>
> > Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.
>
> > Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
> > policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
> > how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
> > more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
> > the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.
>
> I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident rates
> for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of bus-lane
> sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you
> anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the
> feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of
> secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'.
>
> Really not much point in discussing the matter further.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Accidents are more frequent between PTWs and cyclists. In a discussion
relating to allowing PTWs where cyclists cycle I would have thought
mentioning this fact was pertinent. Crucial, even.

If you have evidence that bus lanes are safer for cyclists please post
it, I rely on the evidence that it's more dangerous for cyclists and
discourages cycling.

What next? Many ASLs have feeder lanes from bus lanes, will PTWs start
abusing ASLs more than they already do?

 

[Adrian]

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

> "I have absolutely no idea who that reply is to"
>
> Read the thread.

Oh, ffs... GoogleGroups luser, are you? You seem unable to comprehend how
a proper news client works.

 

[Budstaff]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a476e955-f791-4496-a1e7-c04664d9b6aa@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Feb, 15:14, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> > "Apparently there is evidence to
>> >> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
>> >> > bus
>> >> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>>
>> >> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>>
>> >> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
>> >> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
>> >> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently
>> >> > the
>> >> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>>
>> >> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze
>> >> > into
>> >> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
>> >> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
>> >> > bullying cyclists in these.
>>
>> >> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break
>> >> > the
>> >> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
>> >> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
>> >> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in
>> >> > a
>> >> > bus lane thanks.
>>
>> >> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer
>> >> > take
>> >> > issue
>> >> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>>
>> >> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine
>> >> > times
>> >> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>>
>> >> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I
>> >> gave
>> >> from
>> >> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite
>> >> what,
>> >> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.
>>
>> >> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
>> > cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.
>>
>> > Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.
>>
>> > Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
>> > policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
>> > how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
>> > more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
>> > the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.
>>
>> I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident
>> rates
>> for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of
>> bus-lane
>> sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you
>> anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the
>> feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of
>> secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'.
>>
>> Really not much point in discussing the matter further.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Accidents are more frequent between PTWs and cyclists. In a discussion
> relating to allowing PTWs where cyclists cycle I would have thought
> mentioning this fact was pertinent. Crucial, even.

Not crucial, barely pertinent. This thread was started with a post quoting
an article in the Torygraph that suggested that a study of shared lanes in
london showed that they improved safety for all parties, and that this was
being suppressed by those whose prejudices were not confirmed. Your position
is similar to being anti seatbelt because those who _don't- wear them get
injured. Until the report comes out, and there is no suggestion of spin, I'd
say the jury was out, in the absence of any data to date that says that
cyclists are more at risk in bus lanes shared by PTW's. I live in a town
(Colchester) where most bus lanes are open to PTW's and have not yet heard
of a single incident - but I would not cite my personal experience as
evidence of the safety of the practice. I'd rather wait for a proper study,
and welcome the appearance of a conclusive answer when it comes. And if as I
result my motorbike is banned from the bus lanes, then I'll accept that. But
I somehow doubt that you'll accept it if it isn't.

> If you have evidence that bus lanes are safer for cyclists please post
> it, I rely on the evidence that it's more dangerous for cyclists and
> discourages cycling.
>
> What next? Many ASLs have feeder lanes from bus lanes, will PTWs start
> abusing ASLs more than they already do?

What next? will you call for bus lanes to be redesignated as cycle lanes
because of th undoubted danger that buses pose?

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 15:33, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a476e955-f791-4496-a1e7-c04664d9b6aa@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Feb, 15:14, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> > "Apparently there is evidence to
> >> >> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> >> >> > bus
> >> >> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
> >> >> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> >> >> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> >> >> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> >> >> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> >> >> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze
> >> >> > into
> >> >> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> >> >> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> >> >> > bullying cyclists in these.
>
> >> >> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> >> >> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> >> >> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > bus lane thanks.
>
> >> >> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer
> >> >> > take
> >> >> > issue
> >> >> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> >> >> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine
> >> >> > times
> >> >> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
> >> >> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I
> >> >> gave
> >> >> from
> >> >> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite
> >> >> what,
> >> >> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.
>
> >> >> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
> >> > cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.
>
> >> > Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.
>
> >> > Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
> >> > policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
> >> > how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
> >> > more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
> >> > the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.
>
> >> I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident
> >> rates
> >> for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of
> >> bus-lane
> >> sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you
> >> anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the
> >> feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of
> >> secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'.
>
> >> Really not much point in discussing the matter further.- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Accidents are more frequent between PTWs and cyclists. In a discussion
> > relating to allowing PTWs where cyclists cycle I would have thought
> > mentioning this fact was pertinent. Crucial, even.
>
> Not crucial, barely pertinent. This thread was started with a post quoting
> an article in the Torygraph that suggested that a study of shared lanes in
> london showed that they improved safety for all parties, and that this was
> being suppressed by those whose prejudices were not confirmed. Your position
> is similar to being anti seatbelt because those who _don't- wear them get
> injured. Until the report comes out, and there is no suggestion of spin, I'd
> say the jury was out, in the absence of any data to date that says that
> cyclists are more at risk in bus lanes shared by PTW's. I live in a town
> (Colchester) where most bus lanes are open to PTW's and have not yet heard
> of a single incident - but I would not cite my personal experience as
> evidence of the safety of the practice. I'd rather wait for a proper study,
> and welcome the appearance of a conclusive answer when it comes. And if as I
> result my motorbike is banned from the bus lanes, then I'll accept that. But
> I somehow doubt that you'll accept it if it isn't.
>
> > If you have evidence that bus lanes are safer for cyclists please post
> > it, I rely on the evidence that it's more dangerous for cyclists and
> > discourages cycling.
>
> > What next? Many ASLs have feeder lanes from bus lanes, will PTWs start
> > abusing ASLs more than they already do?
>
> What next? will you call for bus lanes to be redesignated as cycle lanes
> because of th undoubted danger that buses pose?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a
major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80% forcing cyclists out of
it. This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in
australia saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were
much fewer cyclists!

We can agree to disagree budstaff, and thanks for your courtesy, I'm
far more interested in nuxx bar's unhealthy interest in me and
dishonesty regarding my views but it looks like he's buggered orff
now....

 

[Adrian]

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

> This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in australia
> saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were much fewer
> cyclists!

Hmmm. Either that was indeed seriously flawed, or you don't understand
the concept of "per million (or whatever) vehicle kilometres"

I know where my money lies.

 

[Nick]

spindrift wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 14:00, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> In the real world, where people , um, DO walk, the evidence shows that
> increased numbers reduces accidents.
>

Again. It does not reduce the number of accidents it reduces the rate of
accident per cyclist per mile cycled.

As you know the raw accident figures in London have gone up with more
cyclists.



> It's thought that the mindset of drivers changes since:
>
> 1/
>
> they are more used to encountering cyclists and
>
> 2/
>
> the drivers cycle themselves
>
>
> The "them and us" attitude displayed by your probably subconscious
> decision to cast motorists as lions and vulnerable road users as
> antelopes is telling. In reality cyclists own cars at the rate of 85%-
> higher than the general population- and so they are well acquainted
> with responsible driving.

I tried to chose an example that would allow you to step outside of your
prejudice.

FWIW. I am a cyclist. I commute 25 miles round trip into London each
day. I support much tougher controls on cars, speed limits, presumption
of liability in an accident etc.

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.

All in all I'm more towards the militant end of the cycling spectrum
even if I'm too lazy to attend critical mass or such like.

However I also work with statistics and I particularly dislike people
like yourself who distort the meaning of statistics to try and prove
their own particular theory.