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

And your evidence for this is?

Fifth time.

spindrift (spindrift ) 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.

"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.

spindrift (spindrift ) 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.

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.

On 5 Feb, 11:18, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) 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.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
"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.

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.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 11:18, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) 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?

On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick 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/.../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/...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/medi...ntre/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/fe...cle1088929.ece