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.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:08:15 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:


You're only half right.

Aren't we all ?

DG

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:24:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
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
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
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.

On Feb 3, 10:32 am, "Brimstone" wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:08:15 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

Personally, I'd love to see all forms of private transport banned,
and force them to suffer the way I do!

While I imagine your situation is not a fun one to be in, it is not
sensible to restrict everyone because of one person's disability,
rather just to accommodate that person in society as best as possible
(such as by the existence of public transport, in your case).

Or shoot the moronic little ****; not because he's disabled but because he
wants to drag the world down to his own sorry state. It's the typical "if I
can't then no one else should be allowed to" attitude that bedevils progress
in the UK.

While I have sympathy for solar penguin in terms of his disability, I
have to agree wholeheartedly with this. I absolutely detest the
attitude described, and it is directly responsible for such a lot of
the misery in the world today. It's so totally unnecessary. If solar
penguin did drive, no doubt he'd be one of the ****s who got arsey
with anyone who ever overtook him, no matter whether they did it
safely or not. "If I don't have the skill to go above 37mph in a NSL
then I'm damned if I'm going to let anyone else go any faster."
Despicable.

x-no-archive:Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:24:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
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, (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
Nuxx Bar 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
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"
p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs .tc 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?