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, 11:22 am, TripleS wrote:
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.

I don't know anything about the 'mlc' you refer to there, but I strongly
agree with your general point.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Hi Dave! :-)

(You do know me, but you won't be able to work out who I am from this
nickname! ;-))

"solar penguin" wrote in message
...
Terry F. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:26:43 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
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" wrote in message
...
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.

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"
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?

Divide and rule, eh?

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.

solar penguin wrote:
Nuxx Bar 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 ****ty public
transport whenever I want to go anywhere. But those lucky *******s
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" wrote in message
...
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"
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.