On Feb 3, 1:50 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
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.

Spiffing, a shame that bus drivers on the 94 don't realise this.

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.

The pedestrians inevitably straying into the cycle lanes would also
need to be dealt with, it needs a culture shift. The fact that
cyclists in Amsterdam, in my experience, are a lot more sure of
themselves and their rights, makes it better. If cyclists in the UK
were as assertive, and avoided the gutter lanes that councils like,
the roads would be a much better place for all.

Bikes are faster than buses and should be on the outside of them.

I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be

I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

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.

When I used to drive in to London, hardly a day went by without me
seeing a "broken down" bus parked in some awful place, including bus
lanes. They need to sort their own herd out.

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.

I'm personally not a fan of bin lorries -- they smell and it's hard to
overtake them on back roads

Paul Weaver wrote:

I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be

I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

I think it's because MPs use taxis.

John Rowland wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be
I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

I think it's because MPs use taxis.

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public transport
lane". All there in in most places is part of the public road the use of
which is forbidden to those who have paid for it umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public transport
lane". All there in in most places is part of the public road the use of
which is forbidden to those who have paid for it umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.


Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis) will be paying for the
privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a reduced tax bill.

Too easy.

Jim Harvest wrote:

JNugent wrote:

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public
transport lane". All there in in most places is part of the public
road the use of which is forbidden to those who have paid for it
umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

will be paying for the
privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a reduced tax bill.
Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
passengers, or the rest?



will be paying for the privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a
reduced tax bill.
Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

You have just said on another thread that you try to post in an urbane
and non-confrontational manner.

Care to rephrase?

Jim Harvest wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
passengers, or the rest?

Is there any distinction between the first three as far as you are
concerned? Context strongly suggests not.

will be paying for the privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a
reduced tax bill.
Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

You have just said on another thread that you try to post in an urbane
and non-confrontational manner.
Care to rephrase?

I was being factual - and asking a question, which you can answer either
in the affirmative or the negative.

Do you have any knowledge of the economics of the taxi-trade, or are you
working on the erroneous thesis that only the rich ride in taxis
(whereas, outside London, the rich rarely ride in taxis, and even in
London, they comprise only a tiny proportion of the riders)?