"spindrift" wrote in message
...
Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents. Since allowing PTW's in bus lanes
acts as a disincentive to cycling, it should be opposed.


Why, they're still bikes.

"Why, they're still bikes. "

Powered bikes. That's what the "P" stands for.

Allowing them in bus lanes makes bus lanes more dangerous for
vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists alike, and saves very
little time on an average commute.

Placing other peoples' well being in jeapordy for no discernable
benefit makes n sense to most people, why do you feel differently?

PTWs are about 1.5 times as likely as cars to be involved in
collisions which cause serious injury to cyclists, twice as likely to
be involved in causing them serious injury and about three times as
likely to be involved in killing them, per mile travelled.

Data already collected shows an increase in the number of casualties
to motorcyclists and other road users as a result of the experiment.
Transport for London should be planning to remove the concession to
motorcyclists: they need to ensure that there is effective enforcement
of bus lane restrictions.

I already have motorbikes using the cycle lane on Bishopsgate in a
very dangerous way, what a limited study like this can never predict
is how the mass legalising of motorcycles using bus lanes would affect
motorcyclist's behavior in the long term.

At the moment they tentatively creep down bus lanes. In the limited
study I'm sure their behavior was also mitigated by the time/
geographical restraints of the study.

My worry is that, if there was full legalisation, they would soon
start behaving in bus lanes as they behave everywhere else - i.e.
seeing how fast they can accellerate in any given situation. As an
experienced taxi driver you will know what I'm talking about.

Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often
extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the
ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the
thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially
worthless.

At the moment the law is clear. Buses, taxis and (usually) cycles can
use bus lanes. Everyone knows (or should know) where they stand. Start
allowing motorbikes into the bus lanes and it's all up for grabs,
including cycle lanes, as motorbikes would get into the habit of
filtering up the inside of traffic.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.ph...10e5 3a7fa5df

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

"Other than Duhg, y'mean? "

A quick search reveals nobody by that name posts on the UK Rec cycling
forum

You may like to put the goalposts back, btw, because your question didn't
restrict the choice to posters in uk.rec.cycling. You know exactly who
I'm referring to. Nor is uk.rec.cycling a "forum".

and it's interesting you still have no actual examples.

I don't "still" anything, because that was my first post in this thread.

"Boo. Hoo. You'll be complaining that the presence of buses in bus lanes
makes life "unpleasant" for cyclists next."

No. Buses move largely in a predictable fashion at relatively lower
speeds than motorbikes- the crux of the argument against allowing PTW's
in bus lanes, as you'd know had you read the links.

So. ****ing. What? Got news for you, mate. There's a rather unsubtle clue
in their name that "BUS lanes" don't exist for the benefit of cyclists -
they're there for the _sole_ benefit of bus traffic, and the fact that
cyclists are allowed into them is a side issue.

If you want to play the "inconvenience" card, bicycles cause far more
delay and inconvenience to buses than P2Ws would. I strongly suspect
there's also more collisions, injuries and even deaths caused by
interaction between buses and bicycles in bus lanes than there would be
between buses and P2Ws in bus lanes.

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Allowing them in bus lanes makes bus lanes more dangerous for vulnerable
road users, pedestrians and cyclists alike

What the **** is a pedestrian doing in a bus lane in the first place?

Perhaps if there's that many pedestrians in bus lanes, those big red
vehicles ought to be banned from them, too? That'd make life easier for
cyclists, as well.

Oh, wait. That'd leave them as "cycle lanes". And we all know that
cyclists don't actually like to use cycle lanes, because it makes them
feel "segregated"

On 4 Feb, 18:47, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Allowing them in bus lanes makes bus lanes more dangerous for vulnerable
road users, pedestrians and cyclists alike

What the **** is a pedestrian doing in a bus lane in the first place?

Perhaps if there's that many pedestrians in bus lanes, those big red
vehicles ought to be banned from them, too? That'd make life easier for
cyclists, as well.

Oh, wait. That'd leave them as "cycle lanes". And we all know that
cyclists don't actually like to use cycle lanes, because it makes them
feel "segregated"

I don't know about any of this, I've never said anything like those
views. Why are you so angry? Is this thread a tectonite plate? Posts
from people from UK rec driving wibbling about "miltant cyclists"? We
still don't know who they are, are they armed?

Urban roads are changing. Cycling rates are up, cycling's getting more
money, idiot drivers who take absurd risks with tragic consequences
will receive stiffer penalties. You hate all this, I know. It's
happening, deal with it, I don't bother with cycle lanes cos they're
more dangerous than the roads I pay for. Can this be a tectonic plate
with a bit less aggression please? I'm happy to defend what I say, I
don't claim to speak for anyone, nor is appealing for safer roads
"anti-motorist".

spindrift wrote:
"Why, they're still bikes. "

Powered bikes. That's what the "P" stands for.

Allowing them in bus lanes makes bus lanes more dangerous for
vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists alike, and saves very
little time on an average commute.

How does allowing motorcycles into a lane make it "more dangerous" for
others? If allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes means that they don't have
to queue

Placing other peoples' well being in jeapordy for no discernable
benefit makes n sense to most people, why do you feel differently?

Where have I said that I feel differently?

PTWs are about 1.5 times as likely as cars to be involved in
collisions which cause serious injury to cyclists, twice as likely to
be involved in causing them serious injury and about three times as
likely to be involved in killing them, per mile travelled.

What about the danger to motorcyclists caused by less vulnerable road users?

Data already collected shows an increase in the number of casualties
to motorcyclists and other road users as a result of the experiment.
Transport for London should be planning to remove the concession to
motorcyclists: they need to ensure that there is effective enforcement
of bus lane restrictions.

I already have motorbikes using the cycle lane on Bishopsgate in a
very dangerous way, what a limited study like this can never predict
is how the mass legalising of motorcycles using bus lanes would affect
motorcyclist's behavior in the long term.

What's this "dangerous way"? What do you mean by "I already have", are you
some sort of traffic enforcement official?

At the moment they tentatively creep down bus lanes. In the limited
study I'm sure their behavior was also mitigated by the time/
geographical restraints of the study.

AIUI the study has been supressed because it showed benefits to all, which
isn't what was expected.

My worry is that, if there was full legalisation, they would soon
start behaving in bus lanes as they behave everywhere else - i.e.
seeing how fast they can accellerate in any given situation.

That called taking advantage of the characteristics of one's vehicle,just as
people on pedal cycles and people in cars do.

As an
experienced taxi driver you will know what I'm talking about.

Where do you get the idea that I'm an experienced taxi driver?

Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often
extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the
ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the
thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially
worthless.

So only potentially, not reality. You write as if the size and volume of
motorcycles in use are the same as cars.

At the moment the law is clear. Buses, taxis and (usually) cycles can
use bus lanes. Everyone knows (or should know) where they stand. Start
allowing motorbikes into the bus lanes and it's all up for grabs,
including cycle lanes, as motorbikes would get into the habit of
filtering up the inside of traffic.

If m/cycles were allowed to use bus lanes the law would still be clear.
Motorcycles already filter through traffic, allowing them to use bus lanes
would make it safer.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.ph...10e5 3a7fa5df

Why have you felt the need to cut and paste most of someone else's post from
that forum, can't you think of you own objections?

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Oh, wait. That'd leave them as "cycle lanes". And we all know that
cyclists don't actually like to use cycle lanes, because it makes them
feel "segregated"

I don't know about any of this, I've never said anything like those
views.

You might not, but they're regularly raised by many other cyclists.

Why are you so angry?

I'm not.

Is this thread a tectonite plate?

A what?

Urban roads are changing. Cycling rates are up, cycling's getting more
money, idiot drivers who take absurd risks with tragic consequences will
receive stiffer penalties. You hate all this, I know.

No, I don't.

I don't bother with cycle lanes cos they're more dangerous than the
roads I pay for.

Are you referring to cycle lanes or to shared-use pavements? I'd agree
with you on the latter. Ridiculous idea.

I'm happy to defend what I say

So - please - feel free to do so. With cogent and thought-through
arguments instead of a handful of cut'n'paste and goal-post shifting.

nor is appealing for safer roads "anti-motorist".

Indeed it isn't. In fact, if you bothered to read uk.rec.driving, you'd
find that the majority of the posters there are very supportive of
improving road safety for _every_ category of road user. You, otoh, have
a track record of arguing against that whenever you pop up in uk.r.d or
uk.transport

Response to JNugent
Mark McNeill wrote:
Response to JNugent

What you seem to suggest *would be* "changing the rules". Taxis are
operating according the "the rules" as they have been since at least
as far back as the nineteenth century.


That reminds me - I was surprised, given your interest in the subject
(based AFAICT both on intellectual curiosity and on an amount of BEER
which depended on the answer) that you didn't respond to my post re cab
law a few days ago. Did you miss it?

I must have done.

Still have it?


Sure, it's Message-ID:

and here it is -



What's next, taxi drivers required to keep a bale of hay in the back?

That one went in 1976...

Did it?

That's interesting.

The only taxi-related legislation passed that year was the Local
Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It did not purport to
revoke, repeal or replace either the Town & Police Clauses Act 1847
(which operates in E&W outside London) or any of the various London
Cab Acts - or any of their provisions. Both the T&P Act and the London
Cab Acts are still in force.

So which Act compelled cab-drivers (until 1976, there was never any
mention of "taxi" drivers in national legislation) to carry hay?

I really want to know this (many pints may depend on it) - and which
provision it was that you say repealed it.


Twenty seconds or so of googling found the website of the Law
Commission: -

QUOTE
An enduring misconception about hackney carriages is that the driver
must keep a bale of hay in the boot to feed the (nowadays) non-
existent horse. This misconception probably comes about because of
section 51 of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 which made it an
offence, punishable by a 20 shilling fine, for the owner or driver of
a hackney carriage (or any one else) to:

"feed the horses of or belonging to any hackney carriage in any street,
road or common passage, save only with corn out of a bag, or with hay
which he shall hold or deliver with his hands".

This offence was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976. As a
result any taxi driver who travels around accompanied by a bale of hay
does so purely for his own amusement and not in compliance with any
legal requirement.
ENDQUOTE

www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/legal_oddities.pdf



--
Mark, UK
"I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they
may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths
of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of
course, those which you do not hold."

"You, otoh, have
a track record of arguing against that whenever you pop up in uk.r.d
or
uk.transport "

Um, when?

Cycle lanes are more dangerous, not shared use.

All these accusations, so little evidence, what are you talking about?

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

"You, otoh, have a track record of arguing against that whenever you
pop up in uk.r.d or uk.transport "

Um, when?

GoogleGroups is that way ---- if your memory's so short.

Cycle lanes are more dangerous, not shared use.

All these accusations, so little evidence, what are you talking about?

Sorry, your abysmal quoting makes it unclear whether you're actually
making that statement or replying to it. Which is it? If it's the latter,
then that's not what I said. If it's the former, you may like to expand.