Eeyore wrote:

solar penguin wrote:

Personally, I'd love to see all forms of private transport banned

I'd like to see YOU banned.

Graham


I think you may be wasting your time with this one, Graham.

It looks as if we're dealing with either

somebody with a peculiar sense of humour, or
a wind-up merchant, or
a crackpot.

I suspect it's the latter.

We undoubtedly have a variety of transport problems, some of them quite
serious and in urgent need of solutions, but they're not going to come
from idiots like that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

solar penguin wrote:

Personally, I'd love to see all forms of private transport banned

I'd like to see YOU banned.

Graham


I think you may be wasting your time with this one, Graham.

It looks as if we're dealing with either

somebody with a peculiar sense of humour, or
a wind-up merchant, or
a crackpot.

I suspect it's the latter.

There's no good reason that all three options can apply at the same time
with the possibility of additions.

We undoubtedly have a variety of transport problems, some of them
quite serious and in urgent need of solutions, but they're not going
to come from idiots like that.

Indeed.

x-no-archive:

spindrift wrote:


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, any examples of an "anti-motorist" agenda here, or a shred of
evidence for the paranoid claims about the posts on the torygraph
site?


Anything at all?

I really can't see that cyclists trying to ban other vehicles from
certain roads or lanes will be anything but counter productive. After
all, a lot of car drivers would like to ban cyclists from the roads,
especially if there is a cycle path nearby, and could justifiably argue
that if cars can't go on some roads, why should bicycles not go on others.

It is a dangerous route to take. A more effective approach would be for
roads to be shared by all and the consequential problems dealt with
rather than atttempting to ban whole classes of road users.

I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift, but
I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and the
cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
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.


I don't think you've thought that one through. As a significant portion
of people who do not ride bicycles on metalled roads say they would if
it wasn't for the dangerous motor vehicles, your argument logically
extends to banning all motor vehicles. Indeed, there wouldn't be any
cyclist / vehicle accidents then.

Jim Harvest wrote:

I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti anything
that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which actually
makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.

On 5 Feb, 10:41, "Brimstone" wrote:
Jim Harvest wrote:
I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti anything
that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which actually
makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.

I know what you think, thanks.

You've claimed repeatedly that I'm "anti-motorist".

I'm asking, for the fourth time, if you can provide a shred of
evidence for this.

Where have I ever said anything about cycling at "breakneck speed"?

Is this some kind of weird creepy internet stalking thing?

Argue with what I've said by all means, but stop posting mad made-up
bum gravy.

In my direct, personal experience, shared with the cycling groups
linked to above, PTW's in bus lanes make it more dangerous.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 10:41, "Brimstone" wrote:
Jim Harvest wrote:
I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti
anything
that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which
actually
makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.

I know what you think, thanks.

You've claimed repeatedly that I'm "anti-motorist".

I'm asking, for the fourth time, if you can provide a shred of
evidence for this.

Where have I ever said anything about cycling at "breakneck speed"?

Is this some kind of weird creepy internet stalking thing?

Argue with what I've said by all means, but stop posting mad made-up
bum gravy.

In my direct, personal experience, shared with the cycling groups
linked to above, PTW's in bus lanes make it more dangerous.

The links above do _not_ support the contention that they make them more
dangerous, merely that they make them 'unpleasant'. What is your personal
experience of them being dangerous?

The CTC position (and I'm a member) on motorcycles is a disgrace. Despite
the special pleading on previous threads here, it is clearly anti motorcycle
(explicitly stating that motorcycling should be discouraged).

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



A Government survey of 30 mph areas found that 52% of powered two-
wheelers were breaking the speed limit and 34% were doing over 35 mph.
These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.

Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
unpleasant for cyclists. This would undermine both national and local
policy which is to encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and
non-hazardous form of transport. It would also send out a strong
message that the convenience of private motor vehicles is being placed
before the convenience and safety of cyclists


DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice
as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as
dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as
much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet
DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-
sided.

x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote:
Jim Harvest wrote:

I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti anything
that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which actually
makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.



I know what you mean. I do not feel sympathy for those who become
advocates for their own pastime, and screw the rest. In many cases, not
being able to see another persons POV is due to a lack of intelligence
or experience.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...


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



A Government survey of 30 mph areas found that 52% of powered two-
wheelers were breaking the speed limit and 34% were doing over 35 mph.
These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.

Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
unpleasant for cyclists. This would undermine both national and local
policy which is to encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and
non-hazardous form of transport. It would also send out a strong
message that the convenience of private motor vehicles is being placed
before the convenience and safety of cyclists


DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice
as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as
dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as
much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet
DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-
sided.


The data you cite is indeed compelling, but it does not address the issue
which started this thread, which is that, despite the antipathy that
cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists, allowing them to share bus
lanes appears to make the roads in question safer for both the PTW's and the
cyclists. If that does prove to be the case, then will you withdraw your
opposition? Or do you have _evidence_ to the contrary?