On 5 Feb, 12:30, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.
Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.
I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger.

No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like it" -
and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid.

Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how about
posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces which
I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.

"you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid. "

I did nothing of the kind, stop posting silly lies.


PTWs are more likely to be involved in accidents with cyclists.
Increasing the mix makes no sense and addds to the danger. Try the
cycle lane on Bishopsgate to see how the mix is so incredibly
dangerous.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 12:30, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.
Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.
I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger.

No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like it" -
and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid.

Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how about
posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces which
I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.

"you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid. "

I did nothing of the kind, stop posting silly lies.


PTWs are more likely to be involved in accidents with cyclists.
Increasing the mix makes no sense and addds to the danger. Try the
cycle lane on Bishopsgate to see how the mix is so incredibly
dangerous.

I find it interesting that you'll spend half your day bickering with people
on an 'Oh yes you are'/'Oh no I'm not' basis, but haven't managed to find
the time to address my clear response to your challenge to demonstrate your
anti-motorcycle views. So as you'r not averse to a bit of cut-and -paste
repetition yourself, here it is again:

quotes selfTo refer you to your own post in which you cited three url's
(I'm assuming
you were citing material you agree with):

The cambridge site is reporting campaign against the 'threat' that
motorcycle might be allowed to use bus lanes in Cambridge, despite their
being no such intention on the part of the council, and is doing this in
oppostion to a motorcyclists group. The only evidence that it offers is
'unpleasantness' in Bristol.

The CTC does not believe that the use of motorcycles can be justified.

The croydon site discounts the data syuggesting that PTW use of bus lanes
may improve safety as being insufficient, and instead uses the irrelevant
safety statistics applicable to the roads as a whole. If the these
statistics were applicable then there would be no safety benefit to cycles
using the lanes. quote ends

I'd also be interested to know just how 'incredibly dangerous' Bishopsgate
is. Are you aware of any casualties caused to cyclists by PTW's, where the
cyclist was blameless? And did any of these occur as a direct result of the
PTW being permitted to use a bus lane.

As a cyclist who also owns a motorcycle, I'm not much enamoured of zealots
who would block safety improvements on the basis of personal prejudice,
which is all you've demonstrated so far on the specific issue of PTW's in
bus lanes.

I'll ask once more, behind all the invective, where is the data?

On Feb 5, 10:45 am, spindrift wrote:
In my direct, personal experience, shared with the cycling groups
linked to above, PTW's in bus lanes make it more dangerous.

In other words, you see what you want to see. You want to find
motorcycles in bus lanes unpleasant, so you do. You want
motorcyclists to be banned from bus lanes, because you're prejudiced
against them, so you convince yourself that they make things more
dangerous, despite the statistical evidence to the contrary. Just
like you convince yourself that anti-motorist speed cameras make
things safer, despite the extensive statistical evidence and lists of
side effects showing unequivocally that they make things more
dangerous, even for cyclists. You simply won't hear anything against
cameras, motorcycle bans, or other anti-motorist/anti-motorcyclist
measures. You like them and that's that.

It is more than obvious from your post history on here and elsewhere
that you have an extreme anti-motorist and anti-motorcyclist agenda,
and that you prioritise that above the safety of cyclists. That's all
motorists (other than yourself, if you drive, which I doubt) and all
motorcyclists. It is an indication of your cowardice that you won't
admit it.

You don't seriously expect us to believe that you just happen,
coincidentally, to support seemingly every anti-motorist and anti-
motorcyclist measure, do you? Why don't you stop pretending that
safety is the reason for your support of such measures, and tell the
truth about your crusade against any form of private powered
transport? If you're so determinedly hateful of such modes of
transport, and you think it's so important that you spend so much
effort on it hopping from Internet cafe to Internet cafe, what is the
problem with being honest about it? Is it because you know you
wouldn't be able to defend such a stance? Why would you assume a
stance which you knew you couldn't defend?

You and your militant ilk are hugely damaging the road safety debate,
as this latest bus lane example shows, and are hugely damaging road
users as well. You've got an awful lot to answer for. Hijacking
something as important as safety for your own twisted anti-motorist
agenda is about as low as it gets. Where does it end? Will you not
rest until cycling is the only form of private transport? Do you
really think that's ever going to be reality? What is wrong with all
road users coexisting peacefully? Why do you seek to prescribe other
people's modes of transport, even when their choice doesn't really
affect you like you claim? Why not just mind your own business and
campaign for positive improvements for cyclists (if you really are
one)? It's a free country, at least notionally, and you should either
accept that or **** off and leave everyone alone.

Oh, so you deny being anti-motorist (yawn). In that case you won't
have any trouble with the following. Can you name any anti-motorist
or anti-motorcyclist measures (which are not also intended to be anti-
cyclist) which you oppose? How many? What are they, and why do you
oppose them? There's no point in lying because your previous posts
will expose such falsehoods. I'll be interested to read the answer to
this, and if you "don't see" it, I'll keep repeating it until you do.

I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. Really pathetic. It's like people who are
homophobic denying that and giving hollow, worthless excuses (e.g "the
bible") for their prejudice against and exclusion of gay people.
Spineless, gutless and utterly contemptible. If you have a strong
opinion on a subject, then that's fine, good even, but if you don't
have the guts to express it honestly, and instead misrepresent your
opinion, lie, and employ underhand tactics, then you have no right to
take part in discussion on the subject at all.

On 5 Feb, 14:35, "Budstaff"
wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...



On 5 Feb, 12:30, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.
Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.
I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger.

No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like it" -
and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid.

Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how about
posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces which
I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.

"you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid. "

I did nothing of the kind, stop posting silly lies.

PTWs are more likely to be involved in accidents with cyclists.
Increasing the mix makes no sense and addds to the danger. Try the
cycle lane on Bishopsgate to see how the mix is so incredibly
dangerous.

I find it interesting that you'll spend half your day bickering with people
on an 'Oh yes you are'/'Oh no I'm not' basis, but haven't managed to find
the time to address my clear response to your challenge to demonstrate your
anti-motorcycle views. So as you'r not averse to a bit of cut-and -paste
repetition yourself, here it is again:

quotes selfTo refer you to your own post in which you cited three url's
(I'm assuming
you were citing material you agree with):

The cambridge site is reporting campaign against the 'threat' that
motorcycle might be allowed to use bus lanes in Cambridge, despite their
being no such intention on the part of the council, and is doing this in
oppostion to a motorcyclists group. The only evidence that it offers is
'unpleasantness' in Bristol.

The CTC does not believe that the use of motorcycles can be justified.

The croydon site discounts the data syuggesting that PTW use of bus lanes
may improve safety as being insufficient, and instead uses the irrelevant
safety statistics applicable to the roads as a whole. If the these
statistics were applicable then there would be no safety benefit to cycles
using the lanes. quote ends

I'd also be interested to know just how 'incredibly dangerous' Bishopsgate
is. Are you aware of any casualties caused to cyclists by PTW's, where the
cyclist was blameless? And did any of these occur as a direct result of the
PTW being permitted to use a bus lane.

As a cyclist who also owns a motorcycle, I'm not much enamoured of zealots
who would block safety improvements on the basis of personal prejudice,
which is all you've demonstrated so far on the specific issue of PTW's in
bus lanes.

I'll ask once more, behind all the invective, where is the data?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The data, posted above, is that PTWs are 1.5 times more likely to be
involved in accidents with cyclists. My own experiences reinforce this
view.

"I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. "

I am asking for evidence for this.

I've asked seven times now.

If my views were as "anti-motorist" as you claim it strikes me a
strange that you can't actually find any examples....


"Can you name any anti-motorist
or anti-motorcyclist measures (which are not also intended to be
anti-
cyclist) which you oppose? "


I'm asking you what these mythical "anti-motorist" measures are. Once
you do so I'll be happy to give my opinion.

Perhaps you missed my question, what on earth made you think any of
the Telegraph quotes are mine please?

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 14:35, "Budstaff"
wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...



On 5 Feb, 12:30, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.
Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in
this
thread.
I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger.

No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like
it" -
and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for
Bristol
were valid.

Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how
about
posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces
which
I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.

"you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid. "

I did nothing of the kind, stop posting silly lies.

PTWs are more likely to be involved in accidents with cyclists.
Increasing the mix makes no sense and addds to the danger. Try the
cycle lane on Bishopsgate to see how the mix is so incredibly
dangerous.

I find it interesting that you'll spend half your day bickering with
people
on an 'Oh yes you are'/'Oh no I'm not' basis, but haven't managed to find
the time to address my clear response to your challenge to demonstrate
your
anti-motorcycle views. So as you'r not averse to a bit of cut-and -paste
repetition yourself, here it is again:

quotes selfTo refer you to your own post in which you cited three url's
(I'm assuming
you were citing material you agree with):

The cambridge site is reporting campaign against the 'threat' that
motorcycle might be allowed to use bus lanes in Cambridge, despite their
being no such intention on the part of the council, and is doing this in
oppostion to a motorcyclists group. The only evidence that it offers is
'unpleasantness' in Bristol.

The CTC does not believe that the use of motorcycles can be justified.

The croydon site discounts the data syuggesting that PTW use of bus lanes
may improve safety as being insufficient, and instead uses the irrelevant
safety statistics applicable to the roads as a whole. If the these
statistics were applicable then there would be no safety benefit to
cycles
using the lanes. quote ends

I'd also be interested to know just how 'incredibly dangerous'
Bishopsgate
is. Are you aware of any casualties caused to cyclists by PTW's, where
the
cyclist was blameless? And did any of these occur as a direct result of
the
PTW being permitted to use a bus lane.

As a cyclist who also owns a motorcycle, I'm not much enamoured of
zealots
who would block safety improvements on the basis of personal prejudice,
which is all you've demonstrated so far on the specific issue of PTW's in
bus lanes.

I'll ask once more, behind all the invective, where is the data?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The data, posted above, is that PTWs are 1.5 times more likely to be
involved in accidents with cyclists. My own experiences reinforce this
view.

And this piece of data is wholly irrelevant. Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be?

I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist.

I'm like a homophobe because of my antimotorist stance which you,
errrr, don't actually have any evidence for?

Quote

"Let's all share the roads peacefully, happily and considerately.
Tolerance in transport. A new era of understanding and positivity.
An end to trolling cyclists once and for all. Those who feel an
overwhelming need to be obnoxious and intolerant should take up a new
cause which doesn't involve people dying in their thousands, or
better
still, see their doctors. It's high time that the lying stopped.
It's high time for proper policies that are not dictated by spiteful,
deranged, hateful extremists. "

And this new reach-out stance involves claiming someone you've never
met isn't a cyclist, is a militant, has blood on his hands and does a
disservice to cyclists all based on evidenc you are unwilling to share
with us?


You seem obsessed, seriously, tell me what it is i wrote that provoked
such and unbalanced attack.


What, exactly, is your problem nuxx bar?

"Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "


Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.

There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
methodology of the study is also in question.

I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
bullying cyclists in these.

I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
bus lane thanks.

"I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "

I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.


Still waiting.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
"Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "


Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.

There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
methodology of the study is also in question.

I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
bullying cyclists in these.

I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
bus lane thanks.

"I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "

I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.


You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I gave from
this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite what,
you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.

Take your pick.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
"Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "


Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.

There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently the
methodology of the study is also in question.

I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze into
cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
bullying cyclists in these.

I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break the
speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in a
bus lane thanks.

"I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer take
issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "

I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine times
now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.


Still waiting.


"I have a general problem with motorbikes/ I'm not anti-motor cyclist."

ROTFL