bus lane petition, please sign

number9

Bus lane petition:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1145

attica

Am I alone in thinking that Boris might have a point?
If any group of motorists are going to be sympathetic to cyclists, it's going to be motorCYCLISTS, far more sensible an idea than letting HGVs into the bus lanes.

Why should we force them out into the maelstrom whilst hiding away in the - relative - safety of the bus lane?

In Bristol we share the bus lanes with Buses, Taxis, and motorbikes. I've never had a problem with that.

Belv

Attica, you are not alone in that thinking.

Clever Pun

A couple of roads already have this in london so it's not actually Boris's idea but that's beside the point.

I've no problem with 2 wheels in the bus lanes

number9

Have you seen the evidence?

LCC has written to London Mayor Boris Johnson asking him not to make a snap decision to allow motorbikes to use bus lanes, a move that could endanger the lives of cyclists and pedestrians, and is calling on LCC supporters to do the same.
London Assembly Conservatives say that the ‘wheels are in motion’ and the Mayor will ‘rubber stamp’ the decision after technical requirements are met. LCC is advising the Mayor not to base any decisions on what Transport for London has described as unreliable evidence.
LCC’s chief executive Koy Thomson told the Mayor that ‘making a snap decision on this key issue based on evidence that is ‘not statistically significant’, or is based on ‘flawed methodology’, is an enormous risk and could adversely impact the safety of many pedestrians and cyclists.
‘This would be a decision taken not only against the advice of transport officials and without the input of cycling and pedestrian groups, but also in the face of a warning that this could ‘disbenefit’ cyclists and pedestrians.’
Managing Director for Surface Transport at Transport for London David Brown has stated: ‘The data used in the earlier report was not considered sufficiently reliable to inform a decision on such an important issue.’ Following a review of the data Mr Brown’s conclusion (April 2008) was that ‘there is no evidence to indicate that motorcyclists would see any significant safety benefits from being allowed to enter bus lanes but that there were potential disbenefits for both cyclists and pedestrians.’
Tom Bogdanowicz, LCC’s Campaigns Manager, said: “Providing new high speed channels for motorcycles along major roads will inevitably increase motorcycle use. More motorcycle traffic will spread to all streets in London and will bring with it an increase in casualties for vulnerable road users. We’re asking our supporters to urge the Mayor to consider the safety impact on all London streets for every road user before any decision on allowing high-speed vehicles into bus lanes is made.”
It is well established that motorcycles are involved in a greater proportion of collisions per kilometre with pedestrians and cyclists than are cars.
Sign our petition TODAY.



Safety

The differential in speed between PTWs and bicycles would represent a risk to cycle users if PTWS were allowed into areas such as cycle lanes designed for the protection of cyclists on otherwise dangerous areas of road.
The weight difference between cyclists and motorcycles would represent a further threat to cyclist safety if they were required to share space. This is particularly the case with the larger high powered motorcycles which make up the majority of market sales in the UK.
Although a detailed 'before and after' study was not carried out in Bristol, a subsequent survey of cyclists found that 31% of cyclists had experienced problems with PTWs in bus lanes, leading the City Council to conclude that "it appears that the experiment has had a measurable negative effect on cyclists".
On the basis of Department of Transport figures, a motorcycle is twice as likely per mile travelled to kill or seriously injure a cyclist as a car.
Environment

In terms of emissions of environmental pollutants, motorcycles represent a threat to the city environment and do not offer significant advantages over other modes, even at current rates of occupancy:
Emission rates for passenger transport (grammes/passenger km)3
C02 CO HCNOx SOxCar 165 12.9 1.5 1.4 0.08Bus 77 1.4 0.4 1.2 0.10Taxi 330 2.0 0.4 1.6 0.43Motorcycle 115 8.9 1.1 1.0 0.06
Separation of cyclists from the sources of such fumes in segregated facilities is an important measure making cycling a more attractive transport option. To allow PTWs into cycle facilities would remove that advantage.
The noise pollution created by a greater use of larger motorcycles would also represent a problem in urban areas.
C-PAG also anticipates a problem with enforcement of restrictions on PTWs use. Already there is a widespread problem of illegal PTWS use of bus lanes.
If PTWs are granted access to cycle lanes it may prove impossible to prevent their use of cycle lanes in shared-use areas, representing a threat to cyclists and pedestrians alike.
Policy

Bicycle and bus lanes are designed to maximise access to city centres and to encourage and protect 'benign' modes of transport. To allow their use by individual motor transport users would congest them, reducing their effectiveness, and attract a greater amount of motorcycle traffic into town centres. This runs counter to most policy on road safety and environmental objectives, including Local Agenda 21 and Planning Policy Guidance note 13.
The effect of allowing motorcycles into cycle facilities will be to discourage cycling. Fear of traffic is the baffler to cycling most commonly cited in research. To remove the protection from motor traffic which cycle facilities afford would act against efforts to meet the Department of Transport's policy objective of doubling cycle use by 2002 and quadrupling it by 2012.
In view of these factors, the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group, representing the UK's major cycle user organisations, urges that calls for motorcycle use of bicycle facilities or bus lanes be rejected.
1. DOT, Targeting the Future, 1996
2. DOT, Transport Statistics Report, 1995
3. Centre For Independent Transport Research in London, CILT Journal, September 1996


LCC:

Concerns are mounting as motorcyclists are disproportionately
hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians: according to CTC, 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.

Sea_Green_Incorruptible

Have to say - and again from a Bristol rider used to sharing bus lanes with motorcycles - I don't find it to be a problem at all. It's not as if most motorbike riders are burning down the bus lanes at 90 on big ducattis. What it actually means is that you tend to get scooters sharing the lane with you - most of which aren't going much faster than you are, and most of which are pretty considerate to other two-wheeled road users. I really think you're fighting the wrong battle with this one.

mailmannz

Number9,

The data used for your cut and paste, can you post a link to it?

Mailman

saveswalking

Motorbikes should be kept out of bus lanes, and taxis too. Both are polluting, gorge oil, and emit poison. There is no reason I can find for anyone to ride a motorcycle in the city except for special couriers of very special categories of cargo, such as urgently needed blood. Motorbikes are often far more powerful (with even more metal used - and of course plenty wasted - in their manufacture) than the rider would ever need. In comparison to cars, they obviously waste less resources in transporting a human from a to b. However, that does not make them 'friendly' or even 'acceptable'. Motorbikes are cars with less wheels.

I vote against motorcycles being allowed to use bus lanes. The harder and less comfortable it becomes to burn oil in order to perform a 'basic' animal requirement such as moving from one place to another, the better. I know bikes consume energy in their manufacture since they tend to be made of metal. However, after the manufacture of a bike, it is fit for pupose for 50 years if meantained well, and burns no fossil fuel and produces no emissions. Where is the debate here? Its all so glaringly obvious. We need more bikes on the roads. We need more special lanes for bikes, not shared with oil-leeching and grossly overweight vehicles.

snooks

I'm happy for motorcycles to use bus lane as long as their are speed cameras every 10 metres along said bus lane!!!

Belv

saveswalking wrote:

...We need more special lanes for bikes, not shared with oil-leeching and grossly overweight vehicles.

Yes! Ban busses from bus lanes too!

This isn't a question of the relative benefits of motorcyles though, just whether it causes cyclists a problem and, according to the Bristol survey, 69% of cyclists had never "experienced problems with PTW's in bus lanes". It doesn't state the nature of problem the other 31% had either. Or what % had experienced problems with busses, taxis, other cyclists...

And i want a bike as reliable as yours - 50 years with no punctures or worn out parts - I'd be happy with 50 days.

attica

saveswalking wrote:

Motorbikes should be kept out of bus lanes, and taxis too. Both are polluting, gorge oil, and emit poison.

It's called a BUS lane (which makes us guests there too remember), they tend to pollute just a touch too!

meanwhile

I can't think of any worse animal to share a lane with than a motorcycle. It has weight and momentum closer to a car than a bicycle. They're combination of speed and agility means that they'll be constantly manouvering past cyclists in close over and undertaking manouvers. Most of all, a fair number of idiots ride them. Admittedly not for long, but I'd rather they were weeded out hitting cars than cyclists.

attica

meanwhile wrote:

a fair number of idiots ride them.

You could apply this to any form of transport including bicycles (and please don't take that as a personal slight Meanwhile, I genuinely mean that there are a fair number of idiots in any cross section of society, with the possible exception of politicians where the numbers are grossly inflated ;oP )

saveswalking

Attica wrote:

saveswalking wrote:

Motorbikes should be kept out of bus lanes, and taxis too. Both are polluting, gorge oil, and emit poison.

It's called a BUS lane (which makes us guests there too remember), they tend to pollute just a touch too!

A Bus full of 40 passengers probably pollutes alot less than 40 motor vehicles so is rightly given priority as regards road space to encourage the use of public transport ( and I dont consider taxis as public transport either)

sw

daniel_b

How often do you really see a bus with 40 passengers on though?

In either rush hour, yes I'm sure you will do, but for the vast majority of their journeys, they are far from near capacity - central London excluded.

I really hate buses - I have to go back to work next week, and can't cycle due to still recovering from a broken collarbone - rather than take a bus, which I can actually get for free, I will be walking

meanwhile

Attica wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

a fair number of idiots ride them.

You could apply this to any form of transport including bicycles (and please don't take that as a personal slight Meanwhile, I genuinely mean that there are a fair number of idiots in any cross section of society, with the possible exception of politicians where the numbers are grossly inflated ;oP )

You're completely right about idiots being everywhere. I just think that one on motorcycles won't share very limited space well with cyclists.

From the LTC page with the petition:

It is well established that motorcycles are involved in a greater proportion of collisions per kilometre with pedestrians and cyclists than are cars.

So there really isn't anyone worse to be sharing space with than motorcyclists.

cee

A&E surgeons have a special name for motorbike riders......

DONORS :shock:

attica

meanwhile wrote:

From the LTC page with the petition:

It is well established that motorcycles are involved in a greater proportion of collisions per kilometre with pedestrians and cyclists than are cars.

So there really isn't anyone worse to be sharing space with than motorcyclists.

Where is it "well established"?
Anyway, to throw pedestrians into that statement is to make it practically meaningless in terms of this argument.
If pedestrians are throwing themselves under motorbikes it doesn't matter what lane they happen to be in.
Personally, if I have to be hit by any vehicle, I'd rather be hit by a motorcycle, at least it's not all metal and it'll have far less inertia than a car or anything bigger.

Belv

meanwhile wrote:

From the LTC page with the petition:

It is well established that motorcycles are involved in a greater proportion of collisions per kilometre with pedestrians and cyclists than are cars.

So there really isn't anyone worse to be sharing space with than motorcyclists.

If that's the case then the ideal solution would seem to be allowing motorbikes in bus lanes and keeping the cyclists in the 'car' lanes. :roll:

grayo59

Bristol boy here - no probs cycles sharing with m/c's and scooters IMO.

Go and find a more worthwhile campaign please.

(Writing for me and Mrs Grayo59 as a either/or commuting motorists, commuting motorcyclists and non-commuting cyclists.)

Tom Butcher

cee wrote:

A&E surgeons have a special name for motorbike riders......

DONORS :shock:

And most people that have ever worked with surgeons have a couple of words for them - arrogant to$$ers.

ellieb

Tom Butcher wrote:

cee wrote:

A&E surgeons have a special name for motorbike riders......

DONORS :shock:

And most people that have ever worked with surgeons have a couple of words for them - arrogant to$$ers.

Yes, but those aren't the words used by people whose lives have been saved by them :roll:

But to return to the thread: I know it is only a subjective viewpoint but I can honestly say that in 40,000 odd miles riding a bike I cannot think of one narrow squeak I've had with a motorbike. I find the statistics used to support the petition a little bit suspect to be honest. There may be a lot more cars on the road than motorbikes but given the number of problems you get with 4 wheeled vehicles I would have expected to have had at least one or two with motorcycles during that time.

mtbcommuter

cee wrote:

A&E surgeons have a special name for motorbike riders......

DONORS :shock:

Sorry but this is an often repeated misquote, the correct quote is that A & E surgeons in America have a special name for motorbike riders who don't wear crash helmets DONORS (Now don't take this as an opportunity to re-open the helmet/no helmet argument, I don't think any motorbikers in this country would argue against the benefits of a lid to save your skin........cartillage, bone, and brains for that matter)

I have said this before re simliar discussions, I drive a car, I ride a motorbike, I ride a mountain bike (commuting and fun) and I'm a pedestrian (it depends on the journey as to what mode of transport I choose) I even used to deliver in a white van !

Surely If I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot no matter what mode of transport I use.

Personally I believe that motorcyclists and cyclists have a lot in common as we aren't surrounded by impact absorbing steel and even though I don't live in London (and hats off to those who have to live/work/commute there) I support any move to allow bus lanes to be used by other vehicle groups.

In Newcastle and Sunderland they each have "No car lanes" so buses, vans, motorbikes & cycles are all allowed and this system works very well.

As for the statistics proving It is well established that motorcycles are involved in a greater proportion of collisions per kilometre with pedestrians and cyclists than are cars. I bet there would be other stats out there that would disprove this. Figures can be manipulated to prove any argument.

This is yet another of those ridiculous attempts to allienate cyclists from other groups of road users. There are some idiot bikers.........but there are also some cyclists who are pretty dumb too. :shock:

wildmoustache

Attica wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

a fair number of idiots ride them.

You could apply this to any form of transport including bicycles (and please don't take that as a personal slight Meanwhile, I genuinely mean that there are a fair number of idiots in any cross section of society, with the possible exception of politicians where the numbers are grossly inflated ;oP )

The motorcyclists' argument you've stated has a lot in common with the gun lobby's argument ... it's the human that's the problem. True ... but if you deprive them of the means with which to do harm ...

Get the point?

hondafanatic

wildmoustache wrote:

Attica wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

a fair number of idiots ride them.

You could apply this to any form of transport including bicycles (and please don't take that as a personal slight Meanwhile, I genuinely mean that there are a fair number of idiots in any cross section of society, with the possible exception of politicians where the numbers are grossly inflated ;oP )

The motorcyclists' argument you've stated has a lot in common with the gun lobby's argument ... it's the human that's the problem. True ... but if you deprive them of the means with which to do harm ...

Get the point?

Holy threadrevival batman!

You're either a slow reader or not very busy...am i close?

AndyManc

Cars park in our bike lanes so the least we can do is allow motorbikes to do the same.

Seriously though .... we don't need brain dead 17 year old knob-heads on scooters in cycle lanes with zero road skill causing havoc, don't we have enough problems :evil:

Clever Pun

AndyManc wrote:

Cars park in our bike lanes so the least we can do is allow motorbikes to do the same.

Seriously though .... we don't need brain dead 17 year old knob-heads on scooters in cycle lanes with zero road skill causing havoc, don't we have enough problems :evil:

better on a moped than in a car....

also amazing bump on this thread... wow... stunning work

il_principe

I'm completely happy to share bus lanes with bikes. I really don't like all this "segregate cyclists from traffic" business. If we're not careful we'll end up with narrow cycle only lanes on pavements - a la Hamburg and be banned from roads where paths exist. That would mean no more 20 - 30 mph cycling, not a situation I'd be happy with. It all encourages drivers to think we don't belong on the road. Any, bus lanes and asl's are already full of bikes and you never see them get done for it.

AndyManc

jashburnham wrote:

I'm completely happy to share bus lanes with bikes. I really don't like all this "segregate cyclists from traffic" business. If we're not careful we'll end up with narrow cycle only lanes on pavements - a la Hamburg and be banned from roads where paths exist. That would mean no more 20 - 30 mph cycling, not a situation I'd be happy with. It all encourages drivers to think we don't belong on the road. Any, bus lanes and asl's are already full of bikes and you never see them get done for it.

or we could end up like Copenhagen , where cycling is safe and they are respected.

il_principe

AndyManc wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I'm completely happy to share bus lanes with bikes. I really don't like all this "segregate cyclists from traffic" business. If we're not careful we'll end up with narrow cycle only lanes on pavements - a la Hamburg and be banned from roads where paths exist. That would mean no more 20 - 30 mph cycling, not a situation I'd be happy with. It all encourages drivers to think we don't belong on the road. Any, bus lanes and asl's are already full of bikes and you never see them get done for it.

or we could end up like Copenhagen , where cycling is safe and they are respected.

Yeah and all ride at 5mph. No thanks.

always_tyred

Am I the only one who totally objects to the word "disbenefit"? I just can't sign anything that causes so much injury to language.

The guy who used it should be made to read the chapter on words beginning with "D" in his dictionary to verify that (a) "disbenefit" is no more a word than "bouncebackability" or "turnonandoffable" and (b) disadvantage or detriment would have been perfectly adequate.