London-centric: motorbikes in bus lanes

[Twenty Inch]

Text of my letter to Boris



Dear Boris



I would like to express my disappointment and worry at your recent decision to allow motorcyclists to use bus lanes.



Bus lanes have been a godsend for cyclists, allowing us to move swiftly and safely through traffic, with only noisy and slow cabs and busses to think of coming up behind us. Motorbikes have been shown in many studies to be more dangerous to cyclists than cars. There are more and more idiots riding scooters, who seem not to have the most basic ideas about road safety. Your decision has increased the likelihood of serious injury or death to cyclists.



I am sure that you will regret this decision when the first reports of cyclist-scooter collisions and injuries start appearing. In order to ensure that you don’t miss any, I’ll forward them to this email address.



Sincerely

Sent to: mayor@london.gov.uk

This is a severely retrograde step for road safety. Can we get a response going?

 

[mandat]

What about the tfl study which showed an improvement in road safety for cyclist, pedestrians & PTW's in the trial areas where bus lanes could be used?

 

[zimzum42]

I think it's a good idea, should improve things for motorcyclists.....

 

[spindrift]

What about the tfl study which showed an improvement in road safety for cyclist, pedestrians & PTW's in the trial areas where bus lanes could be used?

There isn't one.

One yesterday, accelerating and doing wheelies. I don't want to share crowded lanes with them, the fact is that motorbikes pose twice the danger to cyclists than car drivers do. This would be a regressive step because the stated aim is to increase cycling, allowing PTWs in bus lanes would DISCOURAGE cycling.

The claim that on the trial routes the "number of motorcycle collisions fell by 42%" is wrong. Not even the report rejected by Transport for London made such a claim. That leaked report calculated a changed 'rate' of collisions by using traffic data estimated on only one day in a year, those estimates varied wildly by over 100% year by year. Any conclusions drawn from such dodgy data are dangerous nonsense.


What will happen, I confidently predict, is that if PTWs are allowed in bus lanes then they will start using cycle lanes. They already use ASLs every single freaking day.

 

[Andy 71]

Twenty,

I cycle in London, and my experience is that cyclists have much in common with bikers in that cagers seem to be out to kill us all regardless.

We often complain as cyclists that our voice is not heard and we are demonised. Well, I am an advocate of solidarity with our petrol-engined brothers. The motorcycle lobby is far more powerful, and I can see we have much to gain by us joining forces. We share the same problems and frustrations.

Neither of us are isolated from the outside world in a steel box. Most bikers I know seldom whinge about cyclists. Yet cagers (I have a car) seem to constantly get away with the old SMIDSY routine, putting it down to just being an 'accident'. One of those things. Wasn't my fault guv. Could have happened to anyone.

Enough is enough. Let's get the police off their backsides and see some real, substantive prosecutions. Causing death due to lack of due care should be reclassified as manslaughter. Put the onus on the cager to prove their innocence. Let's get that Highway Code re-written to knock out any ambiguity and set out enforceable rules for behaving towards cyclists. No wriggle room.

So, to me, I have no problem at all with bikers using bus lanes. They are the least of my worries. It's the other authorised users, i.e. cabbies and minimum-wage bus drivers that cause me the most grief.

 

[lynx]

Hola,

If its so bad whay are PTW allowed in bus lanes in westminster, and LB of Richmond. Oh and I forgot to mention a few towns and cities up and down the country such a Bath and Bristol, to name but two.

Where was the carnage there?

 

[LLB]

There isn't one.

One yesterday, accelerating and doing wheelies. I don't want to share crowded lanes with them, the fact is that motorbikes pose twice the danger to cyclists than car drivers do. This would be a regressive step because the stated aim is to increase cycling, allowing PTWs in bus lanes would DISCOURAGE cycling.

The claim that on the trial routes the "number of motorcycle collisions fell by 42%" is wrong. Not even the report rejected by Transport for London made such a claim. That leaked report calculated a changed 'rate' of collisions by using traffic data estimated on only one day in a year, those estimates varied wildly by over 100% year by year. Any conclusions drawn from such dodgy data are dangerous nonsense.


What will happen, I confidently predict, is that if PTWs are allowed in bus lanes then they will start using cycle lanes. They already use ASLs every single freaking day.

Don't judge the group by the actions of the individual spinners.
Motorcycles are at just as much a risk from cars in traffic as cycles, in fact more so as it is much easier to drop a motorcycle, and much more difficult to pick it back up if you get 'brushed' by a car.

Your attitude to exclude all others from what you see as your own personal lane smacks of nimbyism. It is a shame that they allow the buses and taxis in there isn't it

 

[LLB]

That's one, very spurious example of where a biker may be at more risk than a cyclist (and I've never heard of one being squashed while trying to pick up his bike). It's certainly not conclusive proof that bikers are generally at more risk than cyclists.

You need to take a balanced assessment before you can come up with any kind of generalisation.

And yet again dismissive of other vulnerable users. You come across as a very selfish road user when you come out with this sort of comment MrP

It is well established that PTWs are more vulnerable than cyclists despite popular opinion. The stats speak for themselves

 

[Rhythm Thief]

... and here we go again!

 

[LLB]

... and here we go again!

Just in case you missed it

 

[LLB]

You accept that you're wrong then?

Good.

And I thought I was thick skinned

Its all in your head, sometimes you get it wrong as well - however, I've yet to see you own up to it

 

[LLB]

Look at Nethalus's video thread.

Thing is with you linf it's usually the same issue -you get defensive of those who share your interests. It clouds your judgment and view of the facts.

So it's not that you're wrong all the time, just on the one approach. If you could get past that then you'd be qualified to join those who have a more realistic and productive view of road safety.

I only tend to post opinion on those things that I know about, not just issues that I have an interest in but don't really understand properly.

This is the internet MrP, even highly qualified people spout bollocks on here from time to time (Ask User how this Q.E.D. thing works )

Anyway how come you were so adamant about the motorcyclist being culpable when he was rammed off the road by the inattentive driver if you only post on things you know about ? You know naff all about riding motorcycles, but feel compelled to be judge, jury and executioner on all things motorcycle

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Just in case you missed it

Very funny. I might nick that for my next avatar, if that's ok with you.

 

[LLB]

And here's where you display perfectly your behaviour, as outlined by me above.

I wasn't adamant that the biker was culpable. I said that he could have made other choices which would have resulted in him avoiding the collision. They're two different things. Come back and have another go when you've understood this.

Then you'll see things far more clearly. Then you won't be compelled to come up with all the so obviously wrong guff that you did on the thread you'er referring to -the car swerved into the outside lane and hit the biker, the bike was travelling straight ahead and the car pushed it sideways etc etc.

Which was what - move into the overtaking lane whilst doing 20mph ?

 

[LLB]

You know what I said linf. You were wrong the. First time. And the next time you repeated the argument. And the next time, and so on...

There's really no need to go through it all again. But if you insisted on it you'd still be wrong, because you just can't assess the issue with correct awareness of your defensive bias.

If he had stayed in his original position, there is a very good chance that her coming past on the inside of him at the speed she was traveling would have removed his left leg. At least by moving more centrally into the lane, meant that the bike took the brunt of the force, and not the riders leg.