Would you class a 40% drop in cycling collisions as a good result ?

[Tollers]

I have to recommend a book here "Bad Science" by Ben Goldsworthy. Its all about the media and how studies are presented to us as meaningfull, but as mentioned earlier and showing results with no statistical significance. It also has recurring theme of hatred towards Gillian McKeith which is very entertaining!

 

[very-near]

LCC and CTC campaigned against the 'trial' for the best of reasons - most cyclists don't want to ride in the bus lane with motorcyclists. Given that both organisations represent present and future cyclists would anybody have them do anything else. The result of the 'trial' is an irrelevance.

You have missed the point entirely on this Dell.

Unfortunately, many Cyclists have demonstrated that they only want to consider what suits their world view whether there is foundation in it or not (like those in the LCC & CTC). The Trial was an attempt to improve road safety for vulnerable users by allowing them access to the Bus lanes.

The core of the LCC & CTC argument was that the trial would increase deaths amongst cyclists through collisions in the bus lanes with motorcyclists. This has after 12 months of trials not proven to be the case.

You need to separate perceived threat with actual threat as you and the NIMBY crowd in the CTC seem to be struggling with this concept.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The result of the 'trial' is an irrelevance.

Hardly! The results of the trial, when available, will tell us whether our lives are more at risk or safer with motorcycles in bus lanes. The rest is just about publicity and education.

 

[benborp]

very-near, dellzeqq has been stressing the significance of perceived threat and how incomplete figures from a trial attempting to quantify actual threat have no relevance to said perceived threat. Pay attention.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Policy needs to be determined by reality; perceptions then need to be addressed by publicity and education.

 

[dellzeqq]

it's about preference based on perception. The rest doesn't really matter.

people will cycle if they like the experience. Having motorcycles pass you by at close quarters is perceived as unpleasant and intimidating by many cyclists. Allowing motorcyclists in to bus lanes will hinder the growth of cycling whether or not the increase in risk is real. Motorcyclists will have to be sacrificed on the altar of perception. Which may or may not be fair, but is fine by me because most of them smell. And dress badly. Which is worse.

 

[Norm]

Motorcyclists will have to be sacrificed on the altar of perception. Which may or may not be fair, but is fine by me because most of them smell. And dress badly. Which is worse.

We must have met, dell, but I can't think where.

 

[dellzeqq]

the shame of it is that large people on speed-limited scooters are an absolute boon to cyclists. I've trailed one all the way up the Embankment.

 

[CopperBrompton]

it's about preference based on perception.

Perceptions can be changed by education; reality can't.

Allowing motorcyclists in to bus lanes will hinder the growth of cycling

Not if it turns out to make cyclists safer, and this fact is publicised.

Motorcyclists will have to be sacrificed on the altar of perception.

Neither cyclists nor motorcyclists should be sacrificed on the alter of ignorance.

 

[benborp]

I would argue on several grounds that discounting the subjective perceptions and experiences of road users would be a mistake when considering what factors influence road safety.

In terms of accurately reflecting the reality of road use in London can the subjective opinions of road users be said to not provide any illumination in to their behaviour and interactions?

Can the results of even high quality trials ever be said to be free from the influence of the perceptions and agenda of those that commission, execute, analyse or report on those data?

Once such a trial is completed the use to which its results are put is unlikely to be rigorously objective. Will policy be applied that positively affects the reality on the road or positively affects the figures in the next analysis?

An acknowledgement that such human factors are at play would help support the analysis, diminish the risk of mis-interpretaion of the data and its misuse.

Policy needs to be determined by reality; perceptions then need to be addressed by publicity and education.

Policy, reality, perceptions, publicity/education are all such interrelating factors on peoples behaviour and each other that attempting to formulate their application from a statistical analysis while discounting any psychological factors would be like jellying a wall to a nail.

Due to the complexities involved and the fast changing nature of our society, possibly unfortunately, the effective delivery of policy that will deliver a reduction in death, injury and fear and maintain or improve mobility on the roads will probably require a balance of intuition and ideology as well as an informed and developing knowledge of transportation planning.

 

[very-near]

The LCC and the CTC act as lobby organisations for cyclists. It is not their job to evaluate the big picture but to argue for what I* want. Motorcyclists can pay for their own lobby group. Once everyone has argued their respective positions, it is someone else's job to reach a balanced decision. Unfortunately that is not likely in this instance for obvious reasons.

What I want is motorcyclists out of bus lanes. There are two reasons for this.

Firstly they do not use them as originally envisaged, in that many of them use the bus lane to undertake moving traffic at speed rather than to pass stationary traffic slowly. This means that I now share the lane with vehicles that move much faster than before.

Buses can and do reach 40 mph in these lanes whilst passing stationary vehicles in queues. Taxi drivers also use these lanes and can and do also reach 40mph in them whilst passing stationary vehicles in queues.
They both travel at a speed which they can see to stop safely within. Unless you have had an awful lot of cake, they will be up your chuff when riding in them and they will then tailgate you until they can either get past you, or they pull in or turn off.
The situation of you being the slowest user in that lanes hasn't changed, but a motorcycle won't tailgate you, they will just look for a safe point and come past

Secondly when stuck behind a stationary bus, many motorcyclists will try to edge into a gap where they don't fit and stop me from using it.

And so what do you do when you get stuck behind a stationary bus which you can't fit between and the row of cars along side it ?

The first is threatening, the second unnecessarily annoying.

Believe me, If I were on my motorcycle and you were in front of me, I'd have no intention of threatening you, but if you were riding in an obstructive manner, you would slow me down over a 5 mile journey in many more places than I would you. I'd just want to get past and be on my way when I see it safe to do so


*I am using me as my yardstick of that for which a reasonable lobby group should argue.

I don't find either group reasonable in their demands. All 2 wheelers should be sticking together and looking out for each other whether powered or not. Your attitude comes across as that of an impatient ('get out of my way') car driver on 2 wheels

 

[benborp]

Perceptions can be changed by education; reality can't.

If education can't change reality what's the point?

 

[very-near]

But linfy, your interpretation shows that allowing motorbikes into bus lanes will result in more motorbike collisions.

Does that not bother you?

What are you smoking tonight MrP ?

 

[very-near]

Nothing. I was just hoping you'd explain why you support motorbikes in bus lanes because you claim it's safer for them, when the stats you link to plainly say the opposite.

You must be looking at a different set of stats to me. Can you be a bit more precise as the data is incomplete to prove or disprove any assertion you can make

 

[very-near]

Click on the 'source' link from your own OP-

It found there were just three collisions between cycles and motorcycles on the bus lane routes compared to five during the same period the previous year.

and just beneath-

But interestingly they also don’t indicate a benefit to our safety, with total collisions involving motorcycles rising from 109 before to 124 after.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...9-bike-and-cycle-collisions-down-40-in-trial/

It comes to something when I have to cite your own links for you.

You forgot this bit:-

However the report says the data is inconclusive due the short period covered, adding: ‘It is also not possible to assess whether the collisions occurred in the bus lane or the main carriage way.’

The British Motorcyclists Federation’s Chris Hodder said: “There was a fall in collisions for all road users in an earlier, smaller London trial, so there’s no reason these results should be any different.”