John B wrote:
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents
arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in
London since the introduction of articulated vehicles."

"Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may
have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious
incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07,
and two in 2007/08."

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...en_answers.pdf

In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor
clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists.

Sorry, it isn't as simple as that. Lack of casualties doesn't equal lack
of danger. It might equally indicate that cyclists are avoiding the
danger in various ways that delay them - taking another route, not
overtaking when they would pass an ordinary bus, for example.

Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in London. It
appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but this may be because
their routes are more predictable rather than because of greater
inherent safety.

I know that:
- if I try to pass a bendy bus at red traffic lights, and it's first in
the queue, it can start moving before I'm past, whereas I can get past a
normal bus between red and green
- as a fairly fast cyclist, bendy buses rarely get completely past me
before having to slow down or move in. Ordinary buses often do.

The obvious solution to lack of capacity on bus services is to get more
people cycling - most London bus journeys can be done quicker by bike.
The way to increase cycling is to help people to feel safe on the road -
e.g. by removing bendy-buses, though that isn't the most important thing
to do.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.