MIG wrote:
I had to look up the London Cycling Campaign to try to work out what
the objections actually were from the point of view of cyclists. They
don't seem to give any; the petition asks for the trial not to be made
permanent, but doesn't say why.

1. This promotes motorcycling, not just in bus lanes but everywhere, as
did exempting them from the congestion charge. More motorcycling is not
desirable for the following reasons:
- too polluting (fumes and noise)
- high CO2 emissions per user: overall worse than everything except
cars with only one occupant
- more danger to pedestrians and cyclists, per mile, than cars
- the most hazardous form of land transport for the user.

2. Most London bus lanes are 3 metres wide. At present motorcyclists in
bus lanes hug the lane line, giving any cyclists they overtake plenty of
space. Allowed in legally, they will go further from the motor vehicles
in the next lane, passing cyclists in the bus lane too close.

3. The politics of this is about freeing up roadspace for cars, which
will just result in more cars.

4. The experiment does not appear to be measuring how cyclist numbers
change - it is possible that a reduction in numbers of cyclists after
the change could hide an increase in their casualty rate.

5. There is no credible evidence that this will make motorcycling safer.
Unlike with cyclists, there is no 'safety in mumbers' benefit from more
motorcycling, so more motorcycling means more casualties - motorcycling
is several times more hazardous than cycling, per mile.

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.