Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

How else do you explain the
bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?

Where? TIA.

Kew Bridge for one.

There are buses on Kew Bridge, the 65 for a start.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Nuxx Bar wrote:

The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes:

Mate, if you're going to set up flamewars between urc and urd, could you
leave utl out of it? Cheers.

http://tinyurl.com/36kls5

Interesting study; let's hope it gets published properly, so we can see
what it really says.

tom

--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

1/

Name a "militant cyclist" who "hates other road users" and provide
evidence for your claim, you know, like a concrete example of anyone
here ever saying anything that justifies this petulant outburst. Got
any examples?

2/

" (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
Spindrift, "

You claim some of the posts on The Telegraph web page are from me.
Evidence, please, since my name doesn't appear anywhere on that page.

3/


"who isn't really a cyclist at all "

15 mile commute a day, cycle from Cherbourg to Corfu a whiole ago, Col
du Tourmalet 4 months ago, Budapest to Krakow in July.

There's photos of me on the Tourmalet on this newsgroup.

You seem a strange, obsessive figure, and on motorbikes in bus lanes
I'd refer you to conclusive
evidence that it makes things much more unpleasant for cyclists:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article13.html


http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4789

http://www.croydon-lcc.org.uk/campai..._bus_lanes.htm

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Name a "militant cyclist" who "hates other road users" and provide
evidence for your claim, you know, like a concrete example of anyone
here ever saying anything that justifies this petulant outburst. Got any
examples?

Other than Duhg, y'mean?

and on motorbikes in bus lanes I'd refer you to conclusive evidence
that it makes things much more unpleasant for cyclists:

Boo. Hoo. You'll be complaining that the presence of buses in bus lanes
makes life "unpleasant" for cyclists next.

"Other than Duhg, y'mean? "

A quick search reveals nobody by that name posts on the UK Rec cycling
forum, and it's interesting you still have no actual examples.


"Boo. Hoo. You'll be complaining that the presence of buses in bus
lanes
makes life "unpleasant" for cyclists next."

No. Buses move largely in a predictable fashion at relatively lower
speeds than motorbikes- the crux of the argument against allowing
PTW's in bus lanes, as you'd know had you read the links.

So, any examples of an "anti-motorist" agenda here, or a shred of
evidence for the paranoid claims about the posts on the torygraph
site?


Anything at all?

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

"Other than Duhg, y'mean? "

A quick search reveals nobody by that name posts on the UK Rec cycling
forum

You may like to put the goalposts back, btw, because your question didn't
restrict the choice to posters in uk.rec.cycling. You know exactly who
I'm referring to. Nor is uk.rec.cycling a "forum".

and it's interesting you still have no actual examples.

I don't "still" anything, because that was my first post in this thread.

"Boo. Hoo. You'll be complaining that the presence of buses in bus lanes
makes life "unpleasant" for cyclists next."

No. Buses move largely in a predictable fashion at relatively lower
speeds than motorbikes- the crux of the argument against allowing PTW's
in bus lanes, as you'd know had you read the links.

So. ****ing. What? Got news for you, mate. There's a rather unsubtle clue
in their name that "BUS lanes" don't exist for the benefit of cyclists -
they're there for the _sole_ benefit of bus traffic, and the fact that
cyclists are allowed into them is a side issue.

If you want to play the "inconvenience" card, bicycles cause far more
delay and inconvenience to buses than P2Ws would. I strongly suspect
there's also more collisions, injuries and even deaths caused by
interaction between buses and bicycles in bus lanes than there would be
between buses and P2Ws in bus lanes.

x-no-archive:

spindrift wrote:


No. Buses move largely in a predictable fashion at relatively lower
speeds than motorbikes- the crux of the argument against allowing
PTW's in bus lanes, as you'd know had you read the links.

So, any examples of an "anti-motorist" agenda here, or a shred of
evidence for the paranoid claims about the posts on the torygraph
site?


Anything at all?

I really can't see that cyclists trying to ban other vehicles from
certain roads or lanes will be anything but counter productive. After
all, a lot of car drivers would like to ban cyclists from the roads,
especially if there is a cycle path nearby, and could justifiably argue
that if cars can't go on some roads, why should bicycles not go on others.

It is a dangerous route to take. A more effective approach would be for
roads to be shared by all and the consequential problems dealt with
rather than atttempting to ban whole classes of road users.

I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift, but
I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and the
cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

Jim Harvest wrote:

I've no wish to engage the trollers you are debating with Spindrift,
but I do say that you, and a significant portion of those on urc, and
the cyclists representative body, the ctc, are anti-motorcyclist.

I think you're being over-generous. Spindrift and his ilk are anti anything
that they believe prevents them cycling at breakneck speed. Which actually
makes them no different to all the people they're complaining about.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
1/

Name a "militant cyclist" who "hates other road users" and provide
evidence for your claim, you know, like a concrete example of anyone
here ever saying anything that justifies this petulant outburst. Got
any examples?

2/

" (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
Spindrift, "

You claim some of the posts on The Telegraph web page are from me.
Evidence, please, since my name doesn't appear anywhere on that page.

3/


"who isn't really a cyclist at all "

15 mile commute a day, cycle from Cherbourg to Corfu a whiole ago, Col
du Tourmalet 4 months ago, Budapest to Krakow in July.

There's photos of me on the Tourmalet on this newsgroup.

You seem a strange, obsessive figure, and on motorbikes in bus lanes
I'd refer you to conclusive
evidence that it makes things much more unpleasant for cyclists:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article13.html


http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4789

http://www.croydon-lcc.org.uk/campai..._bus_lanes.htm

None of your citations offers a shred of evidence that ptw's _in bus lanes_
pose an increased risk to cyclists. I realise that you cited them as
'conclusive
evidence that it makes things much more unpleasant for cyclists', but the
only conclusion that can be drawn is that some cyclists are very vocal in
their opposition. Even the Bristol study is only quoted as saying that 31%
of cyclists _said_ that they experienced problems with ptw's, not what
questions had elicited these responses or what the alleged problems were,
and not a hint of any statistics related to accidents or injuries. What
would the response of motorcyclists have been if asked whether they had
experienced problems with cyclists in bus lanes, I wonder? Or buses with
cclists and vice versa?

As a cyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian and (dare I admit it) motorist, I
despair of the ghetto mentality of cyclists who cannot see common cause with
other vulnerable road users.

Let's all bear in mind 40% of motorbikes (probably more in London)
shouldn't be on the road at all, let alone in bus lanes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7200066.stm



A Government survey of 30 mph areas found that 52% of powered two-
wheelers were breaking the speed limit and 34% were doing over 35 mph.
These figures include mopeds, which are limited by design to 30 mph.

Allowing PTWs into bus lanes would - let's face it - make them
unpleasant for cyclists. This would undermine both national and local
policy which is to encourage cycling - a healthy, non-polluting and
non-hazardous form of transport. It would also send out a strong
message that the convenience of private motor vehicles is being placed
before the convenience and safety of cyclists


DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice
as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as
dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as
much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet
DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-
sided.