David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

(Motor) traffic is stopped by many things. The greatest cause of
delays to traffic is motorists in cars.

ITYM "traffic"

I meant what I typed, motor traffic.

Which isn't what you typed.

You typed "motorists in cars". Look up a bit - it's still quoted,
unedited.

Cyclists and their vehicles are less encumbered by motor vehicle
constipation.

Sure. But buses, trucks, vans and other non "motorists in their cars"
traffic is part of, vehicle-for-vehicle a greater contributor to, and
affected by that traffic.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is
to make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and bus
boarders in the space the layby used to take up.

Deliberately introducing delays to traffic benefits buses, how?

Your point relies on a false premise, contained in the first five words,

Ah, so those bus-stop laybys get filled in unwittingly? Or is the effect
- which you then describe as beneficial - unknown until it inevitably
happens?

which I explained before.

You did. However, since you've already contradicted that explanation,
you'll excuse me for being sceptical about it.

One of these things is to encourage motorists out of their little metal
prisons

****, you're as bad as Duhg.

by making alternatives more attractive.

"Buses - currently so bad "little metal prisons" are preferable."
You do do the hard-sell well...

As I recall the results, as well as speeding up priority vehicles by
something like 20 minutes it also speeded up motorists by a minute or
two.

I wonder how that could possibly happen unless the causes of traffic
really aren't as massively simplistic ("motorists in cars") as you try to
claim?