On Jan 6, 12:35*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, MIG wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:49*pm, Colin McKenzie wrote:
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.

That's their choice, but I guess it all depends on where people are
attracted to motorcycling from. If they are attracted out of cars, then
they'd do less harm to the environment and cause less danger to other
road users.

If Colin's assertion is correct, that's true only if they were attracted
away from driving on their own. And every person who gets out of a car and
on to a motorbike is someone who won't then engage in car sharing or get
on a bus or train, and those switches are much bigger carbon and safety
wins. But then if they're unlikely to make those switches, getting the
onto a motorbike would be the surest bet. It's all a numbers game, and we
don't really have the numbers to play it, sadly.

I can't see any serious extra risk to cyclists though. *Being overtaken
by a bus in a bus lane happens all the time.

Not to me it bloody doesn't! Overtaken by a bus? The shame! Over my dead
body!

Don't give them ideas.

On 6 Jan, 00:35, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, MIG wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:49*pm, Colin McKenzie wrote:
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.

That's their choice, but I guess it all depends on where people are
attracted to motorcycling from. If they are attracted out of cars, then
they'd do less harm to the environment and cause less danger to other
road users.

If Colin's assertion is correct, that's true only if they were attracted
away from driving on their own. And every person who gets out of a car and
on to a motorbike is someone who won't then engage in car sharing or get
on a bus or train, and those switches are much bigger carbon and safety
wins. But then if they're unlikely to make those switches, getting the
onto a motorbike would be the surest bet. It's all a numbers game, and we
don't really have the numbers to play it, sadly.

I can't see any serious extra risk to cyclists though. *Being overtaken
by a bus in a bus lane happens all the time.

Not to me it bloody doesn't! Overtaken by a bus? The shame! Over my dead
body!

The way London bus drivers drive that's quite likely.

A motorbike in a bus lane can safely overtake a cycle in a bus lane. A
bus can't -- it must pull someway into the next lane.

If buses were forbidden from overtaking (specifically during rush
hours), things would be much better -- a bus will happily strain their
engines, belching pollution, only to slam their brakes on shortly
after overtaking to let passengers alight (or board) 5 seconds later.