Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me. I've never driven a motorbike, but
their ability to overtake all stationary traffic means they effectively
carry their own bus lane with them anyway. Putting them in bus lanes will
encourage them to do 60mph, skidding into the side of all the idiot car
drivers who pull out of side roads ignoring what is in the bus lane and what
speed it is doing. A bus lane is a very dangerous place to be unless you are
driving a heavy vehicle such as a bus, London-style taxi or HGV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7811062.stm

On Jan 5, 2:23*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me. I've never driven a motorbike, but
their ability to overtake all stationary traffic means they effectively
carry their own bus lane with them anyway. Putting them in bus lanes will
encourage them to do 60mph, skidding into the side of all the idiot car
drivers who pull out of side roads ignoring what is in the bus lane and what
speed it is doing. A bus lane is a very dangerous place to be unless you are
driving a heavy vehicle such as a bus, London-style taxi or HGV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7811062.stm

There will most likely be more motorcycle riders over bonnets.
Generally speaking, cyclists are well aware of these dangers that
motorcyclists will now have to learn pretty quickly.

On my 16 mile commute this morning on cycle, I had no problems with
motorcycles. There again, there are no bus lanes on my commute or
certainly very little.

On 5 Jan, 14:23, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me. I've never driven a motorbike, but
their ability to overtake all stationary traffic means they effectively
carry their own bus lane with them anyway. Putting them in bus lanes will
encourage them to do 60mph, skidding into the side of all the idiot car
drivers who pull out of side roads ignoring what is in the bus lane and what
speed it is doing. A bus lane is a very dangerous place to be unless you are
driving a heavy vehicle such as a bus, London-style taxi or HGV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7811062.stm

More likely to run into cars turning left across bus lanes from the
main road, from where it's much harder to see what's coming.

On Jan 5, 2:23*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me. I've never driven a motorbike, but
their ability to overtake all stationary traffic means they effectively
carry their own bus lane with them anyway. Putting them in bus lanes will

I don't see what the problem is. They won't hold up the buses and it
keeps them away from the main body of traffic so safer for them and
less stressful for car drivers. I think its a good idea.

B2003

John Rowland wrote:

Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me. I've never driven a motorbike, but
their ability to overtake all stationary traffic means they effectively
carry their own bus lane with them anyway. Putting them in bus lanes will
encourage them to do 60mph, skidding into the side of all the idiot car
drivers who pull out of side roads ignoring what is in the bus lane and
what speed it is doing. A bus lane is a very dangerous place to be unless
you are driving a heavy vehicle such as a bus, London-style taxi or HGV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7811062.stm


Technically speaking it is an 18 month trial - actually, being specific, it
is an "experimental traffic order" which "must remain in place for a minimum
of six months and a maximum of 18 months" - here is the relevant TfL
webpage, which in turn links to a fairly comprehensive PDF of questions and
answers:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/fine...ons/10151.aspx

Here is a special page about the scheme on the BikeSafe-London website,
which includes a code of practice for motorcyclists and makes clear that an
increase in accidents during this trial period may lead to the withdrawal of
this privilege:
http://www.bikesafe-london.co.uk/buslaneriding.html

It should also be noted that this change only applies to bus lanes on red
routes, because they are the only roads that TfL has direct control over -
the others are the responsibility of the Boroughs.

I am a cyclist, and I too am not and have never been a motorcyclist though
friends are and I've ridden pillion with them many times. I cycle in London
regularly, though perhaps not as much as I should and as I have in the past.
I am going to take the perhaps somewhat unorthodox position from a cyclist's
stance of having an open mind on this one.

I've never had any particular trouble with motorbikes when cycling, at least
nothing I can recall. I've often been at traffic lights at the cyclists
advanced stop position ahead of the traffic and shared it with motorcyclists
who technically shouldn't have been there but their presence didn't cause
any problems. If motorcyclists can make use of the bus lane responsibly and
give cyclists a wide berth then perhaps this can work too

I understand that this initiative comes as a result of a study done by TfL
into the experiments on stretches of the A13, A23 and A41 which allowed solo
motorcyclists to use bus lanes - as well as better traffic flow the other
contention was that it would actually increase safety for motorbike riders
and hence for other road users. Here's a November '04 progress report on
these experiments (PDF):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...04-results.pdf

I only glanced at it quickly and there's likely to be other documents on the
TfL website relating to this too. (It's interesting to note that the
document says LB Richmond and LB Kingston were also conducting similar
trials on their own Borough roads.)

I haven't followed this issue that closely, but one of the things Boris'
camp were saying during the election was that Ken was suppressing a TfL
report that concluded allowing motorbikes in bus lanes was indeed a workable
concept. I don't know the details of this supposedly suppressed document
however, and stuff said in the heat of an election campaign should of course
be taken with a bag of salt anyway.

If however the essence of that was correct, and Ken had got cold feet on the
whole idea, then there is of course another side to this debate - that of
cyclists and their perception. The past 10-15 years has seen a vast increase
in the number of people cycling in London, with a particular upward trend in
recent years - it's not at all hard to imagine that many of these cyclists
would treat the notion of motorbikes being allowed into bus lanes with
extreme wariness (and indeed that very opinion has been strongly expressed
by many cyclists and cycling groups).

In this context changing the rules on motorbikes in bus lanes might very
well have negative connotations for encouraging cycling and increasing yet
more its take up amongst Londoners, especially when one bears in mind the
many new cyclists who inevitably lack some of the confidence and experience
that is gained by older hands. I would suggest that it would be these
concerns that the former Mayor may have given precedence to, if indeed he
had gone cold on the whole idea.

It's all a very interesting issue, and it is political in the most basic
sense - road space is a limited resource, and divvying it up - or rather I
should say working out how best to share it - between all the competing
demands is no easy task and inevitably requires a degree of compromise, as
well as that of leadership (i.e. get out the car and on to the bus/ your
bike/ your motorbike etc).

On 5 Jan, 16:48, "Mizter T" wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me. I've never driven a motorbike, but
their ability to overtake all stationary traffic means they effectively
carry their own bus lane with them anyway. Putting them in bus lanes will
encourage them to do 60mph, skidding into the side of all the idiot car
drivers who pull out of side roads ignoring what is in the bus lane and
what speed it is doing. A bus lane is a very dangerous place to be unless
you are driving a heavy vehicle such as a bus, London-style taxi or HGV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7811062.stm

Technically speaking it is an 18 month trial - actually, being specific, it
is an "experimental traffic order" which "must remain in place for a minimum
of six months and a maximum of 18 months" - here is the relevant TfL
webpage, which in turn links to a fairly comprehensive PDF of questions and
answers:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/fine...ons/10151.aspx

Here is a special page about the scheme on the BikeSafe-London website,
which includes a code of practice for motorcyclists and makes clear that an
increase in accidents during this trial period may lead to the withdrawal of
this privilege:http://www.bikesafe-london.co.uk/buslaneriding.html

It should also be noted that this change only applies to bus lanes on red
routes, because they are the only roads that TfL has direct control over -
the others are the responsibility of the Boroughs.

I am a cyclist, and I too am not and have never been a motorcyclist though
friends are and I've ridden pillion with them many times. I cycle in London
regularly, though perhaps not as much as I should and as I have in the past.
I am going to take the perhaps somewhat unorthodox position from a cyclist's
stance of having an open mind on this one.

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.

(When I am a cyclist, the only problem I've had with motorbikes is
that in traffic jams they often stand in front of a gap that I could
have gone through.)

The main risk I can see is to motorcyclists from other motor
vehicles. One road I cycle along quite a lot is Evelyn Street, and
the only really scary bit is when I am heading northeast past the
turning with Grinstead Road. This is a rather wide side street and
one feels very exposed. Evelyn street is usually a solid traffic jam,
and quite often someone will flash through a car that's turning right
into Grinstead Road from the opposite direction, straight across the
bus lane. They wouldn't go if they could see a bus coming, but they
don't bother about cyclists. I pretty much stop just in case.

I wonder if motorcyclists would be at even greater risk if travelling
at their natural speed adjacent to a traffic jam.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, MIG wrote:

On 5 Jan, 16:48, "Mizter T" wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Seems dangerous and unneccessary to me.

I've never had any particular trouble with motorbikes when cycling, at
least nothing I can recall. I've often been at traffic lights at the
cyclists advanced stop position ahead of the traffic and shared it with
motorcyclists who technically shouldn't have been there but their
presence didn't cause any problems.

(When I am a cyclist, the only problem I've had with motorbikes is that
in traffic jams they often stand in front of a gap that I could have
gone through.)

Pretty much my experience too. I was once hit by a moped rider, though.

My gut feeling is to not be happy about motorbikers in the bus lanes, but
i can honestly say i have any rational objections to it. The thing will be
to see how it goes - does it cause accidents, to cyclists, motorcyclists,
and others, and does it discourage people from cycling? I would hope the
latter will be measured in some way, but i wouldn't be surprised to hear
that Boris was suppressing it (or that pro-cycling factions were doing it
themselves with a generous helping of spin).

Putting them in bus lanes will encourage them to do 60mph, skidding
into the side of all the idiot car drivers who pull out of side roads
ignoring what is in the bus lane and what speed it is doing.

More likely to run into cars turning left across bus lanes from the main
road, from where it's much harder to see what's coming.

I've heard the latter mentioned in a few places, but both seem plausible.

I wonder if an upside to this is that drivers will be more careful in
pulling out across bus lanes when they can't see a bus, to the benefit of
cyclists!

A bus lane is a very dangerous place to be unless you are driving a
heavy vehicle such as a bus, London-style taxi or HGV.

But only because of the presence of such vehicles. Clearly, and i know
you'll agree with me here John, the solution is to ban them from bus them,
and reserve bus lanes for the use of cyclists.

tom

--
Information is not knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

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.

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.

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.

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 they were
attracted away from bicycles, there would be the opposite effect.

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

However much I'd like roads filled with nothing but affordable buses
and bicycles, I can see that TfL have the job of using the space
efficiently. When one is stuck in a jam, the bus lane must look a bit
like how a Brighton commuter sees a path taken up by an empty Gatwick
Express train.

But I am NOT in favour of allowing private cars anywhere more than
they are. Blocking the roads of the city with a personal empty steel
box is tantamount to treason ...

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!

tom

--
Tomorrow has made a phone call to today.