Motorcycles in your bus lane

wouldn't you says that a poorly driven motorcycles pose more danger than a poorly driven cyclist? (to other road user/peds).

You can read this for now.

Oh great. I love bureaucratic speak (from this PDF)

**22. What will you do if the representations show that most people do not want
the scheme to become permanent?

The views of user groups and stakeholders are valued and will be evaluated in
combination with the results of the experiment. They will be included in the
assessment of the proposed scheme.

**Translation? "Fuck you and your opinion."

Well hopefully the scheme will work very well and will be a benefit to all.

lets focus on our real ENEMY London black cabs and those private hire bastards they are all CUNTS!!!

and squirrels!

Yeah, squirrels hate black cabs and private hire bastards!

wouldn't you says that a poorly driven motorcycles pose more danger than a poorly driven cyclist? (to other road user/peds).

To a pedestrian ( if hit) then yes, to a car too ( more dent in the bonnet i guess )

But a cycle poses as much threat to a morobike as the other way round.

If you're riding a moto at a speed, and hit a cyclist who just came out of traffic without looking , then you will injure the cyclist, yeah, but you're gonna scrape half of your body too sliding down the tarmac and break a few bones when you're being catapulted out of the bike.

The speed you have will work against you , not only against the cyclist you hit.

fair enough, if a bicycle hits another one then often it will be less damage, but maybe this makes people less careful ? i have been ridden into by cyclists ( and cars, fair enough ) so much more often than motos.

I'm not taking any sides here, but you're gonna get idiots anywhere doing stupid things on the road . When a ginger haired pedestrian runs into me should i start slagging off all ginger ? or white ? idiot is an idiot.

Nobody our enemy, only bad driver are.

Actually I have to says I did a small test on how many bad drivers there are and how many considerate one on the stretch from Clerkenwell to Wimbledon (11 miles).

I have counted (and I use that lynx click thingy, you know the one that everytime you got eyed by a hot lass you have to click it);

56 considerate driver*
8 bad drivers*.

The thing is here, we never think about the considerate one, we automatically forget them and concentrate on the bad drivers so much, that we think the road is simply littered with bad drivers and not a single considerate one.

*(i.e. giving me a generous space between me and the vehicle, stopping behind the ASL, not attempting to overtake me in desperation on a narrow road, usually double decker buses)

*(one for instance in a very fast late 90's BMW that look like it was built by the French going must've been 50mph really close to me almost knocking me off, and a mini-cab pushing my bike out of the ASL so he can be in front).

The funny thing is that probably all 64 of them though you were riding like a cunt!:)

I wonder if bus drivers have a forum - seems buses are the minority users of bus lanes these days

I doubt this is going to make any difference to ever day life on a bike, either motorised or not, as someone else pointed out earlier its not like motorbikes dont already use bus lanes !

of course they rarely use the bus lane, they literally go on the other lane just to avoid some cyclists.

crikey, strong views here!

As a cyclist and motorcyclist, I agree that the lot of the average person-powered cycle in London is not the best. That, and the fact that I've been told that I'm not temperamentally suited to commuting on a bike has lead me to commute on a motorcycle.

What I've seen supports your views that unthinking L-plate numpties cause a significant proportion of upset. From my perspective, they frequently tend to 'undertake' to get to the front of a queue and will stop, blocking the ASL to other road users.

If I'm in a position where I might cause a cyclist to think about entering the ASL, I will wave them through - some come through and others won't, sometimes causing other cyclists behind them to be put in a dangerous position alongside cars and other vehicles.

Consideration to cyclists in bus lanes is down to the individual and just as you see idiots on bikes, you will see idiots on motorcycles. Personally, I try to give extra room and will give a cyclist as much space as possible, however, having had a number of scooters pass between my bike and cyclists at speed, I can see your concern, although I can't see motorcycles being ridden at excessive speed in bus lanes due to the chance of vehicles turning across the bus lane into a turning on the left.

Re pedestrians, the presence of loud motorcyclists has to make cycling safer. To the average pedant, a cyclist seems much less offensive and less dangerous than an outlaw biker. If they're used to looking for me in a bus lane, they'll get used to looking for you.

One last thing: + 1 for mini cabs as the most dangerous road user. They just don't seem to give a t*ss about anyone. And mirrors? Can't someone tell them what they're for???

Jerry, what is your commute? I am liking the idea of a biker buddy.

Sorry BlueQuinn et al but the study to which you refer has been shown to be flawed and the results unreliable.study.

By the LCC. Who you might say have their own agenda.

Nobody else who looked at the study found it anything but extremely conclusive. Indeed there were inbuilt flaws trying to skew the data against allowing motorcyclists into bus lanes, such as not accounting for a massive decrease in incidents even though there was a big increase in motorcyclists using the study roads specifically because they were allowed in the bus lanes.

for example one of the things the LCC did was argue that on the A13 since the motorcycles had entered bus lanes there had been a massive drop in the number of cyclists on that road, claiming that it was taken out of the study to hide this fact. Anyone who looked at the A13 would know that the reason both the number of cyclists in the bus lane dropped to virtually nil, and that the road ceased to be relevant to the study, was that they built a big wide cycle lane in addition to the bus lane.

Either way, this is an 18 month (max) temporary evaluation. if it works then everybody wins. If it fails then cyclists win.

On the advance stop line thing, well perception is everything. Most road users ignore them including motorbikes (and cycles who usually sail straight past them), but at least if there are motorbikes in there there is probably room for cyclists too. As I said, I personally respect them and keep out unless (and it's a big unless) my safety is better served by entering it (Admiralty Arch onto Trafalgar Square comes to mind) and I will never block a cyclist coming up behind me if I have room to get out of their way. Neither will I intimidate one in front of me. I'll give them all the time in the world and proceed when it is safe. With luck if the motorbikes are in the bus lane then maybe they won't be in the ASL.

Jerry, what is your commute? I am liking the idea of a biker buddy.

Kingston Hill, A3, then south of the river until Westminster Bridge. Fun!

Oh great. I love bureaucratic speak (from this PDF)

**22. What will you do if the representations show that most people do not want
the scheme to become permanent?

The views of user groups and stakeholders are valued and will be evaluated in
combination with the results of the experiment. They will be included in the
assessment of the proposed scheme.

**Translation? "Fuck you and your opinion."

Yeah, I noticed that too. But then I thought "how many people are going to write in if they think everything has worked out fine?" Feedback is always skewed towards complaints, so to actually be representative they have to try and skew it back the other way. The results will be congestion levels, accident rates, impacts on bus schedules, and other more measurable things.

Also you must bear in mind that this is a manifesto pledge (by a mayor who cycles everywhere in London and did so long before it was the thing to be seen doing.) and as such has a million vote mandate. There is an obligation therefore to try and make the scheme work.

Article about this today in the Standard, says it comes into effect(officially) on Jan 2009

I love Boris Johnson

On the advance stop line thing, well perception is everything. Most road users ignore them including motorbikes (and cycles who usually sail straight past them), but at least if there are motorbikes in there there is probably room for cyclists too. As I said, I personally respect them and keep out unless (and it's a big unless) my safety is better served by entering it (Admiralty Arch onto Trafalgar Square comes to mind)

Ooh. That's my normal commute - Admiralty Arch into Trafalgar Square - and my personal bug bear for motorcycles/mopeds in the ASL, the feeder lane and the cycle only lane under the Arch. I often cannot get into that ASL due to the number of motorcycles and mopeds that block it up.

Out of curiosity, why are you ofter better off/safer in the ASL at that intersection?

The issue of motorcycles in bus lanes can also be readily framed in terms of environmental impact as well as safety. Motorcycles and scooters typically give off high levels of polluting emissions (as many of you can probably attest to when waiting at the lights) despite their small size although the introduction of catalystic converters is being to reduced some of the more extreme effects on newer machines.
I would be interested in what any increase in motorcyclists is coming from, but I'd guess that it hasn't been a sudden switch from car use (limited and expensive parking in the city already limits this as an option for many people) so don't think we are likely to see a reduction in emissions as people switch out of their cars.

Given this and the potentially negative effect an increase in the motorcyclists is likely to have on cyclists perception of safety, I still would strongly argue against their use of bus lanes...but as said earlier, Boris has made promises so it's pretty much a done deal

I think the law nowadays allowed motorbikes to have performance exhaust without a noise limited, does that have any effect on the pollution? (beside noise pollution).

I think the law nowadays allowed motorbikes to have performance exhaust without a noise limited, does that have any effect on the pollution? (beside noise pollution).

no, EU legislation states that motorcycles should conform to noise and pollution standards. However, cats add to a motorcycles fuel consumption, weight and don't have anything like the same impact on pollutants as cats fitted to cars (which have electric heaters to get them up to operating temperatures quickly). Since quiet motorcycles are just as likely to be hit as bikes, many motorcyclists fit louder exhausts as a safety feature. Some of these exhausts ditch the cats too.

Here's the joined up part: EU law tests motorcycles at the point of sale - type approval. The MOT test for motorcycles doesn't include a test for noise or emissions. So there is nothing at all to stop a motorcyclist removing cats and quiet pipes and literally throwing them in the bin.

If I was in your position, not being able to get into an ASL, I would just politely ask the motorcyclist to move forward so you can get into a safer position on the road. Most people would happily move.

Oh, and as a motorcyclist to a cyclist: red lights mean... :D

(understand why, just saying!)

Ooh. That's my normal commute - Admiralty Arch into Trafalgar Square - and my personal bug bear for motorcycles/mopeds in the ASL, the feeder lane and the cycle only lane under the Arch. I often cannot get into that ASL due to the number of motorcycles and mopeds that block it up.

Out of curiosity, why are you ofter better off/safer in the ASL at that intersection?

That cycle lane under the arch is a joke - the arch is too small for 2 lines of cabs and a bike lane. It's also hard to see from a car because you invariably approach it in a queue, not from a clear run. In my opinion the middle gates should be open and made into the bicycle lane.

Because of the pinch point at the junction there is never a clear run to the head of the queue, so you have to filter down the middle to the front. I need to turn right at the roundabout to go down Northumberland Ave but I can't filter on the right hand side thanks to a stupidly large island in that area. There are usually black cabs in both lanes, which will invariably turn left across you as they mostly head up The Strand for Charing Cross and the theatres.

Combined with the very short green phase (and the red light jumpers at the lights on the roundabout making it even shorter) the only safe approach for a motorcycle is to really gun it across to the right hand lane of the roundabout before the cabs can set off.

If there were bicycles blocking this course of action you can't do that, and will get cut up by a left turning car in the right hand lane, so instead, If I can (without getting in a cyclist's way) I will go into the ASL zone and go to the far right instead. I also do this if there is a cyclist filtering up the middle behind me, to let him through into the ASL zone (otherwise I'd be blocking up middle path - most cyclists filter up the left though), and if there are motorbikes behind me I'll do it too, because they're in the same boat.

That junction should be redesigned and the central island should be shrunk and the junction moved back so that filtering is safer and easier. In fact I'd rather not go through the Arch at all but Piccadilly's way worse.

Like it or not a motorised vehicle that drives into the ASL when the light is amber or red = £60 fine and 3 points.

If cyclists were the only ones jumping red lights, there would be less crashes and injuries. It seems that the only things that define cyclists are: jump red lights, cycle on the pavement, dangerous activity.

Policies should focus on how to get people cycling. How many less cars on the road if people took their children to school, went shopping, went to work on a bike.

The majority of people are denied the "cycling opportunity" because the majority of people perceive cycling as a dangerous activity. They would like to, but are too scared. As an example, look at the small number of women cyclists.

I have always found the 'motorcycles=more pollution than cars' idea to be odd. Bikes are way lighter and use much much less fuel than cars, especially when accelerating from a standstill, where most fuel is used. Also modern bikes have to meet EU emissions standards, just like cars. Older bikes can only be compared with older cars, which would also be worse. Modern bikes have catalysts and fuel injection. Also, significantly, most bikes are moving most of the time, not stuck in queue after queue, belching out fumes. and (almost) none of them are diesel.

Bear in mind that one person persuaded out of their car and onto a bike saves a lot of road space and that car's pollution, and fewer cars statistically means safer cyclists.

"I would just politely ask the motorcyclist to move forward so you can get into a safer position on the road. Most people would happily move."

Ha! In 3 years I've seen one cyclist ask another cyclist to move over to let him through.

I'll stick to taking the position I think is safest for me. If it fucks off some moto behind me, tough, get a real bike. ;)

With regard to the perception of safety, I found this document which demonstrates just how far removed from the actual facts the LCC et al are distorting it, and how much of a disservice they are doing to cyclists and cycling. They make themselves more politically powerful by making out that cycling is dangerous and they alone can make it safer. Unless you ride like a loon (OK, we probably all do) It's no more dangerous than walking and we all know it.

Here's the document.
Road Causalties in Great Britain 2006 on a link from the CTC forums. It makes interesting reading.
For a start motorcyclists are 3 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the road than cyclists.

But here's the really interesting bit:
Page 70 has a chart that breaks down cyclist accidents by what they collided with. Motorcycles are the safest vehicle to cyclists. the bare facts are right there. Based on hospital admissions:
Out of a total of 7065 hospital admissions
No collision at all (i.e. cyclist just fell off their bike or hit pot hole etc): 4,268
car: 1,592
"object" - tree, lamp post etc. (Don't think it includes Object): 242
HGV or bus: 102
Other cyclist: 89
Other vehicle, not bus, car, bike or HGV - so van, tractor etc: 77
Motorcycle: 50
Pedestrian or animal: 34.

So the LCC's claim that motorbikes are loads more likely to hit you than a car, is quite frankly, politically motivated bullshit, created by a severe distortion of statistics to suit their aims. Out of actual vehicles motorbikes are the safest. And that's because we are basically cyclists with engines.

Now, as I did last week I shall demonstrate at Trixiedix tonight just why colliding with absolutely fuck all causes the most injuries, by falling off my bike a lot. Again. I still have the cuts and bruises.

That's what "cyclists collided with", not what "motorcycles collided with".. which is different is it not?

Also, it's for Britain, not London which is surely a different case given the population density, cyclist density, etc.