Laws of the road for cyclists and drivers alike

I know this sounds like the pot calling the kettle black but quite frankly mopeds doing this is far more dangerous than a bike.. I hadn't really thought about it before but now that mopeds/motorcycles are going to be (or are now?) allowed to go down bus lanes, does it just encourage them to go where-ever they feel?

Motorcyclists are allowed in advisory cycle lanes (the ones with dashed lines) right now, anyway (in theory only if 'unavoidable', but this is unenforceable), and into mandatory lanes outside their hours of operation, and have of course always been permitted into bus lanes outside of their hours of operation. As there are very few mandatory cycle lanes in London, it's likely that you won't see much of a change.

There is little reliable data, but the most likely big picture consequences are going to be a greater number of motorcyclists system-wide, as well as greater avoidance by pedal cyclists. There is also a distinct possibility of greater numbers of pedestrian Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) casualties, and to a lesser extent cyclist KSIs.

It's a retrograde step that goes against some of the advances that have been made in London on benign and sustainable transport in the last few years, for sure.

Oliver
LCC

Cyclecraft

+1. Cyclecraft is not a recommended read, it's a must read. Invaluable.

You heard of a puffin crossing?

Don't really get those in London though..

There are pelican, zebra, puffin, toucan, pegasus, and tiger crossings. There used to be panda crossings, too, but they died out.

I'm not happy looking at this. 'Safe' and 'Enjoyable' rarely go hand in hand.

There are pelican, zebra, puffin, toucan, pegasus, and tiger crossings. There used to be panda crossings, too, but they died out.

Bu-dum-Tssh!

I'm not happy looking at this. 'Safe' and 'Enjoyable' rarely go hand in hand.

+10, i shall be avoiding that book.

^ nah, lights in London change per set routine. Mostly, pressing the WAIT button is irrelevant.

And yeah, if it's clear of pedestrians and motor vehicles, go through red.

One annoying thing I had the displeasure of experiencing today was a guy on a moped swerving into the cycle lane without looking.. In an attempt to get around traffic..

I know this sounds like the pot calling the kettle black but quite frankly mopeds doing this is far more dangerous than a bike.. I hadn't really thought about it before but now that mopeds/motorcycles are going to be (or are now?) allowed to go down bus lanes, does it just encourage them to go where-ever they feel?

catch them at the lights and pick up the rear end using the rack. they're perplexed as they frantically twist the grip and nothing happens. then, when you see the fear, give them the tongue-lashing they deserve

+10, i shall be avoiding that book.

Bollocks. The edition whose cover was posted earlier is a special Bikeability edition. Bikeability is cycle training branded for children and beginners.

http://www.bikeability.org.uk/

My copy says 'skilled cycling techniques for adults', and that's what it is. Here's a non-Bikeability branded cover:

As I said, invaluable. You will learn something new no matter how experienced you think you are.

I went to catholic school run by Nuns, They called them "Belisa Beacons" and they dressed in black and white stripes. Sorry but 40 years on and I'm still fucked up!

Nuns are evil

Do nuns have to obey the same rules of the road as cyclists?

I'll get your coat

Is that picture from the skilled techniques for adults taken from a helmet mounted cam?

Is that picture from the skilled techniques for adults taken from a helmet mounted cam?

no the bike is stationary, the blur is either photoshoped in or added in a dark room

[INDENT]

Motorcyclists ...bus lanes...
There is little reliable data

[/INDENT]ok, so what's with this:
[INDENT]

, but the most likely big picture consequences are going to be a greater number of motorcyclists system-wide, as well as greater avoidance by pedal cyclists. There is also a distinct possibility of greater numbers of pedestrian Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) casualties, and to a lesser extent cyclist KSIs.

It's a retrograde step that goes against some of the advances that have been made in London on benign and sustainable transport in the last few years, for sure.

Oliver
LCC

[/INDENT]
opinionated, self-interested speculation?

All the evidence gathered on motorcyclists using bus lanes shows that it's beneficial for everyone, even for pedestrians as they're less likely to step out into the road without looking first. Refering to one of the posts at the top of this thread, motorcyclists can and do often give cycists 3m passing room and choose the time and place to pass carefully.

Motorcyclists are almost unique among road users in that we spend hundreds of pounds and many hours on extra training to make us safer, for ourselves and others.

Granted, there are some that ride inconsiderately, but the majority see the similarities between serious cyclists and motorcyclists and treat cyclists accordingly. Scooters, now there's another thing - barely trained and lacking competence. Similar to... Andy, what's the term? Dayglo numpties?

Hello Jerry,

ok, so what's with this:
opinionated, self-interested speculation?

All the evidence gathered on motorcyclists using bus lanes shows that it's beneficial for everyone

Are you saying that there is reliable evidence for allowing motorcyclists in bus lanes that can be applied in London? Please refer me to it first so I can have a look at what it is you're looking at.

If you think it's reliable, the burden of proof is on you (or whoever claimed it was reliable in the first place) to show that it is. Perhaps, to save us work, someone has already explained why they think it's reliable. If you don't think it is reliable, you and I may simply differ in our interpretation of this evidence, and in that way we'll have a sound basis for discussion.

There is certainly other evidence from which a 'most likely' scenario arises, as I outlined, subject to further study. I make no claim that this is a reliable outcome, but only that it is most likely based on what we do know. From this arises a genuine worry that the Mayor is moving ahead on policy without a reliable evidence basis when there are indicators to the contrary.

Granted, there are some that ride inconsiderately, but the majority see the similarities between serious cyclists and motorcyclists and treat cyclists accordingly. Scooters, now there's another thing - barely trained and lacking competence. Similar to... Andy, what's the term? Dayglo numpties?

Just to be clear: This is not a point about the behaviour of individual road users. That requires the usual wider point about people in general--whatever mode of transport people use, there will always be some that do it inconsiderately, and that tells us nothing interesting. No-one who understands transport is prejudiced against classes of road user, and such prejudice has no place in any evidence-gathering exercise. The question is rather whether certain measures are desirable as public policy. This is where the worry arises, which is why I talked about the 'big picture'.

Cheers,
Oliver
LCC

Hello Jerry,

Are you saying that there is reliable evidence for allowing motorcyclists in bus lanes that can be applied in London? Please refer me to it first so I can have a look at what it is you're looking at.

If you think it's reliable, the burden of proof is on you (or whoever claimed it was reliable in the first place) to show that it is. Perhaps, to save us work, someone has already explained why they think it's reliable. If you don't think it is reliable, you and I may simply differ in our interpretation of this evidence, and in that way we'll have a sound basis for discussion.

There is certainly other evidence from which a 'most likely' scenario arises, as I outlined, subject to further study. I make no claim that this is a reliable outcome, but only that it is most likely based on what we do know. From this arises a genuine worry that the Mayor is moving ahead on policy without a reliable evidence basis when there are indicators to the contrary.

Just to be clear: This is not a point about the behaviour of individual road users. That requires the usual wider point about people in general--whatever mode of transport people use, there will always be some that do it inconsiderately, and that tells us nothing interesting. No-one who understands transport is prejudiced against classes of road user, and such prejudice has no place in any evidence-gathering exercise. The question is rather whether certain measures are desirable as public policy. This is where the worry arises, which is why I talked about the 'big picture'.

Cheers,
Oliver
LCC

Oliver, no, I have no idea if there is reliable data - you said there was little reliable data. If that's correct, I was asking what was the rest of your post based on if not speculation.

Where the TfL studies were run, they showed that there was either no clear result, or that motorcyclists using bus lanes was marginally beneficial to all road users. London is one of the only, if not the only major city in this country where motorcyclists are not allowed to use bus lanes. Cyclists in other cities do not wake up with a Ducati planted between their butt cheeks, so what makes London special? Exactly why do you think that it's possible for cyclists and motorcyclists to share road space without carnage? What do you expect to happen?

I'd be the first to admit that motorcycles can be loud and seem overly aggressive on the road, but I would suggest that is perception, not reality. Motorcyclists are very aware of their own mortality and as I said earlier, usually see experienced cyclists as people who are as vulnerable, or more vulnerable as themselves.

Your points below:
[INDENT]*Just to be clear: This is not a point about the behaviour of individual road users. That requires the usual wider point about people in general--whatever mode of transport people use, there will always be some that do it inconsiderately, and that tells us nothing interesting. No-one who understands transport is prejudiced against classes of road user, and such prejudice has no place in any evidence-gathering exercise. The question is rather whether certain measures are desirable as public policy. This is where the worry arises, which is why I talked about the 'big picture'.*
[/INDENT]Many people see Ken Livingstons attempt to bury the TfL report as blatant prejudice. Are you saying that he didn't understand transport when he was mayor? Clearly, I'm no politician, but I become extremely concerned when politicians start talking about the 'big picture' - sounds like they've run out of reasoned argument and are just doing what they want to do because they can.

Oliver, I don't know you and I'm reasonably sure you don't know me, so an intro: I have been riding bikes (pedal) for about 30 years. I currently own 7 Colnagos and 2 Bianchis and I've just bought something to ride with my kids to encourage them onto two wheels. This year is the first ever, when I've covered more miles in powered vehicles than pedal-power. Well, maybe a couple of years I flew some big distances, but that aside. I would love to get more people onto two wheels and applaud your work in promoting cycling in this city, but, when you're signing your posts 'LCC', please ensure they are accurate and don't exhibit bias: you are implying that you are representing the views of London cyclists, and that includes me.

Enjoy!

haha! Survival is the word!

god it was bad enough with just the one of them. ^