-
can anyone please tell me an argument for motorcycles?
they cause far more pollution:
http://camdencyclists.org.uk/camden/campaigns/p2w-buslanes-08-08/p2w-non-CO2-pollutants
have far higher casualty rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safetycause a lot of noise pollution
[http://www.phhp.ufl.edu/welcome/publications/phhpnewsfall2004.pdfthe evidence provided took me 3 minutes to collect but given a little more time i could provide more reputable sources. but i couldn't be arsed. as most of the people on this forum assert themselves based on their commute to work.
Probably the same like cars. Convenient, you just sit on it, fun to ride and additionally
easier to park in the city.
Higher casualty rates are a pro since there is always a shortage of organ donors.
But in recent years the main market for powerful motorbikes are mostly
older people so I don't know if that has a negative impact. -
5mph slower than Edscoble would have passed you.
GOLD!
they can undertake along the bus lane, it's the reason for letting them in there, i come to expect it so doesn't really worry me, in fact i have probably been a bigger annoyance to motorbike drivers than they have to me..
Tiswas that was a terrible plug... you wont catch me there now i have a radar logon
-
They look good, go fast, make a lovely sound, are practical, quick through traffic and above all, FUN.[/QUOTE]
Hell yeah.
No point wingeing about "the rude man on the nasty, noisy motorbike scared me". This is london, traffic is dangerous, harden the fuck up.
-
but motorbikes are nosiy and cause other pollution as well.
and i think they are dangerous.
i get frightened by motorbikes in the bus lane every day !
How many motorcylists have knocked me off ? Zero
How many cyclists have knocked me off? 3.
Under your logic I am righter than you.
I'm more scared of black cabs and busses than motorbikes. Motorbike has never closed in on me causing me to mount the pavement to avoid injury, shall I continue as well as taxi's? I won't even bother to mention private hire
-
That it's inconclusive and contains flawed evidence. And based on my experience of riding my motorcycle around London - that I can get around quicker, with no noticable increase in risk, and with the added bonus of getting up a bit of speed by drafting Scoble on his shopper.
Thanks for adding your expert evidence. Originally the motorcycle lobby claimed that letting motorcycles into bus lanes would lead to a 40% reduction in casualties.
We (LCC) doubted that based on the evidence already available in 2008. So Transport for London asked the best researchers to design a trial that would give statistically reliable results when they allowed more motorbikes in bus lanes. When the results came in they found that the motorcycle casualty rate had more than doubled, cyclist casualties were worse than elsewhere.
Rather than admit they made a mistake, Transport for London have continued the experiment. To counter the increased risk of casualty to motorcyclists they are spending around £500,000 per year to tell car drivers to watch out for motorcyclists speeding up on the inside. As yet we do not know whether this money is making any difference, the council in Ealing have decided that it is not worth spending at that level. -
You're right that motorcyclists are by far and away the most vulnerable group of road users. Which is why there should be more done to preserve their safety, not less.
So why is it a good idea to let them in bus lanes when the trial showed a dramatic increase in the number and severity of casualties?
-
If motorcyclists and cyclists were more considerate of eachother and used a bit more common sense this wouldn't be as much of a problem (only my personal oppinon). But sadly I doubt this will happen, especially after last nights commute home where I was cut up by a motorbike, in the bike lane, he didn't even look before he turned on to it - not cool!
-
So much ignorance on this thread about Motorcycling.
If LCC want motorbikes out their bus lanes, then cyclists should agree to stick to filtering on teh inside, and get the fuck out of middle of the road.
Loved that fast bikes vid - 2 of the riders in that went on to ride MotoGP
-
If LCC want motorbikes out their bus lanes, then cyclists should agree to stick to filtering on teh inside, and get the fuck out of middle of the road.
I think LCC want improved safety for vulnerable road users.. particularly cyclists. I don't think your suggestion would help this tbh.
Also being on this forum presumeably you're a cyclist? Do you stick to filtering on the inside, and stay the fuck out of the middle of the road?
...
Have you considered Cycle Training?
-
So why is it a good idea to let them in bus lanes when the trial showed a dramatic increase in the number and severity of casualties?
One study showed a safety benefit, another showed a safety reduction. Therefore more studying is needed. Simple.
Just because one set of numbers is more palatable to the LCC doesn't make it more accurate.
As the increase in cyclist collisions has been demonstrated to have absolutely nothing to do with motorcycles being allowed in bus lanes the LCC should have no problem with letting the trials continue.
The increase in collisions for motorcyclists has been shown to be caused by vehicles turning in to the bus lane without checking it is clear. For this you blame the motorcycles and demand they should be banned from bus lanes.
The increase in collisions for cyclists has been shown to be caused by vehicles turning in to the bus lane without checking it is clear. And yet you don't blame the cyclists and demand they should be banned do you? Instead you somehow continue to blame the motorcycles and demand they should be banned from bus lanes. Not only does your conclusion not follow from the evidence, it is hypocritical.
Texas, misleading and irrelevant evidence is actually worse than no evidence.
I tried quickly but I cannot find anything with figures more recent than 2003, before any emissions standards came in, yet even these support my assertion and discredit the skewed version presented by the CTC.Euro III for motorcycles states that they may not emit more than 0.3g/km of hydrocarbons, 0.15 g/km of NOx and 2.0 g/km of CO. Every motorcycle sold in Europe since 2006 will (must) meet these figures. Compare this with some of the graphs in http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/TransportandStreets/Pdf/final_sustainable_transport_strategy/AppH_MandSActionPlan.pdf and you'll see what a big reduction this is.
However, it would be a total guess as to what proportion of motorcycles currently on the road are post-2006, and we know that motorcycle activity in London has increased. Until another study is done we can only hope that the lower emissions offsets that increase.The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, 2004, quoted in the above document, says
‘Motorcycles make a very low overall contribution to road traffic
pollution because of the relatively low numbers in operation in
London. They currently contribute 0.1 per cent of NOx emissions
and 0.6 per cent of PM10 emissions occurring in Greater London,
for 2.1 per cent of the vehicle kilometres travelled. However,
motorcycles tend to be more prevalent in central London, and
therefore have a greater impact – 0.2 per cent of NOx emissions
and 1.4 per cent for PM10, for 5.4 per cent of the vehicle
kilometres travelled. This contribution would increase if the
proportion of motorcycles increases.’The Government's Motorcycling strategy, published in 2003 (same source) states
‘On average, the emissions performance of motorcycles
compares favourably with that of cars, although on an individual
basis this assessment is dependent on the pollutant under
consideration, the type of motorcycle and the way it is ridden.
However, the total level of urban emissions from motorcycles is
minimal compared to other traffic sources. In 2003 NOx emissions
from motorcycles were estimated to be 0.97 kilotonnes (kT)
compared to a total of 450.35 kT from road transport; for HC
motorcycle emissions were 12.73 kT against a total of 275.63 kT
from road transport. Our priority will be to focus on the more
significant sources, whilst looking to the motorcycling industry to
further refine engine and emissions performance for motorcycles.’ -
Unfortunately, you need to legislate for the lowest common denominator, be it crappy clown bike cyclists, Moto GP wannabes, psycho cabbies or drunk truckers.
I know... sad but true.
-
I think LCC want improved safety for vulnerable road users.. particularly cyclists. I don't think your suggestion would help this tbh.
Also being on this forum presumeably you're a cyclist? Do you stick to filtering on the inside, and stay the fuck out of the middle of the road?
...
Have you considered Cycle Training?
My post was ironic - we cyclists are a bunch of Nimbys - its not all right for any other road user to infringe on their roadspace, but its perfectly ok for them to use any roadspace as they see fit.
Accidents are caused by people driving/riding like idiots, and you cant legislate for incompetence.
Modern life has tried to mitigate the damage done to an caused by those who would previously have been sidelined by natural selection, as a result the rest of us have to live in a world with ridiculous regulations all designed in case mr stupid does something stupid.
-
One study showed a safety benefit, another showed a safety reduction. Therefore more studying is needed. Simple.
Just because one set of numbers is more palatable to the LCC doesn't make it more accurate.
As the increase in cyclist collisions has been demonstrated to have absolutely nothing to do with motorcycles being allowed in bus lanes the LCC should have no problem with letting the trials continue.
The only study which showed a safety benefit was never released by TfL because their statisitcal experts refused to sign it off. It was based on incompetent traffic flow data, that is why the Mayor set up a new trial which actually measured the site by site casualties and traffic flow. This new study showed that casualties went up where motorcycles were allowed in bus lanes and went down where they were not.The increase in collisions for motorcyclists has been shown to be caused by vehicles turning in to the bus lane without checking it is clear. For this you blame the motorcycles and demand they should be banned from bus lanes.
The increase in collisions for cyclists has been shown to be caused by vehicles turning in to the bus lane without checking it is clear. And yet you don't blame the cyclists and demand they should be banned do you? Instead you somehow continue to blame the motorcycles and demand they should be banned from bus lanes. Not only does your conclusion not follow from the evidence, it is hypocritical.
I am not blaming motorcyclists for the crashes, it is mainly that they are going faster than before and in the left side slower lane. They have much less time to see and avoid the cars cutting them up and when a crash happens the impact is harder and the casualties more serious.
I don't blame the cyclists either. In the detailed study their crashes with cars went up but the biggest increase was in the 'other' (unknown fault) category. In the network wide study all cyclist casualties went down, they went down faster on the roads were there were not motorcycles in bus lanes.
As we are not blaming motorcyclists or cyclists I don't agree that we are being hypocritical.
Our fear has always been that mixing fast moving motorcycles with slower traffic increases the risk for all. The study showed more motorcycles going at significantly higher speeds. The increase in casualties is no surprise. -
Here's an interesting set of figures from 2010 about motorcycle emissions in bus lanes.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/PT-emissions-study.pdfBus lanes make motorcycles cleaner:
'Powered two wheelers using bus lanes where available emit an average of
between 0.5% and 9.0% less Carbon Dioxide than powered two wheelers using
general traffic lanes only;
• Powered two wheelers using bus lanes where available emit an average of
between 0.5% and 10.0% less Oxides of Nitrogen than powered two wheelers
using general traffic lanes only;
• Powered two wheelers using bus lanes where available consume an average of
between 0.4% and 9.0% less fuel than powered two wheelers using general traffic
lanes only;
• Powered two wheelers using bus lanes where available emit an average of
between 100% and 500% less Carbon Dioxide than petrol cars using general traffic
lanes only;
• Powered two wheelers using bus lanes where available emit an average of
between 50% and 550% less Oxides of Nitrogen than petrol cars using general
traffic lanes only;
• Powered two wheelers using bus lanes where available consume an average of
between 100% and 500% less fuel than petrol cars using general traffic lanes only.' -
The only study which showed a safety benefit was never released by TfL because their statisitcal experts refused to sign it off. It was based on incompetent traffic flow data, that is why the Mayor set up a new trial which actually measured the site by site casualties and traffic flow. This new study showed that casualties went up where motorcycles were allowed in bus lanes and went down where they were not.
This is the standard LCC line. Which sounds like "We did not like the original results so we will discredit them, whereas we like these results so we will claim they are inviolable scientific fact".
Other opinion seems to be of the opinion that the original study was more accurate than the second study, which had unreliable statistical methods (i.e. the Tanner Test) imposed upon it, supposedly in order to appease the LCC and deliver a more politically acceptable conclusion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/2750428/The-truth-about-bikes-and-bus-lanes.html
' According to the report's executive summary, there was a net reduction in collisions involving P2Ws and pedestrians (46 per cent) or cyclists (44 per cent), plus a 45 per cent reduction in P2W casualties.The evidence is especially clear after traffic migration is taken into account. The report shows that large numbers of motorcyclists changed their routes into London to take advantage of the trial bus lanes, with P2W traffic increasing on the experimental routes by between 25 and 40 per cent and falling by similar amounts on parallel roads that were monitored. Yet 24 months into the study period (extended from 18 to 36 months, with motorcycle groups claiming that this was sparked by the politically uncomfortable conclusions that were being reached), TfL changed its method of generating data to something called the Tanner Test. Even the report's own conclusion questions the validity of this test, which is generally considered to be an outdated statistical tool. It says: "What that [the Tanner] method cannot do is allow for any fluctuations in vehicle usage, and therefore cannot account for the impact of migration on the results to be used." Previously, the figures from the trial routes were being compared with parallel control routes where P2Ws were not allowed in bus lanes - and it's these more realistic, earlier figures that provide conclusive, positive evidence.'
Now I'm no statistician, so why should I believe the LCC, with their clear bias against things with engines, as opposed to any other commentator (even Kevin Ash, pro motorbike writer) on the results? You may be right, they may be right, I have no way of knowing.
-
One big factor, is that motorbikes always used the bus lanes anyway - i really haven't noticed any difference between the legalising of it and before.
-
One big factor, is that motorbikes always used the bus lanes anyway - i really haven't noticed any difference between the legalising of it and before.
I did notice it being more frequents though, in the past, there's always a couple of yuppies who hasn't finish their training taking the bus lane, but now it's quite regular.
Another point you need to take in consideration is the speed and reaction, being deaf I need to constantly look back as much as possible, which is fine and precisely what Cycle Training teach us in order to be as safe as possible, however with the high speed of a motorcycles (30mph) on a single lane, sometime I do get surprised by them because I couldn't clock them in time.
The only resort for me is to block the entire lane by riding right in the middle of the bus lane to force the motorcyclists to slow down and overtake me properly, this cause some anger and conflict with some motorcyclists, but least I won't get surprised by a motorcyclists overtaking me in close proximity on the same lane.
-
I'm really surprised how much ill feeling there is towards motorbikes, especially given how conservatively most of them seem to ride these days. Clearly not too many people remember the halcyon days of the late 90s, when any red light was an excuse for a TLGP and wheelies and general naughtiness amongst the motorbike fraternity were far more prevalent.
(sigh)
bq
sohi
Greasy_Slag
Jung
Bad_Science
lynx
charlie_lcc
2_Wheel_Pony
vinylvillain
judenonesuch
n3il
edscoble
Markyboy-
Post a reply
About
Motorcycles in your bus lane
Posted by
@runcible_rakan
The pollution study is irrelevant as it is based on a 6 year old question and 9 year old data which predates the introduction of Euro II and III (and therefore any) emissions standards for motorcycles. Leaving aside that they have deliberately omitted buses (odd given it's about bus lanes) for which the same pollution figures are a disgrace, It is also skewed against motorcycles being a measure of emissions per passenger and vehicle KM. Most motorcycles will only carry one person, and motorcycles travel far fewer km than cars do. If you were to look at the total amount of pollution caused by motorcycles per year: i.e. how much worse the actual air quality is because of them, you would find the figure far lower than any other form of motorised transport.
These figures will have reduced even further and will keep reducing. Motorcycles sold since 2006 will all meet euro 3, most sold now are likely to meet euro 4 as it will be mandatory next year. For example catalytic convertors and fuel injection are now fitted to a lot of new bikes. This should see emissions level drop to those of cars and possibly below them. Very few 2 strokes are available anymore which should see PM10 emissions drop to negligible levels.
You're right that motorcyclists are by far and away the most vulnerable group of road users. Which is why there should be more done to preserve their safety, not less.
As for noise pollution, it appears from a quick web search to be no worse than buses (at 75-85Db depending on which google hit you read)
So what are the arguments for motorycles? They look good, go fast, make a lovely sound, are practical, quick through traffic and above all, FUN.