Motorcycles in your bus lane

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 Even the report's own conclusion questions the validity of this test, which is generally considered to be an outdated statistical tool.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.