Motorcycles in your bus lane

or black cabs.

it could be worse, we could be sharing them with mini cabs. Or not even have them.

Ed, as you point out, this is no different to sharing the lane with buses.

The difference is the size and width of the vehicles - a bus or taxi can't overtake me whether a motorcyclists can.

Ed, what are you riding these days?

Ed, what are you riding these days?

Ed, what are you riding these days?

I was close.

by a few centimetre.

What are the stats from Bristol where the opened up the bus lanes to motorbikes over a decade ago?

Surely thats a better indication of long term success (which i am guessing it is as its be going since 1996) or failure, along with any data from Bath, Birmingham, Colchester, Derby, Hull, Newcastle on Tyne, Plymouth, Reading, Richmond on Thames, Sheffield, Swindon, Sunderland and Belfast which all allow motorbikes

Personally as a cyclist i feel that lobbying groups efforts would be much better directed in providing better facilities for us, rather than this - why not ask for better cycle lanes within existing bus lanes?

vinyl - the data from 1996 may be very different as there aren't as many cyclists back in the 90's compare to nowadays.

Ed, thats not my point - the point is its been running for 15 years, so the data over those 15 years is relevant, versus a brief trial in London.

Also i was at Uni in Brizzle back then, and their were shit loads of cyclists

I seem to remember also, that at the time the LCC complained vociferously about removing the A13 data from the initial trial. Their reasoning was that the figures clearly showed that once motorcycles used the bus lane cyclists were scared away. They neglected to mention that the real reason the figures were useless and were removed, was that during the study period, work was completed to put a large wide cycle lane on the pavement (now part of a superhighway I think) so, given that this was the 6 lane dual carriageway A13 after all, the cyclists started using that instead.
OK this one first. The A13 data was removed on the grounds that intense roadworks changed the conditions. The motorcycle casualties increased on this route during that trial. LCC objected to the removal of this data because the increased congestion gave good evidence of what would happen on all bus lanes at the high congestion points. BQ is wrong about the location. The trial was on the section from Cotton st to Aldgate, not on the six lane section where there is a segregated cycle path. It was not on any section which is now the cycle super highway.

Personally as a cyclist i feel that lobbying groups efforts would be much better directed in providing better facilities for us, rather than this - why not ask for better cycle lanes within existing bus lanes?
Yes I agree with this one. LCC's interest in motorbikes in bus lanes is a tiny part of what we do. We have always led the way for better cycling facilities. Without us there would be now cycle routes or ASLs or investment in cycling. We lead on the campaign for safer lorries, this benefits more pedestrians than cyclists and many motorcyclists as well.
Several of the staff and hundreds of members are motorcyclists and cyclists. We enjoy riding motorbikes - that does not mean that we should agree with the nonsense of motorcycles in bus lanes being safer or better for the environment.
This is still an issue because there were no proper before and after studies of the previous trials of motorcycles in bus lanes. From what I remember in Bristol a council report noted concerns over safety. There was a considerable rise in the number or motorcycles entering the city, many of these new riders had transfered from bus, rail or cycling. Last time I looked, motorcycle casualties were a major problem for Bristol council.

Have the LCC/CTC members been asked/polled to see if this is what they want?

OK this one first. The A13 data was removed on the grounds that intense roadworks changed the conditions. The motorcycle casualties increased on this route during that trial. LCC objected to the removal of this data because the increased congestion gave good evidence of what would happen on all bus lanes at the high congestion points. BQ is wrong about the location. The trial was on the section from Cotton st to Aldgate, not on the six lane section where there is a segregated cycle path. It was not on any section which is now the cycle super highway.

Thanks for correcting me. You see how difficult it is to separate reported fact from reported propaganda and why I'm not getting off the fence just yet. I'd suggest however that it is well known that roadworks result in an increase in accidents, especially for two-wheeled road users, and the increase in motorcycle casualties may well correlate with other data on roadworks.

As it happens I rode this very section, in the bus lane, with about 6 or 7 other bikers (as in at the same time as, not 'with' them, on tuesday night. Nobody broke any speed limits, everyone was observant and alert at junctions and gaps in the traffic, everyone gave cyclists plenty of room and consideration. To be fair I did find this remarkable and novel, but I think maybe the safety message is actually getting through. You're only safer if you ride sensibly.

that does not mean that we should agree with the nonsense of motorcycles in bus lanes being ... better for the environment.

They definitely are - see the data in the TfL report I posted a link to and a quote from.
As long as you are comparing them with motorbikes not in the bus lane of course.*

I didn't read it properly to see if any drivers turned to two wheels as a result. I suspect not, but it would be an interesting data set.

(*If you are comparing them with bicycles then you have to establish whether the cyclists were vegetarian and it gets complicated. Apparently meat eating cyclists like myself are very damaging in terms of calories burned vs how we obtain them.)

1 - scooter went into an alarming wobble when he realise I was on the middle of the bus lane and squeeze through the gap between me and the slow moving traffic on the right, but managed to take control of his vehicle (it's near Clapham North tube heading East down the slope).

2 - a near fatal collision between a motorcyclist and peds at the junction outside Kennington tube station heading West, the peds did not see the motorcyclists behind me, attempt to cross the road (despite red man), only to get buzzed by a motorcyclists who just overtook me and nearly hit the peds (traffic were very slow).

The majority of time were merely very close overtaking in heavy traffic despite taking the central of the lane, and small close call, but that's about it.

Ed, I almost knocked you and your girlfriend down with my motorbike last year when you both jumped a red at Russell Square. I wasn't in a bus lane though.

Note to self: must try harder

Could not remember, are you talking about Guildford Street/Russell Square? I never jumped a red light so I don't remember what's happen at the time.

But then it is a year ago, and I'm defintely a much better cyclist nowadays, especially becoming an instructor!

Several of the staff and hundreds of members are motorcyclists and cyclists. We enjoy riding motorbikes - that does not mean that we should agree with the nonsense of motorcycles in bus lanes being safer or better for the environment.

Exactly - the point is its not a nonsense, its a sensible idea that requires a bit of compromise. The majority of considered thought in cities where the scheme has been in place is that it has increased road safety and awareness, and i really think that your agenda does not reflect the majority of London cyclists views, as i dont think that most of us are anti the idea.

London is a fucked up big mess of a city, and no road user is going to have a situation that is perfect

Vinyl, the most important thing you've said is this;

Of course there are going to be accidents, but its very early days yet, and as road users get used to it, the accident rate will go down.

It's pretty much exactly what to expect, early days there will be accident, just like before cycling becoming the norms in London, and accident rate going down when people start to get the hang of working with traffic.

The problem I have with this version of events is that a) it comes from a professional cycling lobbyist, and b) it is the first I have heard of it.
It's wonderful the things you can learn reading lfgss. I wonder if anyone else is still following this.
If it happened this way, where were the rebuttals to Kevin Ash's highly biased Telegraph piece at the time? If the motorcycle lobby were the ones reworking the data, how come the reworked data skewed the results away from the version which showed the most benefit to motorcycles, pedestrians and bicycles?
There were plenty of rebuttals of the Telegraph article, in the cycling press and blogs. I don't think that the motorcycle lobby re-worked the data. They just demanded that it be done. The re-worked data (2008) claimed a benefit to motorcyclists and some other road users. The original analysis of the same data showed no results because there was not enough data.
Who are these top statisticians in the country, for example? What are their names and how did they become so highly-regarded? Were they previously employed by the LCC or the CTC?
These were the top officials at Transport for London at the time, one was head of the London Road Safety Unit at Transport for London, the other was the head statistician at that time. They signed the collision report prepared in 2007 and approved the official report into the 2002-6 trial published in 2008.

If the actual results were inconclusive and showed no statistically significant results either way, then what possible reason could there be for the LCC to oppose the introduction of Motorcycles into bus lanes? Surely only sound evidence of a deleterious effect could justify continued prohibition.
What we questioned in 2002 was the claim that there was a safety benefit from allowing motorcycles in bus lanes. We opposed setting up trials which were too small to produce enough data to demonstrate any benefit or disbenefit. We opposed the conceit of doing a trial with insignificant data and then claiming that no data = no problem.

Do you have independent (i.e. non cycling lobby) sources to back any of this up?
Did Boris, undoubtedly clever though he is, really take only one day to read all the data and completely change his mind about the previous results? Because as I recall, the manifesto pledge was always to introduce another trial and was always couched in terms of "if the data is indeed correct".
What's an independent source? Most of this is in the public domain if you look hard enough. Boris's manifesto pledge was to allow motorcycles in bus lanes, without doing another trial. To be honest it probably took him more than one day that to see that he could not do it within the rules of the Road Traffic Regulation Act without reliable data to justify the change. We met his advisors about two weeks after the election, it might be possible that they had not thought of doing another trial until we asked them about it. The first comment I heard directly from Boris after the election was at a press event in early June. He said that there was not enough evidence to say there was a danger or there wasn't a danger - which is what we said to the GLA transport committee several years earlier.
As a demonstration of why statistics cannot be the final word on all this, I could come up with a study, statistically valid, to show that by removing bicycles from bus lanes you can dramatically reduce cycle casualties. All I would have to do would be to compare the M4 bus lane with a similar distance of central London bus lanes
Nice try. Actually I supported the M4 bus lanes, with motorcycles. It reduced collisions and probably decreased journey times for most users. Since they removed it the DfT have not released all the data on their traffic analysis for the effect on bus and taxi passengers, and motorcyclists. Of course an offside fast lane on a motorway is very different from a nearside bus lane on a road with many pedestrians and cyclists.

can anyone please tell me an argument for motorcycles? ...bla...bla...bla.

Sorry, I know this is from a few pages back, but seriously what the fuck?!?! Why do you need an argument for a mode of transport. I don't see why anyone should tell anyone else what transport they can and can't use. I rarely tell people to fuck off, but you've got me very close.

...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.

Repped!

...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...

...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.

Ed, While I sympathise with the fact that you can't hear people coming, and do not think MB should overtake you closely, surely it would make sense to have mirrors on your handle bars. Given the style of bikes you use I can't think of one reason why you wouldn't use them. It seems like an obvious solution if you're always looking behind you. Have you ever tried them? As a driver and MB'er I think they're great.

Also from tmy point of view I couldn't care less if I can ride in the Bus Lane or not. Over 80% of the time it's the shitist place to be - this is based on where I ride so YMMV, but I find it hard to believe that other MB actually care.

Are you saying that bicycles need to have mirror in order to work with the motorcyclists? surely that's a poor solution?

Also the downside with mirror is that you won't look back often, and looking back on a bicycle is a powerful tool, especially when working with other motorists.

mirror is a bad thing on a bicycles, unless you genuinely need them (elderly & teenslain).