|
| Author |
Message |
number9
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 253
 |
 Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 4:11 pm |
Cyclo-therapy Saturday, 14 February 2009
For more than a month now, cyclists in London have been forced to share most of the city's major bus lanes with motorcyclists – the bright idea of Mayor Boris Johnson who, in spite of his self-professed love of bicycles, seems to be doing everything he can to make life more difficult for those of us who share his alleged passion.
Allowing bikers into bus lanes has – as predicted – made the experience of cycling in London just that little bit more dangerous. One motorbike on its own is not usually too bad. But when you get a gaggle of them racing up alongside you – after they've being released from a set of traffic lights behind you – it can be mildly terrifying. Especially if you're trying to move out or change lane.
Until last month, bus lanes were one of the few sanctuaries where cyclists could shelter on London's biggest roads. Admittedly, we still had the buses and taxis to contend with, but given that the drivers of these depend on their licences for their livelihood, they're much less inclined to floor it when they see a clear stretch of road. Unlike motorcyclists.
Quite why Boris went ahead with this trial scheme is still a mystery to me. Why encourage carbon-emitting, noise-polluting motorbikers on to our roads, at the expense of eco-friendly, health-conscious cyclists?
Although bikers make the claim that such a move will help to reduce accidents, the evidence to support this assertion is still somewhat thin on the ground. What we do know, however, is that scooters and motorbikes are about 50 per cent more likely than cars to be involved in an accident which causes serious injury to a cyclist, and about 200 per cent more likely to be involved in an incident that results in a cyclist fatality.
Furthermore, a recent study showed that when motorbikes are allowed to travel in bus lanes, their average speed increases – with many travelling at speeds of more than 40 or even 50 mph in built-up areas.
These facts alone are enough to suggest that letting bikers sidle up alongside cyclists in bus lanes is a recipe for disaster.
Add in the environmental statistics (motorbikes emit 11.3 times more methane than cars – and an infinite amount more than cyclists, who emit nothing), and you have to question the wisdom of implementing such a scheme. Nice work Boris.
http://crapcyclelanesofcroydon.blogspot.com/2009/02/motorbikes-in-bus-lanes-has-made.html
|
|
|
number9
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 253
|
Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 4:13 pm |
Why shouldn't PTWs be allowed in bus lanes?
Motorcycles and mopeds should not be allowed in bus lanes for multiple reasons:
Safety: The BMF suggests that PTWs are not a serious danger to vulnerable road users. Yet DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-sided.
Air quality: DfT measurements show that PTWs are far more polluting than cars. Croydon Health Authority and the Greater London Authority have both said that poor air quality kills many Londoners each year. Therefore, measures that may lead to an increase is the use of PTWs, and which will bring PTW exhausts nearer to both cyclists and pedestrians, should be avoided.
Policy: Permitting PTWs to use bus lanes is likely to discourage the take-up of pedal cycling. This flies in the face of local and national government objectives to encourage green forms of transport.
http://www.croydon-lcc.org.uk/campaigns/ptw_bus_lanes.htm
|
|
|
Rich_E
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 128
Location: London
|
Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 4:18 pm |
Regarding the original post, of a cycle lane, then no, a moped should not be in it!
I actually had a moment this morning in Central London where I was going along in the cycle lane, it's the kind which is in its own serpate lane with pavement either side to seperate it from the main road. I was going along at a bit of speed, totally clear in front of me, I then see a moped rider up ahead, attempting to get into the Cycle Lane at one of the gaps, in order to avoid waiting in the traffic, or filtering properly.
Had to slam on my brakes and luckily he then thought twice about what he was doing.
|
|
|
Northwind
Joined: 06 Sep 2008
Posts: 4590
Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 8:26 pm |
| number9 wrote: | | PTWs pose a significant risk to cyclists, allowing them in bus lanes is disastrous. |
Here's a report on the original TfL survey, from the Telegraph:
"TfL created three trial routes on which "P2Ws" (powered two-wheelers) were allowed to use bus lanes, although one, on the A13, was later discounted because the figures were distorted by major roadworks. Results from the other two, on the A23 in south London and the A41 in north London, show major safety benefits to all "VRUs" (Vulnerable Road Users - ie pedestrians, cyclists and scooter/motorcycle riders). 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.
The significance of this report reaches beyond London to the rest of the country, where many local authorities have been waiting for its conclusions before implementing their own policies. TfL is aware of this, as the report itself confirms: "Although the experiment was designed to generate evidence that is specifically related to... the capital, the results are likely to be of significance for all authorities with interests in improving road safety in relation to P2W use. Interest in this study has been expressed throughout the UK and internationally." Crucially, the report also shows that cyclists did not abandon bus lanes through fear of motorcycles - which has always been the most common reason cited for denying bus-lane access to P2Ws. Indeed, the experimental bus lanes recorded increased cycle usage (on top of a growth in cycle usage across London generally over the trial period) as the following extract indicates: "The evidence from casualty and collision data shows that cyclists' concerns that their casualty rates would rise, and use of their mode would decline, were unfounded in practice... the safety records for cyclists significantly improved where the measure was deployed. Results also show that cycling rose on trial sites - despite the presence of P2W riders in bus lanes and a significantly above-average rise in P2W use of trial routes. The report concludes from the evidence that conditions for cyclists did not significantly deteriorate." Similar conclusions were reached with regard to pedestrians: "The sum of casualty evidence shows that fears of significant rises in pedestrian injuries during the three-year trial were not well founded, with the overall figures demonstrating a significant net safety benefit to pedestrians when considering the collision rates." The report does not look into the reasons for these across-the-board safety improvements, but possibilities include the fact that P2Ws are much less likely to surprise jaywalking pedestrians or weaving cyclists when in bus lanes rather than when filtering between or past cars. And with large numbers of two-wheelers using bus lanes, a critical mass is reached where other road users expect them to be there and behave accordingly.
So why hasn't TfL published the report and acted on its findings as soon as possible? Jeff Stone of the British Motorcyclists Federation (BMF) says: "This smacks of political interference from the highest level. The report is fantastic news - everyone gains and there is now no excuse for not opening all bus lanes around the country to P2Ws." A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists returned their forms, which is statistically insignificant compared with total cycle usage in London). So although the move would clearly prevent many injuries and save lives, it might be greeted with disapproval from a significant number of voters who harbour a prejudice against motorcycles. In its reaction to the report, TfL's priorities and attitudes have been laid bare. "
| number9 wrote: | | Furthermore, a recent study showed that when motorbikes are allowed to travel in bus lanes, their average speed increases – with many travelling at speeds of more than 40 or even 50 mph in built-up areas. |
The average speeds increase because the bikes keep moving more, not because they go faster. Reducing the time you spend stationary increases your average speed. Leaving that aside, it's an obviously made up statistic- only an idiot would believe that the average speed of motorbikes in built up areas reaches 50mph frankly.
| number9 wrote: | | Safety: The BMF suggests that PTWs are not a serious danger to vulnerable road users. Yet DfT road accident data shows conclusively that PTW use is almost twice as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet DfT road accident data shows the true risks are appallingly one-sided. |
This is an open abuse of statistics, and I think they know it- all of the studies on this subject have shown an improvement in both cyclist and ptw injuries, particularily the London trial. What they're quoting is an unrelated statistic showing that ptws are involved in a disproportionate number of accidents with cyclists, but it does nothing to support the argument that ptws in bus lanes increases that disparity.
| number9 wrote: | | Air quality: DfT measurements show that PTWs are far more polluting than cars. Croydon Health Authority and the Greater London Authority have both said that poor air quality kills many Londoners each year. Therefore, measures that may lead to an increase is the use of PTWs, and which will bring PTW exhausts nearer to both cyclists and pedestrians, should be avoided. |
The pollution argument is simply nonsense- motorbikes produce less emissions per urban mile because they don't spend so much time stuck in traffic. A modern bike isn't drastically more polluting than a modern car, except for the fact that bikes have a capacity limit of 2- the euro3 emissions standard for motorbikes isn't drastically behind the current car emissions standards. And of course proximity to the exhaust makes very little difference unless you wrap your mouth around it. That's why it's called air pollution.
We still do it because we're forever chasing what we've already found |
|
|
Northwind
Joined: 06 Sep 2008
Posts: 4590
Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted Thu Nov 5, 2009 8:34 pm |
I appreciate that that was a pretty massive post, so here's the important part, from the TfL pilot- real world evidence after a 30 month trial, instead of kneejerk nimbyish from the CTC.
"The evidence from casualty and collision data shows that cyclists' concerns that their casualty rates would rise, and use of their mode would decline, were unfounded in practice... the safety records for cyclists significantly improved where the measure was deployed. Results also show that cycling rose on trial sites - despite the presence of P2W riders in bus lanes and a significantly above-average rise in P2W use of trial routes. The report concludes from the evidence that conditions for cyclists did not significantly deteriorate." Similar conclusions were reached with regard to pedestrians: "The sum of casualty evidence shows that fears of significant rises in pedestrian injuries during the three-year trial were not well founded, with the overall figures demonstrating a significant net safety benefit to pedestrians when considering the collision rates.""
We still do it because we're forever chasing what we've already found |
|
|
mark1964
Joined: 10 Jun 2009
Posts: 19
Location: Bristol
|
Posted Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:29 pm |
As this forum is veering off onto bus lanes, here's my tuppence worth. The MAG, Boris Johnson et al always hold up Bristol as a shining example as bikers have been allowed in bus lanes here since the 90's. Truth is, it was pushed through without and study/experimentation by the council. I have a friend, also a biker, who told me that a couple of the councillors who voted on it were themselves bikers who campaigned for the MAG. So if this is true, it was an 'inside job'. I once chatted to a bus driver who was annoyed with it as, apparently, there was little or no consultation about it.
I've posted about this before, but here goes. Motorbikes in Bristol are only allowed in bus lanes that display a white motorbike symbol on a blue sign (along with bus, taxi and cycle symbols). But I see them frequently riding through Bus & Cycle only lanes - they seem to miss the large signs and letters on the road. Taxi drivers seem equally illiterate. Either this is a genuine misunderstanding, or plain abuse. I also see a lot of bikers squeezing down cycle lanes to get into the ASL's. I'm pretty sure this is encouraged by them allowed into bus lanes as they seem to think that all red asphalt is fair game. Just look at this forum thread - started out about cycle lanes and veered off onto bus lanes. If we are confused, think what your average biker must think:
"I'm allowed in bus lanes, so how about using those thin ones with bicycles in them"
My reasons for not allowing them into bus lanes are;
1) Bus lanes should encourage cycling and low and carbon-neutral transport. Motorbikes are fast, often dangerous and may discouarge the adoption of cycling. Bus lanes provide a buffer zone for cyclists. Yes, I've been buzzed loads of times by speeding bikers.
2) It may encourage abuse of cycling facilities such as the ASL with motorcyclists making wrong assumptions about where they can ride.The Dept of Transport recently ran a limited experiment in a few locations on motorbikes in ASL's. I went and had a clandestine 'lurk' on some biker forums and guess what? - lots of posts from people who seem to think that they are now allowed in all ASL's everywhere. If TFl allow them in red route lanes, they'll use all bus lanes everywhere once word gets out on the net.
3) Motorbikes are not a green form of transport pollute more than cars (they chuck out more Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC's etc). Despite other posts, they have a tank full of hydrocarbons that will get burnt either sitting in a jam or racing along bus lanes. They are also unbelievably noisy in some cases.
4) The boy racer element. This must annoy most bikers too - dip***t bikers on powerful machines who think they're Barry Sheene. There's a guy here in Bristol who I've seen in ASL's. His reg plate measures about one inch by three inches high as he thinks it won't be read by speed cameras and he's scrawled across the top 'The Tarmac Terrorist'. Not a very good ad for the biking community.
Both the MAG and the Uk motorbike trade have vested interests in encouraging biking by these campaigns. The bike trade obviously wants to sell more motorbikes!. Today, Bus Lanes, tommorrow the ASL, next week, cycle lanes. Fundamentally, it seems to me that the biker community has a problem with not being allowed in certain spaces on the road which must clash with the 'freedom to ride anywhere we like' philosophy. I'm not allowed to ride my bike on pavements, even if at times it would be convenient, but I'm not going to campaign to use them.
"Anything for a weird life"
Zaphod Beeblebrox |
|
|
Northwind
Joined: 06 Sep 2008
Posts: 4590
Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted Sat Nov 7, 2009 1:43 am |
| mark1964 wrote: | | I've posted about this before, but here goes. Motorbikes in Bristol are only allowed in bus lanes that display a white motorbike symbol on a blue sign (along with bus, taxi and cycle symbols). But I see them frequently riding through Bus & Cycle only lanes - they seem to miss the large signs and letters on the road. Taxi drivers seem equally illiterate. Either this is a genuine misunderstanding, or plain abuse. |
Oh, it's abuse, have no doubt- no different from cyclists hopping red lights etc of course. The Bristol system is excessively confusing, it's badly executed but still, I don't doubt for a second that the people regularily using the lanes they're not allowed to know fine well that they're not. But, the real question is, is it unsafe and inconsiderate?
Now, I don't mean "Can it be unsafe and considerate", but "is it automatically unsafe". The trick here is that cutting up a cyclist is an offence regardless of whether or not the motorbike is allowed in the bus lane. The problem isn't bikes in bus lanes, it's bikes in bus lanes being ridden by w****rs. In very much the same way as cycling on the pavement can be a perfectly reasonable course of action in some cases, and demented in others.
| mark1964 wrote: | 3) Motorbikes are not a green form of transport pollute more than cars (they chuck out more Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC's etc). Despite other posts, they have a tank full of hydrocarbons that will get burnt either sitting in a jam or racing along bus lanes. They are also unbelievably noisy in some cases.
|
Noise I have to give you- some bikers are idiots, a really loud can isn't even nice for the rider let alone the people around them. Though I suppose if any of that lot were posting in this thread, they'd say their loud exhausts warn cyclists they're coming 
But, pollution... Most of the claims on ptw pollution are seriously out of date, the famous "16 times more pollution than cars" claim was false (deliberately loaded) at the time but it's even more false now
Bike vs car is fairly neutral in terms of overall pollution on the open road when comparing like for like, but in urban situations there's no comparison. Car engines tend to be less polluting even now but the best way to cut an engine's pollution is to turn it off. A car in a traffic jam produces emissions long after the bike is parked at its destination.
I've never understood why cyclists and motorcyclists seem to be natural enemies. We're the 2 most vulnerable road users, we have more in common than different, and we have a lot of shared interests. This bus lane nonsense really brings it home that the cyclist lobby is just anti-motorbike, for whatever reason. They'll stand up and loudly campaign against a change that benefits cyclists, purely because it benefits motorbikes more. They're interested only in campaigning for what they think cyclists want, not for what might actually make a difference to us. Very much like the MAG for motorcyclists in that way.
We still do it because we're forever chasing what we've already found |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
