ctc and motorcycles

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:21:00 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote on 24/03/2007 23:01 +0100:

Excused. Motorcyclists see a lot more of that kind of thing than car
drivers because they have much longer sight lines in congested
traffic.


So do pedal cyclists especially if, like me, you pass on the offside.
But I can't say I've ever seen it happen in a queue.

I've seen it happen, but never whilst on a bike!

One moderately common scenario is where the driver is going to turn right in a
shortish distance. Once s/he thinks that s/he can get to the junction without
anything appearing to block progress, s/he will peel out and make a dash for it.

I'm the OP. Many of the earlier responses seem to have misunderstood
the points I was making (Fox etc). One even seemed to suggest that I
thought the CTC should be pro motorcycling. I will disregard those
replies.

On the other hand I have been following the discussion and there has
been a lot of good stuff although I haven't seen any valid
contradictions of my original assertions. Chris Malcolm and Budstaff
have shown that it is illogical to ban motorcyclists from bus lanes.
The arguments against them use anecdotal evidence and flakey
statistics.

I am mostly surprised that the cognoscenti on this group (particularly
Messrs Brooke and Raven) as well as the CTC, are unable to see the
logical difficulties in their position. By wishing to ban motorcycles
from bus lanes they are asserting (erroneously) that motorcycles and
cycles are in general too dangerous to share the road with each other.
This is a classic example of the cyclist inferiority phobia I referred
to earlier. Most people who have this phobia tend to see the threat
coming from four wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, however it is
manifest, the only conclusion is the use of segregated cycle lanes and
cycle paths. I know that you guys do not support these, hence I am
critical of your standpoint.

More significantly, the CTC is the organisation that represents our
interests. As long as they and their President support policies of
separating us from other road traffic, the more the phobia will
increase and the more dangerous it will be for those of us who choose
to remain on the roads.

Ray

raisethe wrote on 25/03/2007 13:59 +0100:

On the other hand I have been following the discussion and there has
been a lot of good stuff although I haven't seen any valid
contradictions of my original assertions. Chris Malcolm and Budstaff
have shown that it is illogical to ban motorcyclists from bus lanes.
The arguments against them use anecdotal evidence and flakey
statistics.

The concept of "a ban" is incorrect. Bus lanes are lanes set aside to
ease the journeys of specific classes of vehicle. Those are principally
public transport vehicles; buses and taxis. Pedal cycles are allowed in
some but not all. All powered personal transport (cars, vans, lorries,
motorbikes) is not allowed into them. Would it be logical to permit
motorbikes and not cars? Should motorbikes be allowed in mandatory
bicycle lanes and on cycle paths? Surely those "bans" are no more
logical than a bus lane ban?


I am mostly surprised that the cognoscenti on this group (particularly
Messrs Brooke and Raven) as well as the CTC, are unable to see the
logical difficulties in their position.

Its not a logical difficulty. If anything the logical difficulty is why
the personal transport vehicle of a bicycle is allowed into what is
essentially a lane set aside for the use of public transport. I see no
logical difficulty in treating cars, vans and motorbikes equally in that
respect.

By wishing to ban motorcycles
from bus lanes they are asserting (erroneously) that motorcycles and
cycles are in general too dangerous to share the road with each other.
This is a classic example of the cyclist inferiority phobia I referred
to earlier. Most people who have this phobia tend to see the threat
coming from four wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, however it is
manifest, the only conclusion is the use of segregated cycle lanes and
cycle paths. I know that you guys do not support these, hence I am
critical of your standpoint.
#

Yes you want to ride your motorbike down the bus lane, no you can't do
it in most places because the law does not allow it. Live with it.


More significantly, the CTC is the organisation that represents our
interests. As long as they and their President support policies of
separating us from other road traffic, the more the phobia will
increase and the more dangerous it will be for those of us who choose
to remain on the roads.


That a convoluted and distorted logic if you are talking about bus
lanes. Its true of segregated cycle facilities but bus lanes are not
segregated - they are shared with public transport vehicles.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

I can't say much more on this without repeating myself.

On 25 Mar, 14:19, Tony Raven wrote:

The concept of "a ban" is incorrect. Bus lanes are lanes set aside to
ease the journeys of specific classes of vehicle.

Which is done by "banning" the other classes of vehicle.

Those are principally
public transport vehicles; buses and taxis. Pedal cycles are allowed in
some but not all. All powered personal transport (cars, vans, lorries,
motorbikes) is not allowed into them. Would it be logical to permit
motorbikes and not cars?

Firstly, bus lanes are a waste of road space. It would be preferable
to remove those vehicles which cause congestion (cars and vans) and
the best way to do this is with tolls. Bus lanes are then no longer
required. I find it completely unacceptable that car drivers are
allowed to gridlock our roads preventing others from progressing on
them. So to answer your question, bus lanes are unnecessary, but
given that we have them, and that their purpose is to reduce
congestion, it would make sense to utilise them as much as possible by
allowing all vehicles on there which do not create the congestion. So
yes, it would be logical to permit motorbikes and not cars.


Should motorbikes be allowed in mandatory
bicycle lanes and on cycle paths? Surely those "bans" are no more
logical than a bus lane ban?


From what I have seen of bicycle lanes, bicycles should be banned from
them as they are not as safe as the rest of the road. The same applies
for cycle paths in many cases. So again, the question you pose is
hypothetical. In any case, there is no room for motorcycles to ride
safely in the bike lanes I have seen - they are often too narrow for
pedal cycles, let alone motorbikes. For this reason alone the ban of a
motorcycle from a cycle lane is more logical than a bus lane ban where
there is sufficient width for a bus, so plenty of room for a bike.




Its not a logical difficulty. If anything the logical difficulty is why
the personal transport vehicle of a bicycle is allowed into what is
essentially a lane set aside for the use of public transport. I see no
logical difficulty in treating cars, vans and motorbikes equally in that
respect.


See above.



Yes you want to ride your motorbike down the bus lane, no you can't do
it in most places because the law does not allow it. Live with it.

Now come on! I don't currently have a motorbike, and when I do have
one, I tend to steer clear of any place that considers it needs bus
lanes. It should be apparent from my posts that I am looking at this
more from a cyclists perspective.




That a convoluted and distorted logic if you are talking about bus
lanes. Its true of segregated cycle facilities but bus lanes are not
segregated - they are shared with public transport vehicles.

Semantics - they are segregated from cars, vans, lorries and those
dangerous motorbikes.



Cheers
Ray

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:19:38 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

raisethe wrote on 25/03/2007 13:59 +0100:

On the other hand I have been following the discussion and there has
been a lot of good stuff although I haven't seen any valid
contradictions of my original assertions. Chris Malcolm and Budstaff
have shown that it is illogical to ban motorcyclists from bus lanes.
The arguments against them use anecdotal evidence and flakey
statistics.

The concept of "a ban" is incorrect. Bus lanes are lanes set aside to
ease the journeys of specific classes of vehicle. Those are principally
public transport vehicles; buses and taxis. Pedal cycles are allowed in
some but not all.

It seems that are allowed in London, which is a start.

Particularly if you live or cycle in London ;-)

All powered personal transport (cars, vans, lorries,
motorbikes) is not allowed into them. Would it be logical to permit
motorbikes and not cars?

I cannot see any overriding logical reason why not.

It depends on the overall goals or the bus lane.

If it were to speed the flow of buses, then it would not be logical to allow
anything other than buses to use them.

If it is to make life easier for people who are not cluttering up the roads with
cars, then it is logical to allow anything that may be used in preference to a
car.

Should motorbikes be allowed in mandatory
bicycle lanes and on cycle paths?

That would depend on the size/ design and retrictions in place on the
lanes/paths. Certainly it doesn't seem a very promising idea with most/all of
the current farcicalities, but it could work.

I am mostly surprised that the cognoscenti on this group (particularly
Messrs Brooke and Raven) as well as the CTC, are unable to see the
logical difficulties in their position.

Its not a logical difficulty. If anything the logical difficulty is why
the personal transport vehicle of a bicycle is allowed into what is
essentially a lane set aside for the use of public transport.

Which is only a logical difficulty *IF* that is their primary purpose. If their
purpose is to make life easier for people who are not cluttering up the roads
with cars, then it is logical to allow anything that may be used in preference
to a car and, as stated above, there is no logical problem.

More significantly, the CTC is the organisation that represents our
interests. As long as they and their President support policies of
separating us from other road traffic, the more the phobia will
increase and the more dangerous it will be for those of us who choose
to remain on the roads.


That a convoluted and distorted logic if you are talking about bus
lanes.

No. His basic logic is correct. If the CTC in one breath supports the view that
a class of motor vehicle is too dangerous to share space with cycles, how can
they, in the next breath, claim that segregated cycle lanes are a bad idea in
principle when the alternative is that cycles share road space with the class of
vehicle that they previously considered too dangerous.

On 25 Mar, 16:00, (Ziggy) wrote:

No. His basic logic is correct. If the CTC in one breath supports the view that
a class of motor vehicle is too dangerous to share space with cycles, how can
they, in the next breath, claim that segregated cycle lanes are a bad idea in
principle when the alternative is that cycles share road space with the class of
vehicle that they previously considered too dangerous.

Excellent Ziggy, you have summed up in a few sentences what I have
been trying to say over several posts. I seem to have been struggling
with verbal constipation this weekend, but you have made my point
clearly and concisely.

Thanks
Ray

On 25 Mar 2007 05:59:08 -0700, raisethe wrote:

contradictions of my original assertions. Chris Malcolm and Budstaff
have shown that it is illogical to ban motorcyclists from bus lanes.
The arguments against them use anecdotal evidence and flakey
statistics.

Have shown that they believe that, but have not been convincing to
someone that doesn't already believe what they believe. The opposing
statistics are no flakier than the supporting statistics, I think.
Certainly, some of the logic is dodgy on both sides (eg, both sides
claiming that in the absence of statistics, this obviously means their
favoured outcome should be adopted).

I am mostly surprised that the cognoscenti on this group (particularly
Messrs Brooke and Raven) as well as the CTC, are unable to see the
logical difficulties in their position. By wishing to ban motorcycles
from bus lanes they are asserting (erroneously) that motorcycles and
cycles are in general too dangerous to share the road with each other.

And you've just been accusing the opponents of iffy logic? It shows
no such thing.

More significantly, the CTC is the organisation that represents our
interests. As long as they and their President support policies of
separating us from other road traffic, the more the phobia will
increase and the more dangerous it will be for those of us who choose
to remain on the roads.

No, that's not the policy. You're embarking on straw man territory.
Big clue - the so-called 'bus' lanes do actually contain road-going
vehicles, namely busses. Some contain cyclists. Some others have
motorbikes and taxis in too. To claim that opposing the general
introduction of motorbikes to bus lanes is a policy of separating
cyclists from other road traffic is plain barmy.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 25 Mar 2007 18:35:08 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

I am mostly surprised that the cognoscenti on this group (particularly
Messrs Brooke and Raven) as well as the CTC, are unable to see the
logical difficulties in their position. By wishing to ban motorcycles
from bus lanes they are asserting (erroneously) that motorcycles and
cycles are in general too dangerous to share the road with each other.

And you've just been accusing the opponents of iffy logic? It shows
no such thing.

Does it not?

Why would you wish to ban motorcycles from bus lanes?

Because they get in the way of pedal cycles?

What is the rationale if not that they increase the danger to pedal cycles?
(Presumably the CTC are not opposed to them because of the danger they pose to
buses.)

And if they increase the danger to pedal cycles, how can the CTC then make a
credible objection to the mandatry use of cycle paths when they themselves have
made a case that at least one of the methods of transport used on the
alternative, the open road, is too dangerous to allow to mix with pedal cycles?

It would be interesting to hear your reasoning.

More significantly, the CTC is the organisation that represents our
interests. As long as they and their President support policies of
separating us from other road traffic, the more the phobia will
increase and the more dangerous it will be for those of us who choose
to remain on the roads.

No, that's not the policy. You're embarking on straw man territory.
Big clue - the so-called 'bus' lanes do actually contain road-going
vehicles, namely busses. Some contain cyclists. Some others have
motorbikes and taxis in too. To claim that opposing the general
introduction of motorbikes to bus lanes is a policy of separating
cyclists from other road traffic is plain barmy.

Yes, but it very clearly IS a policy of separating, where practical, pedal
cycles from motorcycles. Presumably on safety grounds.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:00:13 GMT, Ziggy wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:19:38 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

That a convoluted and distorted logic if you are talking about bus
lanes.

No. His basic logic is correct. If the CTC in one breath supports
the view that a class of motor vehicle is too dangerous to share
space with cycles, how can they, in the next breath, claim that
segregated cycle lanes are a bad idea in principle when the
alternative is that cycles share road space with the class of
vehicle that they previously considered too dangerous.

Because they are not objecting to segregated lanes on that basis.

It is entirely coherent to believe that motorbikes should not be
allowed in bus lanes on grounds of safety, while also opposing
segregated cycle lanes on other grounds. You argument is valid only
if the CTC policy were that motorbikes are so incredibly dangerous
that on no account may they be permitted anywhere near bicycles.
However, since that is not the stated policy, the argument is bogus.

It's perfectly coherent to oppose something without believing that
opposition over-rides absolutely all other considerations ever. This
argument seems to be that you can only oppose motorbikes in bus lanes
if you believe the grounds of that opposition is more important than
any and every other thing you believe in.

It's a truly tortuous logic which decrees that if you believe on
balance it's safer for cyclists if motorbikes stay out of bus lanes
then you must believe bicycles must in all circumstances stay as far
away from motorbikes as possible, to the extent of removing cyclists
from a road where motorbikes might be found.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:54:17 GMT, Ziggy wrote:

And if they increase the danger to pedal cycles, how can the CTC
then make a credible objection to the mandatry use of cycle paths
when they themselves have made a case that at least one of the
methods of transport used on the alternative, the open road, is too
dangerous to allow to mix with pedal cycles?

Because it's possible for segregated cycle lanes to be bad for reasons
other than danger?

Because it's possible for for segregated lanes to be more dangerous
still?

Because it's possible for traffic to behave differently in different
situations?

Because the balance of outcomes falls a different way in different
situations?

Yes, but it very clearly IS a policy of separating, where
practical, pedal cycles from motorcycles. Presumably on safety
grounds.

No, it is not. It's a policy of keeping motorbikes out of bus lanes.

It is barmy to claim that if you have a policy of keeping motorbikes
out of bus lanes then that must mean that you believe motorbikes to
be so dangerous that keeping them away from bicycles must be a higher
priority than any other consideration or policy.

It is nonsense to state that if you think motorbikes in bus lanes
would increase the danger to cyclists, then you must also believe that
motorbikes are the most dangerous thing ever and must be kept well
away from cyclists in all circumstances.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|