ctc and motorcycles

On 22 Mar, 22:05, Simon Brooke wrote:
.

A learner on a motorbike nearly had me off yesterday. Passed
muchmuchmuchmuchmuch too close - his wing mirror hit my elbow.

--

Ouch!

Occasionally motorbikes creep up behind me then accelerate hard just
as they pass, usually with an illegally loud exhaust. I find it quite
amusing, but I am sure some people might be frightened by it.

Is there any evidence that
they are 'disproportionately hazardous to...cyclists' safety'?

Yes....

The quoted statistics are hard to take at face value.

.... but you disregarded them out of hand.

On 22 Mar, 22:39, Mark Thompson
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote:
Is there any evidence that
they are 'disproportionately hazardous to...cyclists' safety'?

Yes....

The quoted statistics are hard to take at face value.

... but you disregarded them out of hand.

I don't think that is fair because:

1. I won't take those statistics at face value because the ctc has an
agenda. Do you have a reference for the data?

2. In any case it is not relevant because it is not in cyclists
interests to choose which vehicles they wish to share the road with.
As soon as you go down that somewhat arbitrary road, the more powerful
motor vehicle lobby may decide they do not wish to share the road with
bicycles, and we will be kicked off onto paths.

"raisethe" wrote in message

1. 'policy decisions in relation to motorcycling also need to reflect
the threat which motorcycling poses to other road users and to the
environment.'

Motorcycles, like buses, lorries , cars etc pose no meaningful threat
to cyclists when they are properly driven. [ tautology]


2. 'Dangerous to themselves and to others. Motorcyclists place not
only themselves at risk, but they are also disproportionately
hazardous to pedestrians' and cyclists' safety as well. ' [quotes in order
to deny]

I seem to remember reading that motorbikes hit cyclists more often per mile
than cars.

The danger that motorcyclists choose to expose themselves to is
nothing to do with the cycling community. Perhaps the ctc will become
anti mountain climbers next. The assertion that they are hazardous to
pedestrian's safety is likewise irrelevant. Is there any evidence that
they are 'disproportionately hazardous to...cyclists' safety'? The
quoted statistics are hard to take at face value.

I remember reading the statistic I mention because it surprised me on risk
compensation grounds. I attempt to explain it by supposing that motorbikers
have a high setting on their risk homeostat.

Mike Sales

On 22 Mar, 22:03, "wafflycat" wrote:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4796

"CTC does not want bikes banned"

"This week's Motor Cycle News has dreamt up an attention-grabbing headline
which is in fact wholly untrue. It suggests that CTC wants motor cycles
banned - this is not the case.

We do not believe that motorcycles should be admitted into bus lanes, and
therefore object to the Government's latest advice that this option should
be for local authorities to decide (overturning previous advice against
admitting motorcycles). But that is very different from suggesting that we
want motorcycles banned, as MCN's headline and first paragraph states. This,
we believe, is wholly misleading.

Our webpage sets out the issues where we have common ground with
motorcyclists - for instance we were with the motorcyclists' lobby in
opposing the European Commission's recent proposals for Daytime Running
Lights on all motor vehicles."

The MCN really is a despicable rag. However, the ctc is wrong to say
they are being 'wholly misleading' when they are trying to ensure
motorbikes are banned from those roads designated as bus lanes.

The ctc's position, which is not contradicted by any of your quote
above Wafflycat, is that sometimes it has a shared agenda on specific
issues with the motorcyclist lobby but otherwise it is anti-motorbike,
as quoted in my previous posting.

raisethe wrote on 22/03/2007 22:55 +0100:
On 22 Mar, 22:39, Mark Thompson
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote:
Is there any evidence that
they are 'disproportionately hazardous to...cyclists' safety'?
Yes....

The quoted statistics are hard to take at face value.
... but you disregarded them out of hand.

I don't think that is fair because:

1. I won't take those statistics at face value because the ctc has an
agenda. Do you have a reference for the data?


Not without digging but Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 26 has
motorcycles killing four times as many pedestrians per vehicle km as
cars and seriously injuring four times as many. That seems in line with
CTC's figure of 3 times for cyclists.

Do you have a reference to any data showing otherwise?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

raisethe wrote:
Surely it is not in the interests of cyclists to be anti-motorbike?

I am not anti-motorbike. I am interested in promoting the interests of
cyclists.

Motorcycles, like buses, lorries , cars etc pose no meaningful threat
to cyclists when they are properly driven.

Given the statistics, they are evidently not all properly driven though, so
until they are that's a moot point.

They cause pollution, as do
other vehicles including bicycles.

According to the article, they produce *more* pollution though. Unless you
have evidence to the contrary?

This weeks MCN had an amusing
letter suggesting that the flatulence caused by a bean-eating tree-
hugging cyclist far outweighs anything coming from a motorbike
exhaust. Whilst that is silly, it is also emphasises the ridicule
cyclists are exposing themselves to by adopting such a policy.

I hope no one is going to have their policy decisions affected by a fear of
juvenile letters appearing in the press.

Despite
the fact that motor vehicles in general create more pollution than
bicycles, they will always have a place on the roads and it is absurd
to imply otherwise.

I don't see that the article is necessarily implying otherwise.

2. 'Dangerous to themselves and to others. Motorcyclists place not
only themselves at risk, but they are also disproportionately
hazardous to pedestrians' and cyclists' safety as well. '

The danger that motorcyclists choose to expose themselves to is
nothing to do with the cycling community.

I agree with this.

The assertion that they are hazardous to
pedestrian's safety is likewise irrelevant.

But not this.

Is there any evidence that
they are 'disproportionately hazardous to...cyclists' safety'? The
quoted statistics are hard to take at face value.

Please post additional statistics if you have them.

3. 'A threat to pro-cycling policies. Encouraging more motorcycle use
will undermine efforts to promote cycling...'

An extremely weak argument, presumably dreamt up by an ex-public
school boy.

Your argument would be more convincing with this kind of thing left out.

Perhaps ctc should be anti running, anti hillwalking, anti-
train, anti anything which may make someone choose an alternative to
cycling.

If they felt any of the above were harmful to cyclists, I'm sure they would
oppose them.

4. 'PTWs motorbikes should not be allowed in bus lanes, cycle lanes,
advanced stop lines or vehicle-restricted areas.' The ctc should not
be advocating the use of bus lanes which are a waste of road space.
They are also only one step short of dangerous cycle paths. It is
obviously a far better solution to reduce the volume of congestion by
prohibiting on-road parking for vehicles and by road pricing.

This is a separate debate, and I don't think it's really relevant.

Given the foregoing, I read this as ctc trying to exert its power over
another minority group, trying to make cycling appear more attractive
than motorcycling, without regard to what is of most benefit to the
citizen.

They are the CTC. Their job is to look after the interests of the cyclist,
not other groups.

It would therefore appear that cyclist paranoia about other road
vehicles is not limited to the new president, Snow, but is
institutionalised within the ctc. I will have nothing more to do with
them and I hope others will follow suit.

I'm quite happy to listen to any arguments you have, but I'm afraid that
you've entirely failed to convince me so far.

Anthony

raisethe wrote:

... sometimes it has a shared agenda on specific
issues with the motorcyclist lobby but otherwise it is anti-motorbike,
as quoted in my previous posting.



Sometimes they agree with the pro-motorbike lobby, sometimes they
disagree, which does not make the whole organisation institutionally
'anti-motorbike' as you seemed to imply.

raisethe wrote:
Following on from the problems recently discussed about John Snow as
the new ctc president, I have to point out my considerable displeasure
with the ctc's position on motorbikes.

I am fairly neutral regarding motor bikes. I think the biggest problem
with motorcyclists is the amount that have not had proper training [1]
and passed their test. i.e. those with L plates.

I am not bothered by those that use bus lanes, I get far more hassle
from busses in bus lanes.




[1] some of which can be loosely compared to POBs.

In article , Mike Sales
says...

I remember reading the statistic I mention because it surprised me on risk
compensation grounds. I attempt to explain it by supposing that motorbikers
have a high setting on their risk homeostat.

How about motorcycles going quite fast and people not seeing them?
Everyone knows that cars pull out in front of motorcycles because we're
always being told to "think once, think twice ...", why not pedal
cyclists and pedestrians too?