Nuxx:61f6e60b-b2f1-4d65-92f0-e4261471cdf3@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <61f6e60b-b2f1-4d65-92f0-e4261471cdf3@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling, uk.transport.london, uk.rec.driving Subject: Re: Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 05:49:03 -0800 (PST) References: <3282357c-d7aa-4691-a331-97561dba1306@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com> <3f30c3be-e9d6-4c02-9c46-badae9524b0c@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Lines: 38 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.17.39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1202046544 24422 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2008 13:49:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.17.39; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3369 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:638314

On Feb 3, 12:39 pm, lonelytraveller  wrote: > > Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as > > are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage > > to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's). > > > "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 [11 of which were > > > So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist > > fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more... > > What part of "bus lane" don't you get? Its a lane for buses, not > motorcycles.

Oh for goodness' sake. It's just an easy shorthand name. What about the bus lanes in other parts of the country that allow motorbikes? What about the fact that even the London bus lanes allow taxis (as well as bicycles)? Should they not be called bus lanes?

And anyway, no matter what we call them, the fact is that everyone is safer when motorbikes are allowed in "bus" lanes. Are you saying that those who are dying unnecessarily because of motorbike prohibition should be dying, just because bus lanes are called bus lanes and not bus/taxi/bicycle/motorbike lanes?

Your argument is the lamest and most ill thought out that I've read for quite some time. However, bearing in mind the intention behind them, bus lanes probably should be called anti-powered private transport (no matter how much danger and congestion results) lanes instead. How else do you explain TfL's determination to get the "right" result from the motorcycle study? How else do you explain the bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses? How else do you explain TfL's bullying of councils who wish to remove bus lanes (because that's what the people want, and this is supposed to be a democracy)? I mean really.