Nuxx:23b94aa0-8915-4c41-aa5b-4fd84f7d3b66@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <23b94aa0-8915-4c41-aa5b-4fd84f7d3b66@d70g2000hsb.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: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:43:43 -0800 (PST) References: <3282357c-d7aa-4691-a331-97561dba1306@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>  <3bdbbda6-e27b-429b-be5b-2b9a4c1cb39c@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>  <1ccf399a-a975-4414-8308-1ed5d58f78cc@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>    <76353f0f-4773-4265-96a3-23ccc90b132f@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>  <158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>     Lines: 145 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1202233424 26342 127.0.0.1 (5 Feb 2008 17:43:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:43:44 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; 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: 8902 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:638754

On Feb 5, 3:40 pm, spindrift  wrote: > On 5 Feb, 15:33, "Budstaff"  > wrote: > > > > > "spindrift"  wrote in message > > >news:a476e955-f791-4496-a1e7-c04664d9b6aa@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > On 5 Feb, 15:14, "Budstaff"  > > > wrote: > > >> "spindrift"  wrote in message > > > >>news:158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <budstaffdotusegr...@btinternet.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> "spindrift" <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:76353f0f-4773-4265-96a3-23ccc90b132f@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > "Apparently there is evidence to > > >> >> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use > > >> >> > bus > > >> >> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? " > > > >> >> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped. > > > >> >> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague > > >> >> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly > > >> >> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > methodology of the study is also in question. > > > >> >> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze > > >> >> > into > > >> >> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in > > >> >> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches) > > >> >> > bullying cyclists in these. > > > >> >> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they > > >> >> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between > > >> >> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in > > >> >> > a > > >> >> > bus lane thanks. > > > >> >> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer > > >> >> > take > > >> >> > issue > > >> >> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. " > > > >> >> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine > > >> >> > times > > >> >> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise. > > > >> >> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I > > >> >> gave > > >> >> from > > >> >> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite > > >> >> what, > > >> >> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused. > > > >> >> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > >> > I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd > > >> > cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts. > > > >> > Look, we both admit the data is sketchy. > > > >> > Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to > > >> > policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is > > >> > how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels > > >> > more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of > > >> > the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy. > > > >> I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident > > >> rates > > >> for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of > > >> bus-lane > > >> sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you > > >> anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the > > >> feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of > > >> secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'. > > > >> Really not much point in discussing the matter further.- Hide quoted > > >> text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > Accidents are more frequent between PTWs and cyclists. In a discussion > > > relating to allowing PTWs where cyclists cycle I would have thought > > > mentioning this fact was pertinent. Crucial, even. > > > Not crucial, barely pertinent. This thread was started with a post quoting > > an article in the Torygraph that suggested that a study of shared lanes in > > london showed that they improved safety for all parties, and that this was > > being suppressed by those whose prejudices were not confirmed. Your position > > is similar to being anti seatbelt because those who _don't- wear them get > > injured. Until the report comes out, and there is no suggestion of spin, I'd > > say the jury was out, in the absence of any data to date that says that > > cyclists are more at risk in bus lanes shared by PTW's. I live in a town > > (Colchester) where most bus lanes are open to PTW's and have not yet heard > > of a single incident - but I would not cite my personal experience as > > evidence of the safety of the practice. I'd rather wait for a proper study, > > and welcome the appearance of a conclusive answer when it comes. And if as I > > result my motorbike is banned from the bus lanes, then I'll accept that. But > > I somehow doubt that you'll accept it if it isn't. > > > > If you have evidence that bus lanes are safer for cyclists please post > > > it, I rely on the evidence that it's more dangerous for cyclists and > > > discourages cycling. > > > > What next? Many ASLs have feeder lanes from bus lanes, will PTWs start > > > abusing ASLs more than they already do? > > > What next? will you call for bus lanes to be redesignated as cycle lanes > > because of th undoubted danger that buses pose?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a > major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80% forcing cyclists out of > it. This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in > australia saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were > much fewer cyclists! > > We can agree to disagree budstaff, and thanks for your courtesy, I'm > far more interested in nuxx bar's unhealthy interest in me and > dishonesty regarding my views but it looks like he's buggered orff > now....

Unlike you, I have a job, and therefore can't spend every waking hour posting on newsgroups and forums. I have now replied to your latest poison, but as usual it's like banging my head against a brick wall, so I won't be replying many more times, until at any rate you admit that you're anti-motorist and start arguing like a man.

I can assure you that I don't have any interest in you. I would be ecstatically happy if you disappeared off the face of the Internet. You're a cancer on transport, it's fair to say.