Motorcycle Forums

hairyMuppet

Some good points there mate. As for why they fan the flames of division, its to create debate on pages like this!

Eatcs01

emissions arent nessarilly better with bikes....

Cyclist and bicyclist are two different things. cyclists have a level of ability to use the road network, and generally obey the law.

bicyclists are everybody else, who ride on pavements, run reds, have no lights, on the wrong side of the road (I've seen a bycycle rider nearly hit a police car head on) and generallly display a total disregard for their own safety.

big difference.

CBRJGWRR!

Don't understand the difference between cyclist and bicyclist, can you explain please how I can differentiate between one or the other when I see them on the road? Its like calling us either bikers or motorcyclists. Never heard this one before but always willing to hear someone elses point. I've seen thousands of cyclists over the years of all descriptions riding in all manner of styles but the ones that annoy me the most are the bicycle clubs that ride down roads like they own it, quite often on country lanes 2 or 3 abreast and refusing to move over to let cars past. Riding 2 abreast would be the first thing I would make illegal if I were in power. Also, third party insurance should be made compulsory for cyclists. Thats the least they can do for all the free roads they get to ride on, maintained without any costs to themselves! Unless they are so arrogant, they think they should be able to travel totally free forever. And don't give me that crap about them paying in their taxes! We all do that.

I CYCLE TO WORK OR USE MY MOTORBIKE (bandit1250) OR THE CAR at 54 years old i try to keep fit its only about 10 miles but i get loads of sh-t from cars and lorries,,,, bus lane , bike lane whatever its sometimes terrifying the how close they ride to me total w--kers ,so far all the bikers have been good ;;;maybe its a different mentality

read the LCC report and view their trustees

This is the view being promulgated on their website by this very bizare campaign group which claims 11000 members and seems to be operating as a charity. Is any of it true? ;

Despite three years of trials showing increased danger, Transport for London is going ahead with its plans to allow motorbikes to permanently use red-route bus lanes in line with Mayor Boris Johnson's 2008 election promise.

The report on the second 18-month trial, published on 21 December 2011, shows a sharp increase in both motorcyclist fatalities on red-route bus lanes and the rate of cyclist collisions with motorbikes.

Cyclist-motorcyclist collisions increased from 10 to 25, while motorcyclist deaths increased from one in the first 18-month trial to seven in the second trial.

Collision rates for motorcyclists didn't improve significantly during the second trial, which included an extensive and expensive police-enforcement programme to reduce the large number of motorcyclists ignoring speed limits.

TfL's press release makes no mention of any safety gains despite initiating the original trial expecting safety improvements.

The first trial concluded that "motorcyclists appear to be less safe since the scheme has been introduced".

The second trial says its results "did not change the relative overall safety of motorcyclists".

The second London-wide trial also found that "collision rates of cyclists with motorcyclists on the TLRN (red route) bus network during the current trial significantly increased".

London Cycling Campaign chief executive Ashok Sinha said, "Cyclists and motorcyclists are both especially vulnerable to bad road policies; TfL's action does nothing to reduce danger for either group."

LCC's road danger expert Charlie Lloyd said, "The overwhelming conclusion from the latest bus lane trial is, yet again, that there are no safety benefits.

"The results of this trial should act as a warning to other authorities not to risk allowing motorcycles in bus lanes."
 

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/board