Has the CTC (cycling lobby) gone mad?

[HeliX]

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/cycle-lobby-still-opposes-motorcycling-increase/24881.html

 

 

"We are also concerned about the impact that more motorcycling could have on the environment."

 

What, like less fossil fuels being burned, less congestion, and less pollution? Yeah, devastating for the environment mate. Absolutely terrible.

 

‘We therefore support policies to improve motorcyclists’ safety but, given the need to restrain motor traffic in general, we do not support actions intended to increase the use of motorcycles, or those that might have this effect.’

 

You what? What need to restrain motor traffic?

Is this group actually serious? They're almost as batty as the Motorcycle Action Group still lobbying for optional helmet use.

[Mr. Sausages]

Isn't that (the need to restrain motor traffic in general) one of the goals of pretty much every government at the moment? Get people on public transport, reduce emissions etc.

[HeliX]

Isn't that (the need to restrain motor traffic in general) one of the goals of pretty much every government at the moment? Get people on public transport, reduce emissions etc.

 

The wording is important - the Government is advocating reducing traffic. Restraining sounds a lot more to me like imposing more restrictions on the current amount of traffic, rather than reducing the amount.

 

Either way, bikes take up a lot less space than cars...

[Slim]

The CTC's primary goal is to encourage cycling. Motorcycles and the danger they represent, according to the CTC, are one of the factors that stop people cycling. So it stands to reason that the CTC would be against encouraging motorcycling.

 

The environmental issue appears to be aimed at motor vehicles in general, they want less, not more.

[HeliX]

The CTC's primary goal is to encourage cycling. Motorcycles and the danger they represent, according to the CTC, are one of the factors that stop people cycling. So it stands to reason that the CTC would be against encouraging motorcycling.

 

The environmental issue appears to be aimed at motor vehicles in general, they want less, not more.

But the place they got their stats from about motorcycles being dangerous shows the following for % of traffic / % of crashes:

 

Buses / 1% / 6% (x6)

HGVs / 5% / 19% (x3.8)

PTWs / 1% / 2% (x2)

Pedalists / 1% / 1% (x1)

Cars / 79% / 47% (x0.59)

LGVs / 14% / 6% (x0.42)

 

So why target motorcycles?

[Slim]

But the place they got their stats from about motorcycles being dangerous shows the following for % of traffic / % of crashes:

 

So why target motorcycles?

I don't think they're referring to the total number of crashes, so that's not the data they're referring to. They're talking specifically about the number of incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists showing that motorcycles pose a greater risk than other vehicles.

 

I think you have to look at this in context; this is in response to calls for motorcycles to be allowed to use bus lanes and advance stop signs or "bike boxes". This degrades cycling safety, as those areas are considered safe havens for cyclists when available. Letting motorocycles ride in them makes them more dangerous to cyclists. The visordown site hasn't communicated this particularly well. The CTC's policy: "Motorbikes should not be allowed in bus lanes, advanced stop lines (ASLs), vehicle-restricted areas or locations where pedal cycles enjoy exemptions from vehicle restrictions. This must necessarily apply to all motorbikes, as larger, faster and more polluting machines make up the majority of the motorbike fleet and it is not practical to provide traffic regulation benefits for the safest and cleanest machines alone."

[HeliX]

 

But the place they got their stats from about motorcycles being dangerous shows the following for % of traffic / % of crashes:

 

So why target motorcycles?

I don't think they're referring to the total number of crashes, so that's not the data they're referring to. They're talking specifically about the number of incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists showing that motorcycles pose a greater risk than other vehicles.

 

I think you have to look at this in context; this is in response to calls for motorcycles to be allowed to use bus lanes and advance stop signs or "bike boxes". This degrades cycling safety, as those areas are considered safe havens for cyclists when available. Letting motorocycles ride in them makes them more dangerous to cyclists. The visordown site hasn't communicated this particularly well. The CTC's policy: "Motorbikes should not be allowed in bus lanes, advanced stop lines (ASLs), vehicle-restricted areas or locations where pedal cycles enjoy exemptions from vehicle restrictions. This must necessarily apply to all motorbikes, as larger, faster and more polluting machines make up the majority of the motorbike fleet and it is not practical to provide traffic regulation benefits for the safest and cleanest machines alone."

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I'm using the same data as them there, pedalist fatalities by involved vehicle.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265224/Pedal_Cyclist_Factsheet_2012.pdf

 

The quotes in the article don't line up with it being just about cycle lanes though - what has the environment and motorcycles effect on it got to do with cycle lanes?

[Slim]

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I'm using the same data as them there, pedalist fatalities by involved vehicle.

 

The quotes in the article don't line up with it being just about cycle lanes though - what has the environment and motorcycles effect on it got to do with cycle lanes?

Those figures show that motorcycles make up 1% of total traffic, yet 2% of cycling fatalities. That's worse than cars. The environment is simply one of the CTC's other aims and a reason why they wouldn't want to encourage motorcycling.

[HeliX]

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I'm using the same data as them there, pedalist fatalities by involved vehicle.

 

The quotes in the article don't line up with it being just about cycle lanes though - what has the environment and motorcycles effect on it got to do with cycle lanes?

Those figures show that motorcycles make up 1% of total traffic, yet 2% of cycling fatalities. That's worse than cars. The environment is simply one of the CTC's other aims and a reason why they wouldn't want to encourage motorcycling.

It is worse than cars yes. But like I said, why target motorcycles when HGVs and Buses are vastly worse?

 

EDIT: and not encouraging motorcycling because of the environment is rather short sighted. Bikes are much better on fuel than cars. And cause less congestion, meaning less sitting around wasting time pumping out exhaust gas.

[Tempus Fugit]

 

The CTC's primary goal is to encourage cycling. Motorcycles and the danger they represent, according to the CTC, are one of the factors that stop people cycling. So it stands to reason that the CTC would be against encouraging motorcycling.

 

The environmental issue appears to be aimed at motor vehicles in general, they want less, not more.

But the place they got their stats from about motorcycles being dangerous shows the following for % of traffic / % of crashes:

 

Buses / 1% / 6% (x6)

HGVs / 5% / 19% (x3.8)

PTWs / 1% / 2% (x2)

Pedalists / 1% / 1% (x1)

Cars / 79% / 47% (x0.59)

LGVs / 14% / 6% (x0.42)

 

So why target motorcycles?

I'm trying tho think what a PTW is, I don't think I've ever driven one of those,

and I'm sure there must be some motorcycle crashes despite the total of those above being 101%

[HeliX]

 

 

The CTC's primary goal is to encourage cycling. Motorcycles and the danger they represent, according to the CTC, are one of the factors that stop people cycling. So it stands to reason that the CTC would be against encouraging motorcycling.

 

The environmental issue appears to be aimed at motor vehicles in general, they want less, not more.

But the place they got their stats from about motorcycles being dangerous shows the following for % of traffic / % of crashes:

 

Buses / 1% / 6% (x6)

HGVs / 5% / 19% (x3.8)

PTWs / 1% / 2% (x2)

Pedalists / 1% / 1% (x1)

Cars / 79% / 47% (x0.59)

LGVs / 14% / 6% (x0.42)

 

So why target motorcycles?

I'm trying tho think what a PTW is, I don't think I've ever driven one of those,

and I'm sure there must be some motorcycle crashes despite the total of those above being 101%

 

Powered two wheeler

[Mr. Sausages]

This is what all the quotes are from. Seems to be just giving their views on motorbikes, rather than targeting them over other vehicles. I'd imagine they have views on HGVs and buses too (though I can't be arsed trying to find them).

And they seem to dispute your view on emissions. "PTWs are not a ‘green’ mode of transport: DfT data show that in 2011 for many pollutants, emissions from Britain’s PTW fleet are worse (some considerably worse) than they are for cars:"

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/motorbikesbrf.pdf

[Slim]

It is worse than cars yes. But like I said, why target motorcycles when HGVs and Buses are vastly worse?

Because it's specifically a policy about motorcycles.

 

They also have a policy document against HGV's:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/goods-vehicles-lorries-hgvs-vans-etc

 

I don't think the environmental point is short sighted. The ctc consider promotion of motor vehicles of any kind to be counter productive to their goals. It's not that they're single out motorcycles, but they don't want to promote them either.

[slinkydevil]

Cyclist clearly getting in the way of these motorbikes at 1min 17secs

 

[pongo]

"We are also concerned about the impact that more motorcycling could have on the environment."

 

What, like less fossil fuels being burned

Motorcycles, in general, have very poor fuel efficiency. Motorcycle technology is in the dark ages in this respect. 4 people in a car is much more fuel efficient than 4 people on two bikes. 10 people in a minibus is vastly more fuel efficient than 10 people on 5 bikes.

 

The situation is reversed with electric. Electric cars based on current tech are stupid. They have insufficient range to be useful outside of cities. Inside cities cars make no sense anyhow whether or not they are electric (electric vans make sense for deliveries). Electric bikes by contrast make good sense in cities. Hybrid vehicles are over engineered.