Tomorrow, Coventry City Council are proposing to allow motorbikes into all bus lanes within the city. This is my response, highlighting why I think this is a bad idea.
Response on motorbikes in bus lanes proposal
I find it completely unacceptable that the council is even considering extending permissions to allow motorbikes into bus lanes, when cycling conditions on these stretches of road are already so poor.
Best practice?
Bus lanes were looked at in a range of cities around the world, ranging from cities with very prominent high profile bus networks (Curitiba, Brazil and Ottawa, Canada), through to the city with the most bus lanes per capita (Helsinki), the most bus lanes outright (Beijing), and the sections of road most heavily used by buses (Lincoln and Harbour Tunnels, New York and Hong Kong respectively).
The usage of bus lanes by motorbikes appears to be largely a British idea, with the most effective bus lanes allowing no other user types. It is also noted that in the cities with the highest cycling mode shares, there is also an extensive bus network, but that this bus network is fully segregated, and cycling is neither required nor allowed in bus lanes (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Eindhoven etc). In fact, on a day to day basis, Dutch cyclists will rarely share any road space with buses at all, as almost all bus routes are on roads with adjacent cycle lanes, with exceptions being notable, for example in the centre of Groningen.
The reality in Coventry
I note in particular, as a resident of Chapelfields, that motorbikes will be allowed into bus lanes around Butts Rd and Tile Hill Lane. The Butts is already a complete no-go area for cyclists – I simply will not cycle away from the city via ring road junction 7, because this road provides no sense of subjective safety whatsoever.
The B4101 outside the former Technical college is as wide as 45m in places, but there is still nowhere that feels safe to cycle, even though some simple measures like providing dropped kerbs and linking sections of side road together would make a huge difference. Allowing motorbikes into these lanes can only make matters worse.
The methodology used to make this change is fundamentally flawed, because no mechanism has been provided to either consult with, or request feedback from, existing or potential cyclists.
Response to Officers’ Report
In particular, the following comments are made from the officer’s report:
1.2 Support was received during the trial from motorcycle users which included comments of feeling/being safer, reduced journey time, and requests that the scheme be extended. The bus operators advised that they had no issues. No objections were received from pedal cyclists.
These changes were never presented to the Cycle Coventry advisory group, nor was any other attempt made to engage with cyclists.
2.3 A review of the personal recorded injury collision history for the bus lanes where motorcycles are permitted has been undertaken and this shows for the period from 01/02/2014 to 31/05/2015 (when the scheme came in to operation to the latest date for which information is available) no personal injury collisions have been recorded which involve both pedal cycles and motorcycles.
This review only looks at actual collisions between pedal cycles and motorbikes, and ignores the very real sense of threat that cyclists feel from having to share the same space with very loud motorbikes. It has been repeatedly shown that subjective safety, i.e. the feeling of safety, is as important as any statistical safety when it comes to determining which mode of transport people will use, and it is abundantly clear that motorcycles present a very serious noise problem.
3.3 The use of motorcycles in bus lanes has been a standard agenda item on the monthly bus liaison meetings since the original trial came into effect. These meetings are attended by Officers, a CENTRO representative and bus operators; no concerns or issues have been raised in regard to motorcycles using the bus lanes.
No cyclists or groups representing cyclists have ever even been invited to these liaison meetings, none have been consulted, and therefore no feedback has been requested or received. Had any single cyclist been invited to this group, they would no doubt have reported that sharing bus lanes with motorbikes is deeply unattractive.
6.4 Equalities / EIA
None
This clearly demonstrates that no equality impact assessment has taken place, nor has any request been made as to whether or not one should have taken place. Had a thorough Equality Impact Assessment been made, it would very clearly have determined that vulnerable users of the bus lanes, and in particular younger, older and disabled cyclists would have vehemently objected to the introduction of motorbikes into bus lanes.
It is also noted that across the United Kingdom as a whole, 75% of adult cyclists on male,
leading to a very clear case of direct gender segregation. It has also been demonstrated that in cities and countries where safe cycling infrastructure has been provided, no such gender imbalance occurs, for example, the ratio of males to females cycling in Dutch and Danish cities is almost exactly 50:50.
At the very least, this process needs to be halted until a robust and independent equality impact assessment has taken place. This will no doubt show that the presence of motorbikes in bus lanes is a significant cause of discomfort to more vulnerable non-motorised road users, and that their needs must be protected over and above a form of motorised transport that offers few social benefits or environmental improvements when compared with the private car.
6.5 Implications for (or impact on) the environment
None
Again, it is abundantly clear that no environmental impact assessment or even any consideration has taken place. Had such a study taken place, it would have shown that motorbikes cause significant levels of both air and noise pollution, and that there is no reason to give motorbikes any preference over other road users.
On a per unit per mile basis, motorbikes are comparable with cars, but they often lack the same level of pollution control, whilst also being completely unable to carry more than one passenger.
Motorbikes are a significant cause of noise pollution, and substantially more so than any other type of road vehicle.
In terms of road space usage, motorbikes are narrower, and they can therefore fit through smaller spaces in congested traffic, but this is not a significant enough advantage to warrant any sort of prioritisation of road space.
Note – all of the above comments apply to full sized motorbikes, as they are the vehicles been consulted on in this document. If the proposal was for mopeds only (especially electric scooters), then a different response might have been made, as they have considerably less impact.
It is notable however that this proposal makes no distinction between different types of motorbike, and merely proposes to allow every form of motorbike from the quietest electric scooter up to the noisiest, most powerful 180bhp+ bikes.
Capital Costs
Although the capital cost of these proposals is very small, the implications are very significant, especially when cycling campaigners have frequently highlighted numerous changes which could be made to improve cycling conditions in the city which also have very small capital costs.
Back pedalling
This latest proposal also needs to be set in the context of a range of recent decisions and measures which are now sending Coventry backwards. It is deeply disappointing, having worked with the city on the Cycle Coventry scheme, and having hoped this would be the start of a genuine movement towards high volume utility cycling. These measures include:
- Completion of Cycle Coventry – largely poor quality finishing, awkward kerb alignments (Radford Rec.), confusing crossing designations.
- The failure to implement side road priority, rendering the Charter Avenue path largely ineffective.
- Failure to install lighting, for example on Wyken Croft or alongside the canal.
- New “shared space” junctions being unsuitable for less confident cyclists, especially Ring Road Junction 6.
- Failure to require sufficient cycle parking in new student developments.
It is also worth noting that the one scheme which was changed to become more pedestrian and cycle friendly, namely the A444 bridge in Whitley, was only changed following extensive campaigning by cycling activists. The original design would undoubtedly have been extremely dangerous.
Not fit for Purpose
The cycling network in Coventry is not fit for purpose, and this proposal can only make it worse. Therefore it must be rejected.
The post Why motorbikes in bus lanes is a bad idea appeared first on Pedal Parity.