Motorcyclists do not merit favourable treatment on roads

Dear Sir,

The correspondence on motorcycle use of bus lanes refers to just one symptom of a wider issue. This is the promotion of a relatively unhealthy and environmentally destructive form of transport at the expense of a healthier and more sustainable one. It is done by central and local government, with the regrettable support of bodies like the IHIE, under the pressure of the powerful motorcycling lobby. It fits in neatly with yet more growth in motor traffic, decline in both the more benign modes and the general prospects for environmentally sustainable transport.

In London supposed facilities– paid for out of hard won budgets - to support cycling, such as Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) and gaps in road closures are regularly and frequently used illegally by powered two-wheelers (PTWs). Others such as cycle lanes and cycle parking stands are also used, at least outside the objective for which they were intended, if not illegally. With bus lanes open to motorcycles there will be little specific advantage for cycling, which needs far greater support to come up to the level of modal share of typical European (and some British) conurbations.

Compared to cycling, motorcycling is far more dangerous to other road users, with a far higher involvement in pedestrian killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualties per distance travelled than cars, let alone bicycles. (While some of this may be due to pedestrian inattention, the higher speed and weight of motorcycles will always be a problem for vulnerable road users near them). PTW users have higher casualty rates per journey than cyclists, and are using a far more unhealthy form of transport for the user. PTWs emit noise as well as greenhouse gas and noxious emissions and have a dubious contribution to congestion reduction. They compete unfairly with cycling and therefore reduce the chances of cyclists reaching “critical mass” and resulting greater safety.

Arguing against the extension of promotion of motorcycling – already in place through exemption of congestion charging and other measures – is not “anti-motorcycling”. Unlike many traditional “road safety” lobbyists we do not think that PTW users should be held responsible for that proportion of their casualties caused by other road users simply because they are vulnerable, or that they should not be allowed to hurt or kill themselves in that (roughly similar) proportion for which they are. However, an equitable approach must recognise the relative benefits and disbenefits of all forms of transport. At the moment cycling is getting the rough end of the stick compared to other modes, motorcycling is getting plenty of carrot, and measures such as allowing PTWs in bus lanes and ASLs increase this inequitable state of affairs.

Motorcyclist deserve safety which should be increased by high levels of law enforcement and deterrent sentencing, rather than measures such as use of bus lanes. Of course, with attention paid to speed, this is unlikely to be welcome to the motorcycle lobby. Indeed, on typical urban journeys those wishing to use two wheels who are too disabled or lazy to pedal would be better off on electrically backed up bicycles – as would public health and the environment.

Finally, those willing to take road safety advice from a professional motorcycle advocate like Mr. Olliffe of the British Motorcyclist Federation might prefer to look at the work of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation on www.cyclehelmets.org to see the evidence on bicycle helmets.

Dr. Robert Davis
Road Danger Reduction Forum