campaignactioncampaignactioncampaignactioncampaignactioncam Bus lanes, tests and . . .
As TheROAD goes to press, three issues at the top of my work-pile show why MAG has to campaign locally, nationally and internationally.
The London Borough of Ealing has decided to deny motorcyclists continued access to bus lanes on its roads. This means that it intends to close bus lanes operated by Ealing, but also to close the bus lanes on roads operated by Transport for London that pass through the borough.
The potential threat to bus lane access in other areas is very real. MAG is urging riders to write and object to the proposed change and calling on the Council to extend access at least until 2012 so that it does not undermine the current experiment allowing access to bus lanes along London routes controlled by Transport for London.
The address to write to is Ealing Council, Perceval House, 14/16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL.
MAG is critical of the decision taken by Ealing cabinet members, which MAG believes was taken on flawed and incomplete information, without proper opportunity for objections to be heard from motorcyclists. The Council took a decision based on data showing collisions increased during the first year in which motorcycles were allowed access to bus lanes. However, there is evidence of a reduction in collisions during 2010. Ealing also appears to have undertaken little analysis of the nature of the collisions on Ealing’s roads. The Council admits assumptions were made about whether the collisions reflected changes in motorcycle traffic and whether cyclists had changed their behaviour. These assumptions were taken from a report by Transport for London, who subsequently decided to continue to allow motorcycle access in order to find ways to alter the behaviour of car drivers at junctions. Many junctions on London bus lanes do not
Thereʼs a short window of opportunity to oppose this madness
meet national design standards intended to ensure good visibility and separation of vehicles around junctions. MAG has lobbied for TfL to look at whether changes to junction design would improve safety around junctions and calls on Ealing to do this before taking the easy option of disadvantaging motorcycle users. Ealing’s officers are explicit that the Council gives preferential treatment to cycling. MAG believes it is short-sighted and detrimental to ignore the needs of motorcyclists who are also a vulnerable road user group, but which the Council has decided is not worthy of the same consideration as cyclists. If Ealing’s officers were genuinely concerned about road safety they would be supporting this attempt to get at the root causes of a much wider problem. Instead, they intend to not only confuse matters by withdrawing access to Ealing-controlled bus lanes, they also want to withdraw access to TfL bus lanes that pass through Ealing, thus undermining the most serious attempt yet to demonstrate the advantages of motorcycle access. TfL’s decision to address the problems faced by all road users at and around junctions is the only responsible course of action. MAG Central Office is asking questions of Ealing Council. It seems that officers of Ealing council put their recommendations to members of the Cabinet without referring to interested parties such as local MAG members, who were therefore prevented from challenging them before a decision was taken.
MAG says the Council has yet to show that it gave due consideration to the safety of motorcycle riders, or to the needs of motorcycle users on the local road network. We have to consider the strong possibility that the decision to end the experiment was political. Before Ealing can close bus lanes to bikes they will have to give notice of changes to the traffic orders that permit us to use the bus lanes.
Riders can object to new traffic orders when they are posted on the Councilʼs web-site
www2.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/ public_notices/.
Any rider who values access to bus lanes throughout the UK has a short opportunity to oppose Ealing’s decision and get it over-turned.
60 The ROAD
Government rethink on motorcycle rider training and licencing
The Minister has been keen to replace the current on and off road test with a ‘single-event’ test, conducted on road. This would allow riders to take their test even if they don’t live close to a Multi-Purpose Test Centres (MPTC). The DSA always intended the test to be a ‘single-event’, the Module One fudge only came about when it became clear that their plans to build enough MPTCs were unrealistic. Some riders and trainers prefer the two-part test but others are less keen. A single-event test means that a rider who fails the machine control tests in Module 1 has only lost a small part of the overall test fee. On the other hand, there is concern that in an effort to reduce the ballooning cost of taking the bike test, some riders are taking Module One without training or practicing for the controversial Hazard Avoidance (swerve) and Emergency Braking elements in the test. A new version of the Hazard Avoidance test is being trialled. If successful it could be delivered either on the highway or at a suitable off-highway area, not just limited to the current DSA sites. Some machine control skills specified by the EU Directive just can’t be tested on the open road.
Over the next couple of months we should know the outcomes from the trials of the new test method, and to have vetted the official assessment of any financial implications. That would leave the way open to public consultation in the summer with changes to legislation and implementation of the new test arrangements sometime late 2011 / early 2012.
The number of tests conducted under the new arrangements continues to be suppressed by the lack of test sites and problems with the system for booking test appointments. Trainers have seen a dramatic fall in demand and there are widespread reports of training schools having to cease trading. Trials of the new method of testing may or
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84