The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) is today seeking a judicial review of London’s east-west cycle superhighway. Even though the superhighway is already being built, LTDA argues that an alternate route should have been used and says TfL should have sought planning permission before beginning construction.
London 24 reports LTDA general secretary Steve McNamara as saying that the current route “is not the right scheme for London,” before accusing Boris Johnson of rushing it through as a “last hurrah” before the end of his term as mayor.
“Boris is implementing this scheme as quickly as he can before he leaves office at the end of April. It is being rushed through as his last hurrah.
“We don’t actually disagree that there should be a scheme, but we want to get the right scheme for London. The one being built is not right for our 24-hour city.
“There is evidence that it is sucking the lifeblood of London, causing traffic jams, with hundreds stuck bumper to bumper, poisoning everybody else with pollution.”
LTDA wants to see a route through quieter streets south of the River Thames used instead.
McNamara has previously described a proportion of cycling campaigners as the “Isis of London”. Speaking to LBC radio about his organisation’s opposition to cycleways in February 2015, he said:
“These people, the zealots of the cycling world, are unbelievable. We have had cyber attacks on our websites. They are all over us like a cheap suit on Twitter and social media. We have had physical threats of violence. You name it, we have had it. It’s absolutely unreal.
“The loonies out there in the cycling world, they’re almost the sort of Isis of London. Their views and their politics – if you are not with them, and we are with the majority of it, then nothing is too bad for you. These people are unreal.”
In 2013, the LTDA used footage from a carefully-chosen junction to allege that 50 per cent of cyclists jump red lights.
30 thoughts on “Taxi leader says cycle superhighway is “sucking the lifeblood of London””
I wonder if they will
I wonder if they will actually go through with the judicial review this time, or if this is just another low attempt at trolling and trying to attract attention?
Where’s the evidence that it
Where’s the evidence that it is sucking the lifeblood out of London? Like how? Maybe in the construction phase there are more jams. Ironic how he refers to pollution caused by traffic jams…
Is the date on this article
Is the date on this article accurate January 13 2016, not 2015? It is not draining lifeblood, it is more of a transfusion to a healthier patient. “The loonies out there in the cycling world, they’re almost the sort of Isis of London.” scoff, hyperbole much? This guy should be shot at dawn.*
*to quote Jeremy Clarkson.
I remember driving in London
I remember driving in London and traffic jam is pretty much the same and todays. Dead stop at rush hours. That is why I use my bike. Nobody wants to spend 2 or more hours in traffic everyday, but with the influx of people in the city that’s not gonna happen, unless people will change the vehicles. You can look at USA. They have traffic jams, they build more roads, more people buy cars and you have traffic jams. It’s not about building more roads or having more space for cars. It’s about changing the way people commute. Getting people on bikes and public transport will greatly affect congestion then just building a wider road.
Yay, another helmet debate.
Yay, another helmet debate.
ron611087 wrote:
I think you’re replying to the wrong article… 😉
“LTDA wants to see a route
“LTDA wants to see a route through quieter streets south of the River Thames used instead. “
Because those b@stards won’t go there……
Was in Covent Garden last week and needed to get to Soho, it started raining, the temptation was strong, but I walked! Now I’ve just downloaded the Uber app, never going to use a black cab again if I can help it.
PaulBox wrote:
You walked all the way from Covent Garden to Soho? Well done you! 😉
fatsimonstan wrote:
Lol!
It was raining and my Mrs was moaning…
PaulBox wrote:
Guaranteed way to put a spoiler on a night away with the Mrs 😀
Given that women will walk 10 miles around shops looking for that particular item and don’t think twice about dragging their fella in tow! Double standard, but can’t live without them:)
PaulBox wrote:
That’s the reason i usually nip to Soho too 😉
Ok, I’m sorry…
Did I read that right. It’s
Did I read that right. It’s the cyclists fault for the pollution levels in central London? Not then those 1000s of dirty diesel engines that black cabs use? Moron.
Two things cabbies hate cyclists and Boris and they can try and hit both with this worthless challenge.
Days are numbered for these narrow minded fools I hope.
<blockquote class=
“The ISIS of London”?!? Those are the words of a desperate man.
road.cc contributor John Stevenson described it well earlier today:
“LTDA: dinosaurs taking cycling mammals to court while an asteroid marked Uber speeds toward them.”
https://twitter.com/johnstevenson_x/status/687209127400075264
Just to add a little bit of
Just to add a little bit of data that’s fun to wind up taxi drivers, who always seem to be banging on about all these changes being for a “tiny minority”.
In London, the modal share of trips by taxi is about half the modal share of cycling. And by taxi, that’s black cabs and minicabs combined, their modal share as black cabs alone is pretty much a rounding error, less than %1.
They do however contribute over 30% of the exhaust pollution in central London (source: Mayor’s response to London Assembly ).
bikebot wrote:
Any links to the source data/article?
kitkat wrote:
Taxi pollution response (Mayors question time).
TfL’s annual “Travel in London” report, various modal share data from page 29 onwards.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-8.pdf
kitkat wrote:
What, like Steve provided to back up his “lifeblood” statement?!
Why worry, the invention of
Why worry, the invention of the sat nav 20 years ago made these idiots obsolete. Uber is slowly killing them and driverless cars will be the final nail in the coffin
“LTDA wants to see a route
“LTDA wants to see a route through quieter streets south of the River Thames used instead.”
And how does he expect cyclists to get over to that side of the river if they live in the East? There aren’t any bridges and whilst the Greenwich Foot Tunnel is well used it’s hardly far enough out to be a viable route over for most people…
What puzzles me is that
What puzzles me is that people always make this false cause logical fallacy. Cyclists cause pollution by causing traffic jams. Surely cars cause pollution.
Also it’s quite amusing that he says cyclists are the ISIS of London, and that ‘if you are not with them you are against them’, infamously used by George W. Bush to launch his war on terror.
To be fair, in his position
To be fair, in his position as head of a taxi driver’s trade body, he’s hardly likely to endorse modes of transport that don’t put money into the pockets of his members. Especially at a time when the London black taxi, iconic as it is, follows the red telephone box into nostalgic memory.
Aren’t there more cars than
Aren’t there more cars than bikes in London?
So how come it’s the bikes that cause the traffic jams?
Given London exceeded the
Given London exceeded the yearly pollution quota in only 8 days, what more compelling evidence is needed to encourage as many people to walking, cycling and zero emissions vehicles
Steve McNamara needs to take
Steve McNamara needs to take a sniff of his cab’s exhaust and he’ll get a clue as to what’s sucking the lifeblood out of Londoners.
Physical threats of violence?
Physical threats of violence? Yes, I recognise that phrase.
It’s how I’d describe the average LTDA member’s approach to cyclists both on the road and off it.
I’m not sure why people think
I’m not sure why people think Uber, Lyft, etc are an improvement for cyclists over traditional taxi services. Instead of a restricted number of controlled, licenced and trained drivers with route knowledge and some degree of accountability (taxi licencing etc, stricter MoTs for hackneys than private vehicles, etc), we get any old Joe in any old vehicle with no specific training, licencing or accountability, but with all the taxi driver hurry, stress and attitude.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
You’re of course right, there’s nothing wrong with the principle of a regulated taxi service.
The problem is the LTDA and its members, who have chosen to make themselves the opponents of protected cycling infrastructure. It’s is a stupid move and an own goal.
Regarding accoutability, you will find that you’ll have more success making a complaint to Uber regarding the behaviour of one of their drivers than you ever will making a complaint to the Public Carriage Office, who are essentially useless. Their concern with public safety only extends as far as the fair paying passenger.
bikebot wrote:
You’re right, certainly, about the LTDA’s attitude to cycling and cyclists, and Uber as an organisation are unlikely to have such an attitude. But their drivers as individuals might.
It’s interesting to ask why they take this stance. As you say, it’s not really helpful to them. I wonder – and I really am just speculating – if it might actually be that the leadership of the LTDA are trying to make this a campaign in order to justify their own existence to their membership, partly in the face of rivals such as Uber?
look I dont agree with the
look I dont agree with the views of the LTDA on this or anything they put forward really as I suspect no regular commuting cyclist probably does, but we have to recognise that LTDA members are paying (approx £200 per year) membership fees to be part of that organisation,whose whole purpose is to reflect,promote and campaign on the basis of the views of its membership, however idiotic, narrow minded and misguided they might appear to the rest of us.
its not their remit to take a broad consensual appreciation of betterment for all view of things, they are a narrow self protection interest group, and its perfectly reasonable for them to ask for a judicial review if the courts legally allow it.
As long as TFL followed the correct processes and ticked all the right boxes for this, then it will just turn out to have been a very expensive legal bill for the LTDA, but Steve McNamara can then look his members in the eye and say the LTDA didnt sit back and do nothing about a subject they clearly hold strong opinions on. Else what incentive would there be for any cabbie to join them or continue paying membership fees ? they might not like the answer they eventually get, but theyve at least asked the question.
“LTDA wants to see a route
“LTDA wants to see a route through quieter streets south of the River Thames used instead.”
Gawd, stroof!! Yoo dahn’t wanna gow sahf atha rivvah!!