- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Park Lane Streetspace for London 04.jpegCourt of Appeal pulls apart High Court judge’s rejection of London’s Streetspace programme and other active travel measures
Three Court of Appeal judges have said that a High Court judge’s ruling earlier this year that emergency measures undertaken by Transport for London (TfL) in response to the coronavirus pandemic were “seriously flawed” and “irrational” had no foundation, their criticisms contained in their full decision explaining why they last month upheld TfL’s appeal against the original judgment.
> Transport for London wins appeal over Streetspace active travel programme
In January, Mrs Justice Lang found in favour of The United Trades Action Group (UTAG) and the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA), which had sought a judicial review claiming that TfL’s Streetspace for London programme under which increased road space was given to cyclists and pedestrians, TfL guidance to boroughs including on low traffic neighbourhoods, and the closure of Bishopsgate were all unlawful.
In her decision, the judge said that TfL and the Mayor “took advantage of the pandemic” to enforce “radical changes” to London’s streets and that they “failed to distinguish taxis from ‘general traffic’,” disregarding “the distinct status of taxis as a form of public transport, reflected both in law and policy” and “the role played by taxis in facilitating accessible public transport for those with mobility impairments.”
She also said that the changes went “beyond what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic.”
However, the Court of Appeal’s full decision, which has now been published, pulls her ruling apart, with the three judges saying that it was “extraordinary and not right” that the steps taken by TfL and the Mayor be described as “extreme or ill considered,” nor were there grounds to view them as “irrational.”
They said that Mrs Justice Lang “seems to have given no or almost no weight to the fact that the [decisions taken by TfL] were made on or by 15 May 2020 at a time when the duration and future course of the pandemic were wholly unpredictable.”
The judges also pointed out that each of the measures introduced “was in accordance with the policy not only of the Mayor and TfL but also of the Secretary of State for Transport of encouraging walking and cycling rather than other means of travel.
“They were not universally popular, but we think it would be extraordinary and not right for a court to condemn them as extreme or ill-considered, especially during the pandemic,” they said.
UTAG and the LTDA have been refused permission to appeal against the ruling, and have also been ordered to pay TfL’s costs, including paying £50,000 within 14 days.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ChurchillR 16 min 28 sec ago
Sounds like the sort of thing Jeremy Clarkson would say if he were a cyclist....
- hawkinspeter 40 min 14 sec ago
What a stupid attitude. It's people like you that dictators really like as you'll just blindly follow any made up rule with no thought as to the...
- hawkinspeter 50 min 47 sec ago
You don't?
- Andrewbanshee 57 min 16 sec ago
Tbh I ride cautiously at night when in dimly lit areas. I do have very bright front and rear lights too. It is true that many people seem oblivious...
- brooksby 1 hour 40 min ago
So the footpath has always been there too? Doesn't Cllr Lake think its a problem that motorists are apparently pulling out of the garage forecourt...
- David9694 2 hours 8 min ago
Bus hits house as snow causes travel disruption and shuts schools across Yorkshire...
- Carmic0 4 hours 42 sec ago
Nice to see the Passoni with external cabling.
- mark1a 8 hours 41 min ago
Yes, I agree, and thanks for replying, what I was trying to say (badly) was that Look wasn't really a bike company back then. ...
- George Hill 12 hours 45 min ago
Foxcote Hill in Ilmington - it's steep, it's not too long, and once you get to the top you can see the for miles across the Cotswolds....
- stonojnr 12 hours 52 min ago
well at least they didnt go for British Racing Green as well ,as then theyd have two trademark licensing cases up against them....
Add new comment
47 comments
Ouch!
'UTAG and the LTDA have been refused permission to appeal against the ruling, and have also been ordered to pay TfL’s costs, including paying £50,000 within 14 days.'
Cue squealing, GB News commentary and lots of outraged cab drivers
Another mistake; don't read this one either.
I do not consider a black cab to be "public transport"
At least, certainly not the same kind of public transport as, say, a bus or a tram or a train...
I've often wondered whether it is in the same sense as "public" schools.....
I would suggest the correct term we should be using is "mass transport". A private car is only an issue when it is on the road running from Point A to Point B. All things being equal, a taxi will be on the road for the same length of time for the trip - hence no savings in road congestion, in fuel usage, in air pollution (in fact will add to them since they have the overhead of cruising around looking for the next fare). Mass transport (busses, ferries, trains, trams, etc) is a subset of "public transport". and is to be encouraged.
Taxis provide some savings in garaging and parking space, in car ownership and running costs, but every empty taxi you see driving around is an overhead on the system.
You're hiring a vehicle and driver for the exclusive private use of yourself and party. How can that be deemed public transport?
The vehicle and driver are available to the public as individuals, so not like a private car.
So does that mean that chauffeurs and limos are public transport too?
No; not unless they are available to the public for hire.
Aren't they all available to the public, or do they require qualifications?
Presumably also makes (random example) Amazon a public service, too, since any individual member of the public can order stuff from them.
No because Amazon can refuse to sell to you whereas a black cab has to pick you up (even if disabled with a wheelchair).
That's the crucial distinction, a black cab is public transport because theoretically any driver with his/her light on is obliged to accept your request for any journey within London under 12 miles, whereas an Uber or minicab driver has the option to refuse. However, anyone who's tried to get a cab from Trafalgar Square to Peckham after midnight knows full well this is an empty promise and a good reason (of several) for removing black cab drivers' ridiculous privileges in London.
Clearly I've been playing devil's advocate with Eburt, but as you both have said , there is an obligation for a Hackney carriage licence holder to accept fares, unless there is reasonable cause to refuse.
My understanding is that the reasonable cause is not clearly defined in any legislative sense (obvs I may well be wrong, and someone will no doubt be able to furnish extra details), leading to a great deal of difficulty in holding these "public servants" to account legally, let alone operationally.
Yes - but that wasn't the explanation I was responding to.
But it is certainly debateable* whether Taxis increase or reduce emissions. And if the removal of taxis would lead to an overall reduction in carbon emissions there is no moral justification for the number of privileges they recieve.
* on the one had a taxi with a fare is making the same journey as a private car, and will then spend additional time driving around empty. On the other hand they complete the final miles of journeys predominantly taken by rail, with some rail passengers unlikely to consider using the bus when reaching their final city. So potentially the removal of taxis would decrease rail use.
Pages