- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Taxi and Cyclist copyright Simon MacMichael.jpgCab drivers lose cycle superhighway High Court challenge
The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association (LTDA) has lost a High Court challenge which would have disrupted completion of London’s £47million east-west cycle superhighway. The LTDA had asked a High Court judge to declare that construction without planning permission constituted “a breach of planning control.” However, the BBC reports that Mrs Justice Patterson rejected the application.
The LTDA had sought a judicial review over the East-West Cycle Superhighway despite its head, Steve McNamara, withdrawing a threatened challenge earlier in the year.
The attempt was described by Ralph Smyth of the Campaign to Protect Rural England as “wholly unmeritorious” as it hinged on the route's lack of planning permission – something Smyth said was not needed for bike lanes.
The legal team representing Transport for London (TfL) argued that it would be "inappropriate" for the court to make a declaration as this would usurp the powers of local planning authorities and also pointed out that LTDA’s application had been made after the deadline for legal challenges.
McNamara said that the current route was ‘not the right scheme for London’ and accused Boris Johnson of rushing the project through as a “last hurrah” before the end of his term as mayor.
“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.”
The LTDA suggested a route through quieter streets south of the River Thames used instead.
Mrs Justice Patterson ruled that planning permission was not required for phase one of the superhighway. "That is not to say that it may not be required for certain minor works within the scheme, or that it may not be required for other cycle superhighways or for parts of them in the future. Each scheme will need to be judged on its own facts."
Leon Daniels, managing director of TfL Surface Transport, told the London Evening Standard:
"The court agreed with us that planning permission was not required for the construction of the route to date, and dismissed all aspects of the LTDA's claim.
"Construction continues to progress well and we are working hard to manage areas of temporary congestion around the construction sites. This cycle superhighway will make London's roads safer for all and encourage a more efficient use of the road space."
The mayor's cycling commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, commented:
"Once again, the courts have in the clearest terms upheld our right to improve London for cycling. This is the third legal challenge to TfL-funded cycle schemes to have been dismissed in the last few months.
"It means we can now be confident of finishing the Embankment/Upper Thames Street superhighway on schedule in April, finishing the whole superhighway in summer, and ending the temporary delays that have occurred as a result of the construction works."
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 16 min 15 sec ago
It was in 2005, I'm not sure what relevance that has, tragic as it was; the killer was a paranoid schizophrenic who had just walked out of a...
- Hg2023 1 hour 47 min ago
It boggles my mind that people still give these idiots their details, they mainly go after the old and vulnerable they're just bullies. Often I've...
- mattw 3 hours 58 min ago
The cycle path issue illustrates a really difficult problem....
- mattw 4 hours 43 min ago
It's owned by the same company. It is hyper-junk.
- mark1a 4 hours 36 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 8 hours 40 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 8 hours 48 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....
- Laz 9 hours 46 min ago
I think the best solution would be to automatically charge every driver who hits a cyclist on the road with attempted murder, and plain murder in...
- David9694 10 hours 59 min ago
Car crashes into front of home in Briggs Mead, Wymondham...
- nowasps 11 hours 11 min ago
I've worked my way through a gifted box of these, and the review tallies exactly with my own experience.
Add new comment
22 comments
Good news.
A good lesson to the LTDA, whose members think they own the capital's roads. The new schemes aside, they really DO think that cyclists and buses cause London's traffic congestion, rather than HGVs, private cars, the medieval road layout etc.
If a more myopic, entitled and plain thick group of people exists, I'd love to see it.
LTDA: Licensed Taxi Driversaurs Association
<Nelson>HAR HAR!</Nelson>
Getting good momentum going in the courts. First the Walthamstow motoring lobby got shot down in flames, now the cabbies.
Shouldn't gloat, really. But I will. Oh yes.
"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."
Hmmm, is that LTDA admitting that their member's cabs poison people?
Only when they're in queues caused by @#!% bicycles!
Watermen => Hackney Coaches => Hansom Cabs => Battery Cabs => Taxi Cabs => Uber = > driverless vehicles => ...
Plus ca change
They don't seem to understand that, in the long term, more people will get off the road and onto bikes, therefore easing the congestion on the roads. If that also means there is less demand for taxis then so be it, there are plenty of other people who lose their jobs. I feel far more sorry for nurses who lose their jobs because of NHS cuts, when the NHS could save a lot of money if there wasn't such an obesity problem in this country. Which, coincidentally, taxi drivers help contribute towards by giving otherwise fit and healthy people an excuse to be lazy.
I can understand why drivers are aggrieved at the superhighways - they are taking a helluva lot of roadspace (at least on those two particular routes).
But as a cyclist - hopefully to be joined by many others - my experience of the still-to-be completed routes is that they really are rather good
As well as their obvious benefit to cycle commuters, I hope that cycling along the North bank of the Thames will become just as enjoyable and popular (well, maybe not *quite* as popular...) as the current stroll along the South bank.
I know what you mean, but actually they are wrong to be annoyed. They do not own the road space and there is no reason why a large percentage of the land in London should be given over to their use when they are choosing an anti-social mode of transport. They need to think about the impact they are having on society and stop being so "entitled".
In central London, most road users are bus passengers or people moving goods. I don't think that's anti-social. Both modes are more efficient at their purpose than cycling.
That seems like a non-sequitor to me. Who said anything about what 'most road users' do?
For congestion the question is how much _throughfare space_ is taken up by each mode, particularly private cars and black cabs? (Including the train passengers who take up very little, and pedestrians who just have the pavements).
And how does that compare with their total share of trips?
Given how much private cars spend parked, taking up road space for no purpose, and how much taxis are either waiting or driving about with no passenger, my suspicion is that both are hugely overprovided with throughfare-area for the function they serve.
(Though I've yet to find clearly defined stats on it!)
(Also, the comment you replied to clearly referred to 'drivers' - bus passengers are not drivers!)
I doubt they exist in the form you describe.
Point taken about drivers/bus passengers. There are lots more of the latter than the former - but they're moving/not moving at the same pace.
I still don't get what point you are trying to make. Bus passengers have nothing to do with the issue.
The question is, which mode of transport causes most of the congestion, by taking up disproportionate amounts of throughfare space per person-journey? (I say throughfare rather than road to include pedestrians in the equation)
I would expect the answer is some combination of 'private cars', 'black cabs' or 'minicabs'. The balance between those three being perhaps dependent on how you define central London.
One stat I do recall is that only 1 in 10 trips in central London is by car (I think that includes cabs, but I'm not sure*, and if so it would be interesting to know what proportion of it is black cabs). I suspect cars use more than 1/10th of the total road and pavement space, so that would imply they, and possibly black cabs in particular, _are_ the congestion the cabbies complain about and blame on others.
*edit - definitely not sure whether it was just 'private cars' or 'cars of all kinds'. But that's the kind of stat one would need to know.
What's your definition of central London?
I see ridiculous amounts of private car use in West London around Vauxhall, Victoria and Kensington every time I'm there. They're all in Zone 1.
That's why extending the congestion charge Westwards might have been a good idea. But that's another issue.
I've never found the definition of "Central London" used by TfL and DfT but would guess Zone 1, or possibly a bit smaller.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-peak-count-supplementary-report...
I don't see a great deal of (peak time) private car use in the areas that the superhighways are currently under construction - along the Thames and from Elephant & Castle Northwards. Lots of buses and goods vehicles - and quite a lot of black cabs.
A large amount of space on the Embankment is taken up by coach parking, but the LTDA are ok with this. Likewise the centre of Farringdon road is motorcycle and Taxi parking.
London has a lot of poorly used roadspace, and making more lanes for cars just increases the number of cars using it (so congestion doesn't fall). Segregated bike are a far better use of city roadspace than parking or an extra lanes for a few hundred meters.
The riverside coach parking is all gone. And the equivalent of another lane on many stretches.
"London has a lot of poorly used roadspace" - that's surely true although it can be measured in different ways. Cycle-only routes little used outside peak hours could also be described thus.
But things don't always have to be used to capacity to be valuable. I didn't say I was against the lanes - I'm absolutely not, I'm excited about them. I just said I understood why drivers might feel aggrieved.
hahahahahahahaha
ha
Sorry, I know it is rude to gloat, but frankly the LTDA deserve it
ha
A second common sense judgment in a week. Wow.
Excellent news
Good.
Cabbies seem hell bent on hastening their decline with an ill thought out PR war on anyone who (in their minds) threatens them. I'd have a lot more sympathy for them over the Uber issue if it wasn't for the mindless attacks on cyclists and their aggressive, entitled, dangerous driving.