Advocacy & Safety - UK's Mini-Cab Chairman War on Cyclist

UK's Mini-Cab Chairman wages war on cyclist and calls for illegal driving in bus/cycle lanes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/20/addison-lee-minicab-boss-cyclists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133038/Addison-Lee-boss-sparks-anger-cyclists-demanding-pay-road-tax.html

https://www.facebook.com/events/392495397451954/

Typical BS from a car-centric hemorrhoid.

Are they ever going to get over the twaddle of "roads are for cars, whatever cars do is inevitable"?

Am I understanding the president of that company right when he's saying it's out of context, he's mad people took him to mean what he actually said?!?!??!?

Wow. I only read the first link, but what a difference from the journalistic standards I've become used to in the U.S. The reporter unashamedly cites facts to refute Griffen's drivel.


Sixteen cyclists died in London in 2011, but there is little evidence to back up Griffin's idea that poor cycling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/cycling) is mainly to blame. Department for Transport figures from 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study) showed that police deemed drivers solely responsible in up to 75% of accidents involving cyclists UK-wide.

We just don't get those kind of uncomfortable facts in our newspapers.

UK's Mini-Cab Chairman wages war on cyclist and calls for illegal driving in bus/cycle lanes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/20/addison-lee-minicab-boss-cyclists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133038/Addison-Lee-boss-sparks-anger-cyclists-demanding-pay-road-tax.html

https://www.facebook.com/events/392495397451954/

I hope that his drivers do follow his advice. So that they can get fined and have their licenses revoked. I wonder what he's going to do when his employees not only get fined, but get their licenses revoked? Will he allow them to continue to drive even though he knows that their licenses have been revoked?

http://www.demotix.com/news/1172194/cyclists-hold-die-outside-addison-lee-office-london

As I cycle the streets of London, I see the infamous white bike locked up where there was a cyclist's death. Invariably this always occurs at a road intersection (I've never seen a white bike on a regular straight road).

On top of that, I have also seen cyclists going thru red lights. And yes, I have also seen cars going thru red lights. Usually the excuse given when a cyclist goes thru a red lights is "Yeah... well what about the cars, they do that all the time!" Yeah I know they do, they are wrong. But when you (the cyclist) goes thru a red light, you're going up against a car. Even if you dont get killed, you're gonna get serious injury.

Why take the risk? Many of us say travelling by bike is quicker than by car in the city, so why the need to go thru red lights if you're already faster? I guess we just dont want to lose momentum, ya know, it takes time to gather speed again, get extra tired. Hey, that's cycling, get used to it.

I understand in USA you guys have weight sensitive lights and a cyclists weight doesn't trigger a green (or something like that). We dont have that in London, all the lights are timed.

That is just my experience of what I've seen on London's roads being a commuter for several years. I've also seen cyclists go up the inside of buses/trucks/lorries etc and I have witnessed these drivers being stopped at a GREEN signal waiting for the cyclist to hobble along thru a gap which clearly isn't wide enough (one foot on the ground, semi-walking the bike along).

The other way round, I've also seen car drivers being total jerks (it's happened to me). I've seen more jerk cyclists than I have jerk car drivers even tho there are far more drivers than cyclists. Does that make a difference? No, not really. If you're gonna be a jerk and have a collision, you're more likely to be far worse off if you're a cyclist. Do we all need more education? IDK. I think we need less stupid brain cells no matter if we're cyclists or drivers.

Maybe the reason the chairman of the private taxi company is frustrated is that private taxis need to pay a license fee and they serve the same people that black cabs (NY equivalent is yellow cab) do. If black cabs can use the bus lane (free of traffic during peak hours or sometimes 24 hours) then why cant private cabs also use the bus lane.

Who will really be upset by this are not only cyclists but also black cab drivers who do not want their business taken away. I would say the chairman has a fair point. I hope however this doesn't come to fruition.

The chairman was also wrong wrt taxes that pay for roads etc. That's another farce in itself.

Maybe the reason the chairman of the private taxi company is frustrated is that private taxis need to pay a license fee and they serve the same people that black cabs (NY equivalent is yellow cab) do. If black cabs can use the bus lane (free of traffic during peak hours or sometimes 24 hours) then why cant private cabs also use the bus lane.

Who will really be upset by this are not only cyclists but also black cab drivers who do not want their business taken away. I would say the chairman has a fair point. I hope however this doesn't come to fruition.

The chairman was also wrong wrt taxes that pay for roads etc. That's another farce in itself.His only valid point that was mostly lost with his rant against cyclist and other BS.

As I cycle the streets of London, I see the infamous white bike locked up where there was a cyclist's death. Invariably this always occurs at a road intersection (I've never seen a white bike on a regular straight road).

On top of that, I have also seen cyclists going thru red lights. And yes, I have also seen cars going thru red lights. Usually the excuse given when a cyclist goes thru a red lights is "Yeah... well what about the cars, they do that all the time!" Yeah I know they do, they are wrong. But when you (the cyclist) goes thru a red light, you're going up against a car. Even if you dont get killed, you're gonna get serious injury.

Why take the risk? Many of us say travelling by bike is quicker than by car in the city, so why the need to go thru red lights if you're already faster? I guess we just dont want to lose momentum, ya know, it takes time to gather speed again, get extra tired. Hey, that's cycling, get used to it.

I understand in USA you guys have weight sensitive lights and a cyclists weight doesn't trigger a green (or something like that). We dont have that in London, all the lights are timed.

That is just my experience of what I've seen on London's roads being a commuter for several years. I've also seen cyclists go up the inside of buses/trucks/lorries etc and I have witnessed these drivers being stopped at a GREEN signal waiting for the cyclist to hobble along thru a gap which clearly isn't wide enough (one foot on the ground, semi-walking the bike along).

The other way round, I've also seen car drivers being total jerks (it's happened to me). I've seen more jerk cyclists than I have jerk car drivers even tho there are far more drivers than cyclists. Does that make a difference? No, not really. If you're gonna be a jerk and have a collision, you're more likely to be far worse off if you're a cyclist. Do we all need more education? IDK. I think we need less stupid brain cells no matter if we're cyclists or drivers.

What I've found cycling around London is that most drivers don't have a problem with cyclists but, much like everywhere else, there's always the odd one who tries to squeeze someone off the road or edge past when there really isn't enough space for it.

Like you most of the total lunacy on the roads is, IME, committed by cyclists. It's one thing to go through a red light at a pedestrian crossing when you can clearly see all the pedestrians have crossed, it's another thing entirely to blow through the red light while pedestrians are still crossing or to go through a red light at a busy junction without even slowing. I still remember seeing a cyclist go through a red light and turn right despite the No Right Turn sign only to practically go under the wheels of a car that was coming the other way, and still the cyclist gestured at the driver as if he (the driver) had done something stupid.

When I see a car completely ignore a red light it's something unusual. Sadly it's not unusual to see cyclists ignoring red lights completely and riding as if the rules of the road don't apply to them. As you say, the fact some do it doesn't mean it works if more people do it. Also the brutal fact is that a stupid driver is still protected by a big metal box while a cyclist, stupid or otherwise, isn't.

....... Also the brutal fact is that a stupid driver is still protected by a big metal box while a cyclist, stupid or otherwise, isn't.

The real story is that the motorist generally gets to send their car to the auto body repair shop for a couple of weeks at the most, or buys a new car altogether, and learns very little. The cyclist on the other hand, generally ends up with an painful injury, possibly ends up in ICU for a few months, or goes straight to the morgue, and learns a hard lesson or is never able to do it again.

The real story is that the motorist generally gets to send their car to the auto body repair shop for a couple of weeks at the most, or buys a new car altogether, and learns very little. The cyclist on the other hand, generally ends up with an painful injury, possibly ends up in ICU for a few months, or goes straight to the morgue, and learns a hard lesson or is never able to do it again.

Yep, it's a pretty predictable consequence of one party being protected by a big metal box and the other being unprotected.

So whatever rights the law might give us, they aren't of much use if we fall foul of the asymmetric risk associated with sharing road space with big metal boxes. They might give us (or our next of kin) someone to sue but don't put us back together again.

Yep, it's a pretty predictable consequence of one party being protected by a big metal box and the other being unprotected.



My reasoning is in why many motorists get to continually repeat bad driving habits for a far longer period of time, whereas cyclists only do it for a much shorter period, making motorists with bad driving habits much more of a threat to other road users that cyclists with the same bad habits.

My reasoning is in why many motorists get to continually repeat bad driving habits for a far longer period of time, whereas cyclists only do it for a much shorter period, making motorists with bad driving habits much more of a threat to other road users that cyclists with the same bad habits.

That's true. So although Darwin may deal with the problem of the truly reckless cyclist sooner or later we need some other process to deal with the motorist who drives in a way that doesn't endanger themselves but does endanger more vulnerable road users around them. Unfortunately in the absence of witnesses to an incident it can be hard to conclude much from he-said-she-said (especially when one party is unable to provide any useful input due to being hospitalised or worse), and shifting assumed liability isn't necessarily going to produce any desirable result.

That's true. So although Darwin may deal with the problem of the truly reckless cyclist sooner or later we need some other process to deal with the motorist who drives in a way that doesn't endanger themselves but does endanger more vulnerable road users around them. Unfortunately in the absence of witnesses to an incident it can be hard to conclude much from he-said-she-said (especially when one party is unable to provide any useful input due to being hospitalised or worse), and shifting assumed liability isn't necessarily going to produce any desirable result.


Why I now ride with front and rear cams, and video all of my commutes. Though not an entirely perfect setup, but it goes a long way in combating the I said/they said scenario.

As I cycle the streets of London, I see the infamous white bike locked up where there was a cyclist's death. Invariably this always occurs at a road intersection (I've never seen a white bike on a regular straight road).

On top of that, I have also seen cyclists going thru red lights. And yes, I have also seen cars going thru red lights. Usually the excuse given when a cyclist goes thru a red lights is "Yeah... well what about the cars, they do that all the time!" Yeah I know they do, they are wrong. But when you (the cyclist) goes thru a red light, you're going up against a car. Even if you dont get killed, you're gonna get serious injury.

Why take the risk? Many of us say travelling by bike is quicker than by car in the city, so why the need to go thru red lights if you're already faster? I guess we just dont want to lose momentum, ya know, it takes time to gather speed again, get extra tired. Hey, that's cycling, get used to it.

I understand in USA you guys have weight sensitive lights and a cyclists weight doesn't trigger a green (or something like that). We dont have that in London, all the lights are timed.

That is just my experience of what I've seen on London's roads being a commuter for several years. I've also seen cyclists go up the inside of buses/trucks/lorries etc and I have witnessed these drivers being stopped at a GREEN signal waiting for the cyclist to hobble along thru a gap which clearly isn't wide enough (one foot on the ground, semi-walking the bike along).

The other way round, I've also seen car drivers being total jerks (it's happened to me). I've seen more jerk cyclists than I have jerk car drivers even tho there are far more drivers than cyclists. Does that make a difference? No, not really. If you're gonna be a jerk and have a collision, you're more likely to be far worse off if you're a cyclist. Do we all need more education? IDK. I think we need less stupid brain cells no matter if we're cyclists or drivers.

Not just weight sensors, but induction loop sensors as well.


What I've found cycling around London is that most drivers don't have a problem with cyclists but, much like everywhere else, there's always the odd one who tries to squeeze someone off the road or edge past when there really isn't enough space for it.

Like you most of the total lunacy on the roads is, IME, committed by cyclists. It's one thing to go through a red light at a pedestrian crossing when you can clearly see all the pedestrians have crossed, it's another thing entirely to blow through the red light while pedestrians are still crossing or to go through a red light at a busy junction without even slowing. I still remember seeing a cyclist go through a red light and turn right despite the No Right Turn sign only to practically go under the wheels of a car that was coming the other way, and still the cyclist gestured at the driver as if he (the driver) had done something stupid.

When I see a car completely ignore a red light it's something unusual. Sadly it's not unusual to see cyclists ignoring red lights completely and riding as if the rules of the road don't apply to them. As you say, the fact some do it doesn't mean it works if more people do it. Also the brutal fact is that a stupid driver is still protected by a big metal box while a cyclist, stupid or otherwise, isn't.

Agreed, two wrongs do not make a right.

And all those are doing by running red lights/stop signs etc. are doing are furthering the "myth" that "all" cyclists are scofflaws.

Question for you UK riders. Would I be correct in presuming that as over here in the States that one cannot enter into a contract to commit an illegal act? If so then if his drivers took his "advice," he's under no obligation to pay their fines.

That's true. So although Darwin may deal with the problem of the truly reckless cyclist sooner or later we need some other process to deal with the motorist who drives in a way that doesn't endanger themselves but does endanger more vulnerable road users around them. Unfortunately in the absence of witnesses to an incident it can be hard to conclude much from he-said-she-said (especially when one party is unable to provide any useful input due to being hospitalised or worse), and shifting assumed liability isn't necessarily going to produce any desirable result.

Hence more and more cyclists riding with a video camera, so that they have evidence of what actually happened. It's sad that we/they need to do that.

Hence more and more cyclists riding with a video camera, so that they have evidence of what actually happened. It's sad that we/they need to do that.

Yep, although the (limited) research I've done into video cameras (inspired by being all but run off the road by an idiot in a skip* hire van) suggests that even the top-end units have a battery life of only a couple of hours. So on a long ride they aren't much use.

(*US readers - skip = dumpster)

http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/news/article/petition-to-revoke-addison-lee-taxi-licence-gathers-momentum-33780/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/apr/24/addison-lee-protest-boycott-chairman?intcmp=122

And yep, digital cowboy, no contract exists when the "agreement" is to carry out an illegal act.

It may also be of some interest that Mr. Griffin has recently taken over another hire company, which uses Toyota Priuses. Because their emissions are below the regulation limit, he doesn't pay "road tax", aka Vehicle Emission Duty (VED)", either. (Taxi) rank hypocrisy?

Oh, by the way, Winston Churchill abolished "Road Tax" in, I think 1932, in order to prevent drivers from claiming that they paid for the roads. VED goes into the general govt. income pot and is not hypothecated (gate-fenced). For a fantastic (UK based) putdown on the "I Pay Road Tax" theme: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285&postcount=27

Yep, although the (limited) research I've done into video cameras (inspired by being all but run off the road by an idiot in a skip* hire van) suggests that even the top-end units have a battery life of only a couple of hours. So on a long ride they aren't much use.

(*US readers - skip = dumpster)

My Contour series cam, batteries and video cards can be switched out or upgraded. If need be, I can change out the batteries and video cards with fresh ones, and currently my batteries and cards are good for well over two hours of run time, even at the highest resolution setting.

My Contour series cam, batteries and video cards can be switched out or upgraded. If need be, I can change out the batteries and video cards with fresh ones, and currently my batteries and cards are good for well over two hours of run time, even at the highest resolution setting.

When you say "well over two hours" how much over are we talking? For some rides two hours would be long enough but I'm reluctant to end up with a device that needs endless batteries and to be constantly monitored to see when to swap them over.

Truth be told my experience is that the overwhelming majority of drivers are considerate so it's debatable whether it's worth spending a chunk of cash on a device plus batteries and accessories for the odd one who isn't.

When you say "well over two hours" how much over are we talking? For some rides two hours would be long enough but I'm reluctant to end up with a device that needs endless batteries and to be constantly monitored to see when to swap them over.

Truth be told my experience is that the overwhelming majority of drivers are considerate so it's debatable whether it's worth spending a chunk of cash on a device plus batteries and accessories for the odd one who isn't.


Depending on the resolution setting, I can get up to 4 hours of video recording time, but since I want the most detail out of my videos, my current limit is 2 hours and 15 minutes.

My initial reason for purchasing the cams was for recording aggressive drivers, but now it has evolved into chronicling my ever changing commute environment as well. Generally, a number of my incidents with motorists were deliberately caused by the motorist, happened quickly and the cams where able to record much needed info that would have otherwise been unobtainable at real time speeds.

Plus my frustration level while riding in an urban commute has dropped considerably since adding the cams, I not only got to review motorist actions, but the cams aided in determining what riding style worked the best for a certain type of situation.

Depending on the resolution setting, I can get up to 4 hours of video recording time, but since I want the most detail out of my videos, my current limit is 2 hours and 15 minutes.

My initial reason for purchasing the cams was for recording aggressive drivers, but now it has evolved into chronicling my ever changing commute environment as well. Generally, a number of my incidents with motorists were deliberately caused by the motorist, happened quickly and the cams where able to record much needed info that would have otherwise been unobtainable at real time speeds.

Plus my frustration level while riding in an urban commute has dropped considerably since adding the cams, I not only got to review motorist actions, but the cams aided in determining what riding style worked the best for a certain type of situation.

Probably a dumb question, but can they be run off of an external power source? If so does it have to be A/C or can it be D/C as well?

Depending on the resolution setting, I can get up to 4 hours of video recording time, but since I want the most detail out of my videos, my current limit is 2 hours and 15 minutes.

My initial reason for purchasing the cams was for recording aggressive drivers, but now it has evolved into chronicling my ever changing commute environment as well. Generally, a number of my incidents with motorists were deliberately caused by the motorist, happened quickly and the cams where able to record much needed info that would have otherwise been unobtainable at real time speeds.

Plus my frustration level while riding in an urban commute has dropped considerably since adding the cams, I not only got to review motorist actions, but the cams aided in determining what riding style worked the best for a certain type of situation.


It's that 2:15 limit that means they aren't much use for me. I like the freedom to take off on a ride longer than that - if it's longer because I took soem time out to enjoy the views I can turn the camera off but if I'm just cycling for more hours it doesn't work so well. And there's not a lot of point getting a longer recording time at the expense of quality if it means that on the rare occasion when I really do need to get someone's numberplate I don't have the resolution to do it.

For a commute I can see it working well but for leisure cycling less so.

contango,

Even on recreational rides, you likely have sections of road that brings out the ragers. Commute or recreational ride, I only turn on the video for those sections and save the rest of the battery/video time to record the rager raging.

contango,

Even on recreational rides, you likely have sections of road that brings out the ragers. Commute or recreational ride, I only turn on the video for those sections and save the rest of the battery/video time to record the rager raging.

Truth be told the few times I have experienced spectacularly bad driving haven't aligned into any particular pattern.

The usual problem is people wanting to overtake shortly before a traffic island and there are so many of those it's just not practical to keep turning the camera on and off before them. Aside from that there's just no way of knowing when someone is going to overtake so close I could hitch a ride on their wing mirror.

Typical BS from a car-centric hemorrhoid.

Are they ever going to get over the twaddle of "roads are for cars, whatever cars do is inevitable"?

ROTFLMHO!!!:roflmao:

Better one sinner that repenteth:

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/addison-lee-to-train-its-drivers-to-be-cyclist-aware/

Better one sinner that repenteth:

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/addison-lee-to-train-its-drivers-to-be-cyclist-aware/Not a home run, but at least a base hit.

Too bad you guys do not have such an analogy in cricket.

Not a home run, but at least a base hit.

Too bad you guys do not have such an analogy in cricket.

Probably because the subtleties of the game do not easily lend themselves to the crude limitations of baseball metaphors ;)

Probably because the subtleties of the game do not easily lend themselves to the crude limitations of baseball metaphors ;)True enough, Brits just cannot play a straight forward game.;)

True enough, Brits just cannot play a straight forward game.;)

Tiddlywinks, anyone? ;)