-
Well, why would anyone expect the LTDA to support a scheme that takes away one direction of travel for their drivers on a route that taxi drivers use a lot? Or why would anyone think that the agreement on the wording of mutual responsibilities means that the LCC and the LTDA have to work together on everything? If I was the LTDA, I'd say exactly the same.
(Before you have a go, I'm not taking the side of the LTDA, quite the opposite (I think the scheme is far too timid, and that the whole area needs to be modally filtered, with two-way travel on all streets, i.e. I'd filter through motor traffic in both directions), but I think accusing them of 'playing games' here is well wide of the mark.)
-
The trouble is that if they've agreed that the best way to work with cyclists is to support cycling infrastructure then how are they expecting this to happen without existing road space being used.
However, it's a bit of a strange article from the LCC as they attribute a lot of things to the LTDA (e.g. Steve McNamara of the LTDA explained that the organisation didn’t oppose cycle tracks) without any reference to what was actually said. Without that, it's not clear whether the LCC are misinterpreting the LTDA or the LTDA are going back on what they previously agreed.
I agree re: the modal filtering, pretty much the only point of those roads at the moment are for rat-running to avoid Euston Road (admittedly Euston Road is screwed so that's hardly surprising).
-
I'd guess if asked "which cycle lanes do you support?" then they would point out places like the thames path. Or that they would be happy with cycle routes all over that double as cab ranks...
If anything the best that might come from it is that cab driver end up doing a form of cycle training similar to truck drivers SUDs. At the moment tho it would seem they understand the current tfl cycle skills is offered for free and statistics don't record how many are/aren't cab drivers so they are making up statistics for numbers of cab drivers and just claiming many have done it.
-
LCC would be better getting in bed with Uber - something that represents the future not the past.
I'll take traditional London black cabs over a faceless international corporation, whose aim is ultimately to first erect an oligopoly by driving local operators out of business, and then to abolish drivers altogether, any time.
Self-driving cars are the biggest risk to sustainable transport that's imaginable. Car companies, companies like Uber, and probably others I haven't heard of, want to use them to end public transport, privatising it all to benefit only a few large private operators.
Obviously, that's a very long-term aim but it's already one of the main reason why Uber is backed up by venture capital in a similar way to Amazon and other evil companies like that.
-
Seems to me that LTDA said they supported cycle lanes and got their photo in the papers with that liveried cab, then they released statements saying they opposed the cycle lanes at Tavistock and CS11.
I don't know what the LTDA said on what exactly they support (people often say that sort of thing to sound a little positive, or because they implicitly support getting cycling out of the carriageway, without knowing what they're letting themselves in for) and I haven't been following the CS11 stuff much (life's too short), but in Bloomsbury they are basically opposing one-way working for through motor traffic. That this is caused by being a means to an end of providing cycle tracks is not likely to be a consideration that is uppermost in their minds. It clearly puts the taxi trade at a disadvantage in that area, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect the LTDA to act against the interests of its members.
As above, I think there should be a completely different and much more powerful scheme here, but Camden have, unfortunately, pivoted the consultation only on two options--keeping the experimental layout or reverting to the previous layout.
-
Something interesting on how Uber
operuberates in California:It's quite a well-worn approach and here's hoping that they won't get away with it.
-
My mate Jonn has had some fun ripping apart the RMT's nonsense response to the proposed Bank changes...
-
https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/uber/
Support black cab drivers here.. after Addison Lee now Uber is killing their business. I've never met a bad cabbie had a couple of run ins, all amicable though. Late one night had a close call where he didn't see me turning into cavendish street. It was late and another another gunners defeat in CL he was a fellow gooner, and I said, my mum can take better corners than you, which he burst out laughing, got out and gave my a big hug, soppy sod I thought.
-
Numerous 'protests' by them against all new cycling infrastructure in London ..
http://road.cc/content/news/215823-taxi-drivers-cause-severe-delays-london-more-bank-protests
http://road.cc/content/news/141325-taxi-drivers-association-seek-judicial-review-cycle-superhighways
-
sure .. but does anti-cycling/active lifestyle thinking have a place in the modern city given the amount of pollution and congestion?
I don't have a data source on this but I am sure services like Uber must've made some people think that there is no point owning a car given the ease it offers.
Again I am not pro-uber or anti-black cabbies. I am just anti-cars.
(and disc brakes obvs)
Howard
Oliver Schick
spindrift
aggi
Clockwise
h2o
picco
almac68
amey
Greenbank-
Post a reply
About
Taxis - Black Cabs, Uber, Illegal Cabbies
Posted by
@cliveo
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/safer-in-the-city-safer-on-number-taviplace
LTDA playing games after the LCC link up.