Addison Lee drivers told to defy bus lane law (and to just say SMIDSY)

we on the bus lane

Again, I'm not sure this is the most effective or endearing protest.

Discussions at my company about terminating our relationship with Add Lee in response to all this.
We throw a fair bit of business their way.

Anyhow, what's our position on this? Clearly TfL are powerless, and the SMIDSY thing combined with the bus lane thing is totally indefensible.

How about these:

1) Personally boycott Addison Lee.

2) Petition any of our employers who use Addison Lee to consider not doing so, and refuse use of Addison Lee if given to us (seeking to either cycle instead or go by black cab and put it in an expenses claim).

3) Take primary position in bus lanes and ride slower when Addison Lee cars are around (ensuring your safety first and foremost).

1,2 not 3.
WiganWill is right - primary as and when appropriate. Nothing to do with the proximity of certain types of car.

Also, I disagree that the Bus Lane thing is indefensible.
We need proper debate on who gets to use them.
Would adding minicabs genuinely create Bus Lane gridlock?
Would removing Black Cab rights cause mass Black Cab bankruptcy?
Is there a "third way" such as paying for a "super" minicab license with bus lane privileges allowing AL to charge more than other, lesser minicab companies?
I suspect the status quo is probably the answer but that's a guess, not researched.

On SMIDSY - WAC.

Primary should be the default (which is why its called primary)
Secondary if and when appropriate

(Sorry we digress there is a thread for this http://www.lfgss.com/thread65085.html)

The answer is simple - removed the bus lane altogether.

Having said that, I enjoyed and feel comfortable using the bus lane as it double up as a fantastic cycle lane too, give me enough room to manoeuvre/brake if someone pulled in without incidating, or when a peds stepped in without looking.

Can anyone find the share price for Addison Lee? It does not appear to be listed on the London Stock Exchange if it is not, this current "charm offensive" of Mr Griffin's could be a poor attempt to gather publicity before floating his company and potentially banking a large cheque. If this is the case I would say that the best way to fight back would be to generate as much negative publicity about the guy and his company which would affect share prices.

The answer is simple

It rarely is, actually.

Cool, so what I'll put in the email is "Boycott Addison Lee, encourage your employers to change their corporate accounts away from Addison Lee, and tell others to boycott Addison Lee... until such a time that they acknowledge and respect the law, with reference to SMIDSY and bus lanes, and that they acknowledge and respect other road users and their safety.".

Why did you back down from your point 3 Velocio?

Critical Mass gets mentioned but this, and everything else that has happened in the last few years, just goes to prove again what an ineffective campaigning tool it is.

I doubt that Critical Mass was ever a campaigning 'tool'--it was for a time the most important cycling event in London (mid-Nineties) and some people attached high hopes to it as a 'protest', but that role is long gone. Moreover, it was never intended to be prescriptive in what people were supposed to bring to it and what to use it for.

Completely agree with the first part of your post.

Because there's no concensus amongst us as to the value of it.

I wouldn't want people not to focus on a boycott, or not to do a boycott, because they're busying arguing about primary position as a protest tool. Which was exactly what was happening on this thread.

When you ask people to do something, you need everyone to agree. We all unanimously agree that the best action all cyclists can do is to flex our financial power and to boycott Addison Lee.

We clearly are not so unanimous on whether we should use our position on the road to delay, block or slow Addison Lee down. So that shouldn't be something we tell everyone to do, that should be something that individuals can simply choose to do.

Johnson is concealing women from men?

Hehe. Just in case, for those who don't know:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05262.pdf

It's very difficult to explain to most drivers why it is sometimes necessary to ride in the primary position.

If you start using it to 'punish' drivers you have started something you can't control.

The idea of using it in that way would infuriate many, and the rumour (of this use) could be picked up and spread widely.
It would make defending legitimate use of riding in the primary position more difficult than ever.

The answer is simple - removed the bus lane altogether.

Having said that, I enjoyed and feel comfortable using the bus lane as it double up as a fantastic cycle lane too, give me enough room to manoeuvre/brake if someone pulled in without incidating, or when a peds stepped in without looking.

If someone instigated an anti-bus lane policy, levels of cycling in London would decline almost immediately.

^^ written before reading Velocio's post. I agree.

It's very difficult to explain to most drivers why it is sometimes necessary to ride in the primary position.

If you start using it to 'punish' drivers you have started something you can't control.

The idea of using it in that way would infuriate many, and the rumour (of this use) could be picked up and spread widely.
It would make defending legitimate use of riding in the primary position more difficult than ever.

Drivers who shouldn't be in the bus lane in the first place...

We clearly are not so unanimous on whether we should use our position on the road to delay, block or slow Addison Lee down. So that shouldn't be something we tell everyone to do, that should be something that individuals can simply choose to do.

I've just read the Guardian link again and it's clear the black-cabs are united to pull up in front and photograph any Addison Lee vehicle using a lane. They could be a useful ally in gathering momentum against such tactics. Most likely Griffin will end up with egg on his face anyway should his judicial review fail.TfL are already aware of his proposal and in the climate of mayoral elections, he's bound to be short of prominent supporters. He's making himself a blatant target anyway.

If someone instigated an anti-bus lane policy, levels of cycling in London would decline almost immediately.

Definitely, the bus lane was our first "proper" cycle lane eclipse the recent blue superficial way.

Can anyone find the share price for Addison Lee? It does not appear to be listed on the London Stock Exchange if it is not, this current "charm offensive" of Mr Griffin's could be a poor attempt to gather publicity before floating his company and potentially banking a large cheque. If this is the case I would say that the best way to fight back would be to generate as much negative publicity about the guy and his company which would affect share prices.

Though the company is named 'Addison Lee PLC' it does not appear to be a listed company. Perhaps it was listed in the past, and taken private? Either way, negative publicity is in the eye of the day trader.

My company stance on Addison Lee - very easy get out clause, without making it personal saving the integrity of the company:

"any supplier found to have knowingly broken laws whilst on our contract will have their substantive contract suspended"

Apparently the bus lane thing was enough and we've suspended the contract already - most companies worth their salt will have this written in as a clause, allowing them to cancel a contract without any financial penalty.

I've just had a look on my Bloomberg terminal: it's a PLC but it isn't listed. You can't buy shares on the stock market.

Though the company is named 'Addison Lee PLC' it does not appear to be a listed company. Perhaps it was listed in the past, and taken private? Either way, negative publicity is in the eye of the day trader.

I read earlier today half is owned by soppybollocks up there and the other half by someone who helped finance it's creation.

Yeah - no way would it be listed.
This sort of mad behaviour is limited to guys who actually own the company rather than CEOs under the relatively watchful eye of shareholders and an "independent" board.
O'Leary is the only one who can vaguely get away with it and only then because everyone knows it's just for free publicity.

That's why Zuck is going to struggle so much post the Facebook IPO (although at least he remains the controlling shareholder).

Yup. And it's not a plan to stir up publicity ahead of an IPO, because shedding customers and tarnishing your brand does nothing good to shareholder confidence...

The Times have just publised this: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3390328.ece