The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association has hit back following the London Cycling Campaign’s criticism of its stance on cycling, reported in road.cc last week, which the LTDA says was a "gross misrepresentation" of its position. However, while the LTDA reiterates claims it opposes London’s cycle schemes only because it feels a better balance could be struck between road users, it has failed to suggest a way to achieve this.
The comments are the latest round in a public spat between the taxi driver and cycling organisations after the LCC criticised the LTDA over its protesting of every major cycle route proposed in London, while saying it supports bike routes. The LCC says without suggesting alternatives to physically protected cycle infrastructure, and allowing those alternatives to be tested, the LTDA's "blanket opposition" of cycling routes in London resembles an attack on all cycling infrastructure.
The LTDA set up a petition against a trial bike lane on a popular cycle route, on Tavistock Place in Central London, citing concerns over congestion and pollution on surrounding roads, while last weekend LTDA members appeared at a protest against plans for Cycle Superhighway 11 in North London with a billboard saying "No to CS11, keep the roads open for all".
The LCC also says the LTDA published an alternative wording on an agreement between the two organisations and the City of London in its members’ magazine, Taxi, which appears to place the onus for safety on those cycling, without prior authorisation from the LCC.
Taxi drivers association dubbed "duplicitous" on anti-bike stance
A letter sent to road.cc by the LTDA, signed by Chairman Richard Massett and General Secretary Steve McNamara, and addressed to the LCC’s CEO, Dr Ashok Sinha, said: "We are concerned by the statement put out by LCC regarding the LTDA’s position on Tavistock Place and the current consultation that is underway, stating the LTDA have “betrayed their publicly-expressed sentiments” and your subsequent comments to cycling website The Road.CC. These statements are a gross misrepresentation of the LTDA position in relation to both cycling and on Tavistock Place.
“At Tavistock Place we believe that a better solution can be provided by Camden Council: one that works for all road users whilst still providing an improved space for cycling. In all our statements on Tavistock Place we have pledged support for improvements to east to west cycling provision in the Bloomsbury area, however the current measures do not achieve the benefits of reduced congestion and better air quality in the wider area.
“As things stand, the measures have led to increased congestion on neighbouring routes and reduced air quality on key arterial routes such as Euston Road. We have been clear on this since we began campaigning on Tavistock Place and it is therefore strange that the [road.cc] article seems to suggest that we wish the old measures reinstated.”
“Our position is not an attack on cycling. We simply believe that Camden Council can deliver something better that delivers for residents, businesses, cyclists and other road users across the Bloomsbury area as a whole, rather than consider new measures in isolation.”
The letter reiterates a desire to work with the LCC.
The LTDA petition against the Tavistock Place trial calls on Camden Council to "return the road to two way traffic whilst also providing a two way cycle lane and improved pedestrian areas".
LCC’s Infrastructure Campaigner, Simon Munk, says the Tavistock Place scheme has reduced traffic in the area by 3,500 vehicles, with traffic on parallel East-West roads up by one per cent, and North-South roads by four and nine per cent.
He adds reintroducing two-way traffic on the Tavistock Place route would allocate 6.5m of road width to motor traffic, which would mean removal of a pavement or reducing cycle space to close to its previous width.
Munk told road.cc: “We remain committed to working with the LTDA and anyone who’s up for improving infrastructure, safety and conduct on the roads. We are very happy the LTDA says it is in favour of cycle infrastructure but when every single time a major cycling infrastructure project comes up it opposes it, and without suggesting alternative proposals, then we think that can only be read as a clear and calculated attack on cycling infrastructure.”
“If the LTDA has specific proposals to improve a scheme, it should bring them forward, not offer blanket opposition to all schemes without being clear about alternative proposals it would support.
“Any proposals the LTDA would support could then be assessed (as any proposal LCC proposes is) by traffic engineers at Camden Council, TfL etc.”
One week to save key London cycle route, warn campaigners
He said: “It’s very easy to claim to support cycling; for the LTDA to do so credibly, it needs to explain what its alternative vision actually is, and have that assessed on potential performance for motor traffic, cycle safety, cycle numbers etc.”
Munk also writes the joint agreement between the LTDA, City of London and LCC “appears to have been changed by the LTDA without prior authorisation (p15, September issue of LTDA magazine), introducing the word ‘must’ into the sentence ‘A responsible cyclist [must]’; and the word ‘always’ into the first bullet point, to read ‘[Always] looks out…’
The Tavistock Place cycle route, which runs East from Tottenham Court Road towards Islington, was doubled last year from a 2m wide two-way cycle track (1.75m at its narrowest) to two 2m temporary tracks, one in each direction. Before the trial around 43 per cent of traffic was cycles, 13 per cent motor traffic, and there were a high number of collisions on the route, between motor vehicles and both cyclists and pedestrians, which Camden Council hoped the changes would improve.
The Tavistock Place Cycle Tracks from Camden Cyclists on Vimeo.
Since the new layout was introduced there was a 65 per cent increase in cyclists(link is external) on parts of the route, and up to a 21 per cent decrease in Nitrogen Dioxide levels, one of the key air pollutants of concern in Central London. A consultation on the future of the route closes tomorrow.
The LTDA's Steve McNamara has proposed "pop-up bike lanes" in the past but road.cc is not aware of any examples of infrastructure of this sort.
Add new comment
19 comments
I have no sympathy for taxi drivers. And I formed this opinion before becoming a cyclist!
I have never seen any other group commit as many driving offences; jumping red lights, speeding, ignoring no-entry signs, ignoring no left/right turn signs, parking on double yellows, cutting people up, lack of indication and mirror use.
The few black cabs I have been in have been driven by angry hatefilled individuals who are sexist, racist and road-ragers.
In my view the only use of taxis within central London is for disabled people as anyone else can walk, cycle or use public transport.
You should wear that on your bars as a warning to others.
The Tavistock Plaice cycle route where I supermanned over a black cab who had been flashed through by another driver....across the cycle lane right of way?
Black Cab Bumper 0 - 1 Black Steel Fixie
Bumper.png
The LTDA should say what they mean "We will support any changes to cycling infrastructure as long as it doesn't involve roads, where our members are more important than everyone else"
Lets face it, there would be fewer accidents involving taxi's if these allegedly professional drivers were made aware of the little magic stick on the inside of their cabs which when moved makes little orange lights on the outside of their cabs flash to let people know where they are going.
Or for the few that actually know where the magic stick on the inside is and how it works, using it before they begin the maneuver is next on the list of things that they need to learn.
There has to be a rebalance of people movements in cities, from individual vehicles to buses/trams. A lot more emphasis on walking and cycling to improve health and pollution levels.
I can understand the Taxi drivers fighting against it, its their livelihood afterall, but change must come soon, so to benefit all of us who live in cities and towns.
The transport that remains must be much cleaner to use(hydrogen or battery cell technology)
Looking at the photo there might be room for the cycle lanes and an extra car lane. Pavements on both side are soon wide.
I do that very route regularly and cycled along it today, twice.
In the illustration:
People on foot 46
People on bikes 17
Cars 7
In my brief experience, there were fewer motor vehicles, lots more pedestrians, and lots more people on bikes.
That's the centre section, it opens out briefly around Gordon Square. Torrington and Tavistock Pl on either side look like this.
erm...
not actually.
This is the whole point. Thre is not room for two lanes of motors, plus two cycle lanes of the mnimum 1.5 m width as specified in new LCDS.
We have attended meetings orhanised by local residents group 'BRAG', who have conveniently ignored this fact whilst attempting to present themselves as the 'voice of reason' and have fought these improvements along with the taxis, as hard as we've fought to save them.
The scheme works because it has reallocated road space away from the a minority of rat running traffic -which is why the taxis, who demand the right to drive anywhere they choose are so miffed.
Also ignored by opposition groups have been the measures proposed by Camden Cycling Cmpaign to make further improvements to the area, to mitiigate the remaining rat-running on nearby Judd Street - and also Camden's plans for measures on nearby Lansdowne Terrace.
Quite simply, at peak times, the lanes can be seen to be occasionally full from one road junction to the next. The only reasonable and logical extension and improvement of this scheme is to expand the space given to cycling.
As one of the first commenters above says "Camden have been very generous to motor vehicles".
To which I say, you better believe it!
And, re the wide pavements...the scheme as a whole is an area improvement scheme. This means it represents the way forward in returning public places to areas that people can enjoy 'being' in aas well as travelling though and to on foot and by riding.
This necessitates the removal of motors foulling up the place.
What scares me is the TOP item on what the LTDA stands for, in trying to recruit new memers :
1. Its determination (despite opposition from certain trade organisations) to exclude taxi drivers from any form of restriction on working hours or the compulsory fitting of tachographs in cabs.
So bascially the safety regulation of working hours as required by most professional drivers is something the LTDA fight against ???
As for their claim to "supprt cycling infrastructure" clearly this is as long as it's not in London . . .
They also promise to provide legal advice to keep drivers with 12+ points on the road, regardless of how those points were gained. Literally defending dangerous drivers.
The Taxi magazine is an interesting read.
P18. re pedicabs which should be banned:
My wife enquired how much a trip to Harrods from Covent Garden would
have been and was told £80. I then asked how much from the same place to
Heathrow and was told £300.
I think it would verge on cruelty to take them up on a trip to the airport!
Gotta say I'm with the cabbies here. If every cyclist was driving instead (preferably a diesel) there would be much less pollution and traffic jams would be a thing of the past.
I wish I was on what you are on.
Sarcasm
Shame that the "/s" tag isn't a universal signifier on fora.
Any Norf Lunndeners want to chip in on their experience of the trial?
"pop-up bike lanes" seem to be unofficial guerilla engineering, installed covertly by activists!
http://www.tacticalurbanismhere.com/place/pop-protected-bicycle-lane
They mean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_lane
https://youtu.be/dl0Q2bDnBUc?t=13s
"better balance" = "we want taxi-only lanes"
Camden Councils stats on how the space is used and how the use of the space would be transformed appears to be more than generous to motor vehicles.