My foreword in Addison Lee's magazine Add Lib, has caused quite a storm amongst the Twitter community, and I'm glad it has. In the article, I argue for compulsory training and insurance for London's bicycle owners and I still stand by my contention. About one cyclist is killed on London's roads every month and countless others horribly injured. If the article causes a debate around cycle safety, and perhaps saves some lives, bring it on.
As things stand, anyone can just jump on a bike and you see them all the time on London's roads, wearing flip flops, T-shirts, a pair of headphones on, tapping their fingers on the handlebar to the beat of the music. We've all had to take evasive action as these kinds of cyclists tear through red lights, without a thought for their, or anyone else's safety, and its these kinds of cyclists (a minority I should add), that cause problems for everyone - road users, pedestrians and cyclists alike.
I regularly hear stories from my drivers about accidents they have witnessed involving cyclists and we have all seen the white bikes that are positioned across the capital, as memorials and reminders of the dangers. These accidents are horrific, devastating events, both for the cyclists involved and the drivers of the vehicles, who have to cope with a terrible burden for the rest of their lives.
A few years ago, almost every school child did a cycling proficiency test, which involved negotiating their way around bollards and learning the Highway Code. What has happened to that, and why is it not on the agenda any more?
In other cities, like Milton Keynes, there are fantastic cycle lanes, but this is just not practical for London. What is practical, however, is to do what we can to protect cyclists. I support the instalment of Trixi mirrors at traffic lights. They allow HGV drivers to see cyclists alongside them and seem like a great idea. And as I stated in the original article, I back proper training for all cyclists and a legal requirement to be vigilant at all times (for example by banning earphone use by cyclists).
Every accident is different, but what we can do is reduce the risk factors for cyclists. I am a cyclist. I have my Boris Bike key and I take cycling very seriously like the majority of cyclists out there. It's without a doubt a dangerous pursuit, and constant vigilance and a level of proven competency on the roads must be a part of that.
At Addison Lee, we have a fleet of cycle couriers and our driver training also ensures that they are aware of other road users, including cyclists. It also requires that they are courteous and respectful to cyclists at all times.
Cycling is a deadly serious issue and lives are at stake. There have been huge campaigns recently to encourage cycling, but not so much in terms of improving safety and awareness for cyclists.
I'm glad that the issue is being debated. If anyone has more ideas for improving safety for cyclists, I would be delighted to hear them. In the meantime, I will continue calling for compulsory training and compulsory insurance for bicycle users.
Tory minicab donor Addison Lee fires first shot in battle of London bus lanes
Addison Lee sparks row with TfL after telling drivers to use London bus lanes
Barclays funds Addison Lee drive to take advantage of Olympics
I would be particularly interested in knowing where your cycle couriers obtained their 3rd party liability insurance, as all the popular cycle insurance policies specifically exclude 'working cyclists' from 3rd party liability, and a number of my acquaintances are cycle couriers, and are keen to obtain such cover.
John Griffin's take on his controversial column: http://t.co/6W00nS4p
I hope that ministries will cancel contract with Addisson Lee. In the mean time I've signed the e-petition to withdraw Addison Lee's license: http://iitm.be/AddLeeLic
And I think the burden is *entirely* on you to specify at what age this compulsory training and compulsory insurance kicks in.
If you believe even small children must be compelled to undergo formal training and to be insured, it's up to you to say so. It's up to you to make your proposal seem practical.
But to take what you've written at face value - the idea that cyclists' safety needs to be improved by training the cyclists is laughable. I have held a motor cycle driving licence for 42 years, a car licence for 40, I have my Advanced motorist as well. And when I ride a bicycle, as I have done for 50+ years, no amount of cycle-training will protect me from the prime cause of every near-accident I have ever had and that is drivers' lack of attention. The reason the government spends scarce resources to appeal to drivers to think of cyclists and motor cycles is because they know that the prime cause of accidents with cyclists is the car driver, not the cyclist.
Next time you want to promote your company best choose your topics to blog on with a little more care because you're coming out of this one looking callous, arrogant and ill-informed.
How often do you see Taxis with cosmetic damage to the vehicle. I have no end of friends who have been involved in RTAs with Taxi drivers, and personally I often find them one of the worst road users groups on our roads today.
You want to come after the cyclists and the way we move about, get your own house in order first!
Get real, you provide the drivers (who pay you handsomely to rent the cars) with a device that kills people more frequently and effectively than a gun. With a gun there is substantial presumed liability, both on the user and the owner of the gun, when that gun is abused, and should that gun actually kill or maim then the law both criminal and civil holds that presumption of liability. It is about time we did the same for motor vehicles.
Thank you John Griffin for allowing us to really open up this debate, I just hope you can handle the liability encumbent on you through your operation of your LPHC fleet, especially with your apparent official instruction to break the law, to those driving your vehicles.
https://www.hailocab.com/
I am a class 1 police driver and motorcyclist; I am also a daily long distance commuter cyclist. Courts accept my opinion as an expert on driver behaviour an in my expert opinion it is the majority of your drivers that are in dire need of training.
I pay income tax and council tax and own a car. So I "pay for the roads" too.
When I choose to cycle I am still "paying for the roads" yet free up space for motor vehicle.
Your argument is an attempt to improve your company’s commercial position. So stop dressing it up as a provoking a debate on cycle/road safety.
Vehicle regularly kill cyclists, cyclists do not kill drivers.
and you should know as i do......
I have passed my advanced driving test.
This makes me more trained than most of your drivers.
Lets think about that -- instructing your drivers to obey the rules of the road would be a start
- not jumping red lights
- not obstructing ASZ's (advance stop areas - designed to make junctions safer for cyclists)
- not using their mobile phones while driving
- ensuring they pass cyclists at a safe distance
- being courteous to other road users (cyclists/pedestrians/other vehicles)
- Keeping your drivers out of bus lanes
You could start by having a policy of proper response to complaints about your drivers - perhaps financial penalties where other road users provide you with evidence of infractions?
- you don't need to have a Valid MOT Certificate, to pass any Cycle as being Road - Worthy.
- nor, do you require any Valid Cycling Licence.
- nor, are you required to take out any kinds of Accident Insurance
- nor, do you have to Pass any form of Driving - Test.
- nor, are you required to have your Cycle registered.
- neither, do you require to have any type of Medical - Test.
- There are NO Starting Age - Limits to either Owning, or Riding a Cycle.
- you are NOT forbidden from riding either in Park's, or upon Pavement's.
just to note,unless its shared use it is absolutely illegal to ride on a sidewalk pavement (an no most cyclists don't_