Addison Lee: It's okay to run over grannies

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..

The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.

Not the kernal of truth.

You don't say.

You seem to be defending him for the kernal, but most people aren't attacking him for that.

Seems a little strange from where I'm sitting, that's all.

From where I'm sitting, people are attacking him for something he didn't say. They're attacking the inferences they've wrongly drawn.

Addressing what he said is usually a good starting point.

The inference is he's trying to shirk some responsibility for poor driving onto beginner cyclists. Furthermore, he's doing it with ill-informed chat - like chat about road tax etc.

Beginner cyclists are allowed on the road, and drivers, if they notice they are not the most advanced cyclists should adjust their driving accordingly. As ever, the vulnerable road user should be protected.

That's what I had to do in my driving exam.

PBo

Addressing what he said is usually a good starting point.

I'm sorry, this is the Interwebz. You must be a n00b! Welcome!

Forum FAQ
"what kind of comments are deleted by mods?"
Rational, well written, well thought out comments that address the point. These are not acceptable. Instead, we are looking for insinuation, hyperbole, poorly constructed arguments, straw men, and non sequiturs.
"any other kind?"
"Yes rick chasey will delete any comment right of Marx" :twisted:

veronese68

Addison Lee have recently taken over another courier firm that has a large fleet of Toyota Piouses. Ask the twunt how much road tax his fleet of hybrids pay.

flamite

Spotted a couple of motorbike cops sat by bike lane and had 2 AL drivers pulled over, looks like they are heavily enforcing bus lane rule.... had to chuckle as went past...

tailwindhome

sfichele wrote:

Highway Code: rule 213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

@ TailWindHome, So you are not allowed to swerve?

And therefore any implied sh:te from Mr ScumBag Lee that it is not the drivers fault is BS and imo is indirectly saying its okay to hit a cyclist that swerved.

Firstly the Highway Code is not law, it's advice.

In this case it is good advice for a driver to give a cyclist plenty of room in case they do something stupid like swevre out into traffic. That's not the same as saying cyclists are allowed to swerve.

Cyclists should trained to cycle safely. Not riding in the gutter means you don't have to swerve randomly.

bompington

BigMat wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

sfichele wrote:

It's perfectly legitimate for a cyclist, regardless of experience or training, to wobble, swerve or to avoid a pothole.

By the same token, if you were in the nearside blindspot of a car and it swerved to the kerb to avoid a pothole, wiping you out, no doubt you would accept the driver's manoeuvre had been "perfectly legitimate", would you?

Well does the law say, Greg? I think (and I'm afraid I can't be bothered to check) that motor vehicles are supposed to give cyclists adequate space whils passing to accommodate the cyclist swerving round a pothole / wobbling / crashing on a patch of ice etc. Its not so much that its "perfectly legitimate" for a cyclist to do so, rather that a driver should anticipate such a risk and is obliged to leave sufficient space to accommodate it.

On the other hand, if you're driving a motor vehicle and you change direction without warning and collide with a cyclist, its going to be your fault regardless of "blind spot" issues.

Simple, right?

This.

It's the law

Or at least, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's been established in court a long time ago that motorists cannot use the "he wobbled into me" defence

sfichele

The high code is the law! But, breaking it does not constitute a criminal act, whereas driving dangerously IS a criminal act. You can only be found guilty of a criminal act in a court room, and the highway code can be used as a guide.

iPete

It's quite entertaining watching this on twitter, the number of business contracts being cancelled is quite amusing!

Gussio

^^^^ Kinda. I copied the below from Wikipedia:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements. If these rules are disobeyed, a criminal offence is committed. Offenders may be fined, given penalty points on their licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases offenders may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

northstar

sfichele - many points valid, TWH and Greg - none.

sfichele

Gussio wrote:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements. If these rules are disobeyed, a criminal offence is committed. Offenders may be fined, given penalty points on their licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases offenders may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

I dont think that is actually right. See the road-traffic-act.

"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the M1Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M2Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

The second paragraph is the important bit and is what I was trying to say. You can only be criminally prosecuted in a court and the highway code is a guide to how negligent you may have been.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..

The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.

Not the kernal of truth.

You don't say.

You seem to be defending him for the kernal, but most people aren't attacking him for that.

Seems a little strange from where I'm sitting, that's all.

Come on chaps, it's "kernel" not "kernal."

notsoblue

iPete wrote:

It's quite entertaining watching this on twitter, the number of business contracts being cancelled is quite amusing!

Yeah, I wonder if this will have a lasting impact though?

With regards to wobbling to avoid obstacles, from what I've seen this is something less confident cyclists do quite often. Mostly because they find it difficult to take primary in busy traffic. Most experienced cyclists tend to take a pretty predictable line around obstacles and will take primary if they need to.

What I find particularly awful about what this guy has said is that it perpetuates the perception that any cyclist who uses the road puts themselves at risk. Its this perception of risk that makes novice cyclists so skittish in the first place. The spokesperson of a large group of road users saying that motorists shouldn't have to give cyclists the space they need to do so safely really puts us back a few steps in progress to normalise cycling.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..

The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.

Not the kernal of truth.

You don't say.

You seem to be defending him for the kernal, but most people aren't attacking him for that.

Seems a little strange from where I'm sitting, that's all.

Come on chaps, it's "kernel" not "kernal."

Oh the shame.

UndercoverElephant

Rick Chasey wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..

The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.

Not the kernal of truth.

You don't say.

You seem to be defending him for the kernal, but most people aren't attacking him for that.

Seems a little strange from where I'm sitting, that's all.

Come on chaps, it's "kernel" not "kernal."

Oh the shame.

I was quite pleased they didn't use colonel, though the Colonel of Truth would be an impressive title.

il_principe

Someone should really seize the initiative and take advantage of all AdLee's bad press - they could do with some competition anyway.

Kieran_Burns

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I was quite pleased they didn't use colonel, though the Colonel of Truth would be an impressive title.

In general that would be a major mistake....

iPete

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

spen666

sfichele wrote:

The high code is the law! But, breaking it does not constitute a criminal act, whereas driving dangerously IS a criminal act. You can only be found guilty of a criminal act in a court room, and the highway code can be used as a guide.

Can someone translate this into English Please

notsoblue

iPete wrote:

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

Thats probably because their website is entirely made in Flash, ewwwwww.

It would be interesting to see Addison Lee take a financial hit because of this bad PR. It would mean that as a group, cyclists in London have significant political and economic influence.

pitchshifter

notsoblue wrote:

iPete wrote:

With regards to wobbling to avoid obstacles, from what I've seen this is something less confident cyclists do quite often. Mostly because they find it difficult to take primary in busy traffic. Most experienced cyclists tend to take a pretty predictable line around obstacles and will take primary if they need to.

Ironically, the last thing I had to "wobble" to avoid was an Addison Lee Ford Galaxy that pulled in front of me on Millbank ...

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

iPete wrote:

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

Thats probably because their website is entirely made in Flash, ewwwwww.

It would be interesting to see Addison Lee take a financial hit because of this bad PR. It would mean that as a group, cyclists in London have significant political and economic influence.

It won't.

Next week the bloke tweeting that he's not using addison lee again will be on the blower to them as soon as he stumbled out of the bar, totally sh!tfaced.

sfichele

spen666 wrote:

sfichele wrote:

The high code is the law! But, breaking it does not constitute a criminal act, whereas driving dangerously IS a criminal act. You can only be found guilty of a criminal act in a court room, and the highway code can be used as a guide.

Can someone translate this into English Please

I'll try again. If you break the highway code you have not necessarily committed a criminal act.
For example, if you are caught speeding you can be fined for that, but you don't get a criminal record for it. There's a difference in the law between an endorsement and criminality.

A criminal act is one defined by the Road Traffic Act not by the highway code.
For example, Death by dangerous driving.

If you go to court charged with a criminal act, then the highway code can be used as a guide to decide how negligent you were.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

iPete wrote:

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

Thats probably because their website is entirely made in Flash, ewwwwww.

It would be interesting to see Addison Lee take a financial hit because of this bad PR. It would mean that as a group, cyclists in London have significant political and economic influence.

It won't.

Next week the bloke tweeting that he's not using addison lee again will be on the blower to them as soon as he stumbled out of the bar, totally sh!tfaced.

Was thinking more about corporate accounts. Decisions to retain them tend not to be made at closing time :P

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

iPete wrote:

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

Thats probably because their website is entirely made in Flash, ewwwwww.

It would be interesting to see Addison Lee take a financial hit because of this bad PR. It would mean that as a group, cyclists in London have significant political and economic influence.

It won't.

Next week the bloke tweeting that he's not using addison lee again will be on the blower to them as soon as he stumbled out of the bar, totally sh!tfaced.

Was thinking more about corporate accounts. Decisions to retain them tend not to be made at closing time :P

Yeah possibly. How many people will really cancel though?

Lots of people make a song and dance about cancelling, then won't bother.

There they get to ride the PR crest of indignation without any hassle. Most people will forget this come 6pm today.

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

iPete wrote:

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

Thats probably because their website is entirely made in Flash, ewwwwww.

It would be interesting to see Addison Lee take a financial hit because of this bad PR. It would mean that as a group, cyclists in London have significant political and economic influence.

It won't.

Next week the bloke tweeting that he's not using addison lee again will be on the blower to them as soon as he stumbled out of the bar, totally sh!tfaced.

I am currently in talks with our Procurement Team about severing links with Addison Lee. They are listening, but said they are going to look at other firms and crunch the numbers.

This is clearly another stunt by AL, but one which might not have the same impact as the M4 bus lane tactic as it might well lead to lost trade - possibly short term, but better than nothing.

TFL, by the sounds of it, are in an invidious position.

What is disappointing is that someone I knew had a run in with an Addison Lee vehicle and was invited to their Driver Training centre, explained how they handled complaints etc and found it a productive experience. It's a shame Griffin Snr comes across as such a twunt.

mrc1

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

iPete wrote:

nsb I suspect it'll be a small ding but they won't crash and burn, although they are now trending 4th in London on twitter. Hope they have the mantra any publicity is good publicity

It's got to be good for other firms though, I'd not heard of http://www.greentomatocars.com/ until all this kicked off, they look a much better alternative.

Thats probably because their website is entirely made in Flash, ewwwwww.

It would be interesting to see Addison Lee take a financial hit because of this bad PR. It would mean that as a group, cyclists in London have significant political and economic influence.

It won't.

Next week the bloke tweeting that he's not using addison lee again will be on the blower to them as soon as he stumbled out of the bar, totally sh!tfaced.

Was thinking more about corporate accounts. Decisions to retain them tend not to be made at closing time :P

Yeah possibly. How many people will really cancel though?

Lots of people make a song and dance about cancelling, then won't bother.

There they get to ride the PR crest of indignation without any hassle. Most people will forget this come 6pm today.

I doubt many. My old shop had accounts with 4 or 5 different places to make sure cars were always available.

There's also probably a fair few people who deal with Taxi accounts that agree with his sentiments...

On the Olympics front I thought I'd read a few months ago that black cab drivers were complaining that AL had won pretty much every Olympic contract?

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Next week the bloke tweeting that he's not using addison lee again will be on the blower to them as soon as he stumbled out of the bar, totally sh!tfaced.

Was thinking more about corporate accounts. Decisions to retain them tend not to be made at closing time :P

Yeah possibly. How many people will really cancel though?

Lots of people make a song and dance about cancelling, then won't bother.

There they get to ride the PR crest of indignation without any hassle. Most people will forget this come 6pm today.

Maybe. In a previous job I shared an office with the person who handled the Addison Lee account, and I'm certain this would have been a factor when it came up for renewal. But then I'm a busybody like that.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Maybe. In a previous job I shared an office with the person who handled the Addison Lee account, and I'm certain this would have been a factor when it came up for renewal. But then I'm a busybody like that.

For sure, I'm the same. But most people don't / won't care.

In 6 months time when the renewal is up few people will even remember this, let alone do anything about it.

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Maybe. In a previous job I shared an office with the person who handled the Addison Lee account, and I'm certain this would have been a factor when it came up for renewal. But then I'm a busybody like that.

For sure, I'm the same. But most people don't / won't care.

In 6 months time when the renewal is up few people will even remember this, let alone do anything about it.

Possibly, but contractually speaking, if a supplier is brazenly advertising the fact that their company is breaking the law, it makes it easier (depending on the clauses of course) for a corporate customer to terminate a short or long standing relationship before the renewal date.

This is how I sold it to my colleagues. I'm not holding my breath, but it's worth a try.