Tags
(not satire – it’s the UK today!)
Here’s a staggering conflict of interest which has gone quietly unnoticed.
On November the 25th, Transport for London will be deciding on whether to fund the proposed so-called Cycle Super Highways in the capital.
The meeting will be chaired by TfL board member Peter Anderson, whose full time job is Finance Director of Canary Wharf Group PLC.
Which is a bit strange because Canary Wharf Group PLC has just been revealed to be the main anonymous lobbyist against the very same Cycle Super Highway proposals.
Anderson’s employers are against the proposals most probably because many of the most influential Canary Wharf corporate residents are worried the scheme might slow down their limo rides around the capital.
Anderson, however, has not declared his conflict of interest in the matter.
So to sum up.
The public committee which will be deciding on the funding for a major cycling scheme in London will be chaired by a prominent anti-cycling lobbyist who has not declared his corporate interests in the matter.
Well done to “Cyclists in the City‘ for digging out this hidden gem.
Now all we have to do is share it.
.
For regular updates, you can also follow @citycyclists on Twitter.
.
Related articles by Tom Pride:
Lobbying: Cameron’s deleted speech and his jaw dropping hypocrisy
How Russians are bankrolling the Tory Party (but don’t tell MI5!)
Nigel Farage and the man who trashed the pound. Twice.
.
Please feel free to comment. And please share. Thank you.
Pride's Purge 
Reblogged this on chunkyfunkymunky.
LikeLike
Tweeted!
LikeLike
The Stop Killing Cyclists and Critical Mass London Groups have been banging on about this for a while now. Rightly so – more evidence of corruption that conflicts entirely with the stated rules of the GLA and its various constituent parts (TFL. MPA, et al) Thanks for highlighting this Tom. Exposing the naughty Noo Noos, the corrupt and the double standards merchants is pretty much a full time post. Can I make a donation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t like cyclists very much, as they are either riding illegally or risking their lives-but it hardly seems fair to have someone who hates cyclists deciding on their fate.
LikeLike
That’s interesting that you have met and know the activities of all cyclists Thomas. Clearly some do ride like dickheads, running red lights and harassing pedestrians, but this is not ALL cyclists who ride “illegally” any more than ALL drivers are trying to kill them (I also drive cars and vans, but walk lots too and ride a motor bike and bicycle). As for risking their lives, that’s fair comment. I served 28 years as a London Firefighter and in that time 7 operational personnel died in fires or building collapses. In the same time over ten times that number were killed on their way to or from work on two wheels (the stat includes motorcycles). The resultant investigations into the cause of death did not expose reckless or “illegal” riding and that is also the case with the majority of the cyclists who have died On London’s roads since Boris became mayor. Most were obeying the rules of the Road Traffic Act and Highway code, had lights fitted, were wearing helmets and high visibility clothing.
The shit infrastructure however that puts cyclists most at risk of collision and the subsequent death or serious injury could be overcome by changing the way the priorities are set under the status quo for the movement of the internal combustion engine in preference to those of us who try NOT to pollute the dirty capital further.
Holland, New York and Copenhagen have such infrastructures in place and even for those of you who don’t like cyclists, the evidence is there that safer streets (particularly for pedestrians which most of us are even for a few metres a day at least) provides a healthier and more productive workforce that benefits business as much as the individual getting to work.
I agree it hardly seems fair that someone who hates cyclists should decide their fate. Not just hardly fair, but also against the very rules of the GLA/TFL with regard to declaring any interest that Chairs of various committees have to make. Corruption in Local Government? No shurely not!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you ever wondered why cyclists make illegal manoeuvres? Perhaps it is because the road system made it impossible for them to get from A to B in a normal matter. Here in the Netherlands the number of people making illegal manoeuvres is very low. Because the road system guides people. And different modes of transport pedestrians, cyclists and motorised traffic are not in a constant struggle with each other over road space. So indeed it’s very bad news that people from the anti-cyclist lobby are deciding over these cycling networks.
LikeLike
I’m accompanying a film crew to the Netherlands next week to cover this very issue Floris. They are recording a TV show on the dangers of cycling in London and want to use Amsterdam as an example of best practice. Already from their research they’ve seen that people who use red lights as a “give way” sign rather than wait for green are statistically less likely to be injured by Large Goods Vehicles. You make a valid point, but factual reporting just seems to encourage trolls on most issues. Thanks for your constructive contribution to this issue that is killing and seriously injuring human beings just like in the Netherlands before 1971. 43 years later there’s a small hope that London might now bite the bullet and get their infrastructure sorted and they get someone who’s opposed to it from the start to have the deciding vote on whether it goes ahead and gets financed properly. I think I might just stay in Zeeburg. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think cycles should be on roads. They don’t pay road tax and get in my way when I’m driving thru the town at 60MPH to the pub. I have to drive as its a quarter mile away. I’m very fat, (not my fault). I’m a member of the Tory party and I enjoy farting. I think that unemployed people should be sent to the workhouse and not get unemployment benefit. I also love Brooks Newmark.
LikeLike
Your blogs are good. Would be nice to be able to share them directly to twitter
Kevin Brown
LikeLike
Kevin – try pressing the Twitter button at the bottom of the blogpost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I don’t like cyclists very much, as they are either riding illegally…”
So I guess you don’t like motorists, more than 80% of them admit to breaking the speed limit. Personally I think they are just people trying to get by in a very complicated world which they didn’t create.
LikeLike
“I think that unemployed people should be sent to the workhouse and not get unemployment benefit”
You big softy, luckily the government have a better plan, why waste money on workhouses when Amazon are filling the country with perfectly sound cardboard boxes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fat Tory…f…k off!
LikeLike
Is what THomas M saying that if they don’t cycle illegally, they are risking their lives? That sounds like a very good reason for some decent infrastructure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(not satire – it’s ENGLAND today!) Leave Scotland out of your criticism!
LikeLike
Sadly, things in Scotland are even worse.
LikeLike
Rubbish! That’s just a minor argument about only one cycle route out of the countless new routes around Scotland.
LikeLike
Pennie – Sorry, I was wrong about what I said to you before. I think it’s best if you stick to posting pointless links to Mary Poppins video clips rather than trying to give your opinion about things which obviously go right over your head.
LikeLike
This isn’t about “cyclists” – however you view “them” – it’s about a mode of transport which anybody should be able to use.
Cycling isn’t just for cyclists, it should be for everybody, without exception.
LikeLike
Crazy Days!
LikeLike
Absolutely right.The Safer Streets campaign of the “Stop Killing Cyclists” benefits pedestrians first. The Netherlands model which we see as best practice was created to stop killing children as its priority. What followed benefited every form of “transport” from flip flops via the bicycle to large goods vehicles as the infrastructure made it safe. Once you’ve run someone over (provided you stop of course) it severely delays your journey and those taking the same route if the emergency services close the road. It also seriously fucks up the day of everyone involved. A proper infrastructure should be a no brainer, but greedy wankers with no concern for street safety have the power to approve or veto.
LikeLike
“killing and seriously injuring human beings just like in the Netherlands before 1971.”
Not quite sure what you mean by this – were Dutch cyclist accidents suddenly reduced after 1971?. I worked in the Netherlands (Wageningen) for a year in 1963-4 and cycled to work daily (about 2 – 3miles) mostly along a system of cycle/bromfiets tracks that effectively kept cyclists away from motorised traffic. These were clearly designed as such from scratch rather than our cycle tracks often added as an appendage inserted into to existing road space.
One more pedantic nit-picking thought – info provided doesn’t actually say Peter Anderson is anti-cyclist – merely that he’s Finance Director of a company that’s opposing the Super Highway. He might just be a BMX fan! But I guess the chance of him not being as similarly anti as his employer is infinitesimal.
LikeLike
Yes Dan. The death and seriously injured rate of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians dramatically reduced after the 1971 protests and significant changes to infrastructure. To save me regurgitating the facts and figures, here’s a link to the LCC’s article explaining the rationale for them campaigning for the “Go Dutch ” model standards to be applied over here.
LikeLike
Here: http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s
LikeLike