Dangerous taxis in Dublin

Chuchote

average_runner wrote: »

I find the French are very good in relation to the road, well they are where we go on holidays.

Cars give way to cyclist on crossings, cyclists will form a signal line if cars coming behind them, cars will give them space. And cyclists and runners shares the bike lanes in a good manner. They all work together.

While here, its war:eek:

Historically, this has been true in country places, but less so in Paris. My son asked why there were no cyclists, and was told, with a cackle, "We got them all."

But the Velib' municipal bike scheme (and the children's version and the scooter version and now the electric car version) have changed people's attitudes a lot.

arse_jackeen

The two times I've been knocked off my bike have both involved taxis. First one just pulled in and forced me on to the kerb (over the handlebars and broken wrist) and the second one, the backseat passenger opened the door just as I was passing (broken hand bones).

Obviously I'm prejudiced (a little) but I agree that taxi drivers are often less considerate than other drivers. Only yesterday a taxi suddenly pulled in without indicating, forcing me to take evasive action and putting myself in higher risk of getting hit by someone else.

As other posters have remarked, I've never encountered an issue with Dublin Bus drivers.

AGC

Eathrin wrote: »

The worst of my experiences, however, are taxis that are stopping very rapidly and swerving towards the side of the road to pick up fares. I'm curious, apart from the obviously dangerous and negligent driving, can a taxi driver be at fault for stopping in certain areas (Double yellow lines, cycle lanes, too far from the kerb etc.)? There is extremely limited information on taxi regulation in the rsa rules of the road http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

I really love cycling and I take the rules and my safety seriously. It's a damn shame for anyone who feels too scared to cycle because of negligent road users.

Find taxi drivers fine 99% of the time. As they are always on the lookout for work I would just pay more attention to them so just alert for any quick moves. They are generally good with indicators etc.

The only time I have had an issue was when I was passing a taxi stopped in the cycle lane outside Leinster House dropping off a passenger, he decided to try pull out as I was right beside his door, he hit me, thankfully I stayed upright, I stopped to have words to which he accused me of kicking his car, even though I was clipped in when he pulled out I laughed, he said he would box my head in, then he made a lunge but was too short and had to lean down to release his belt:D By this time the Guard on duty appeared and he got a ticket.

I went from fuming at him to complete joy in about a minute.

magicbastarder

Eathrin wrote: »

I think my biggest worry is for pedestrians when electric cars become more common. Correct me if I'm wrong but they make far less noise on the road and whether they realise it or not, pedestrians often are relying on their hearing and no longer their sight when crossing the road, red man or not.

darwin will soon sort that out.

Craigevans1985

in my experience those cyclists giving out to drivers are usually the worst drivers themselves when it comes to cyclists. It's a personality thing as much as anything else. If you are a narky inconsiderate driver then you are likely a holier than thou narky cyclist when it comes to other drivers. We often don't tolerate in others what we expect others to tolerate in ourselves.

magicbastarder

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

in my experience those cyclists giving out to drivers are usually the worst drivers themselves when it comes to cyclists.

How many people do you know, whom you've seen both cycling and driving enough to say that?

Craigevans1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

How many people do you know, whom you've seen both cycling and driving enough to say that?

Between two cycling clubs I'm involved with? Enough. When I'm driving and I see a cyclist I give wide berth, I slow down, I check my mirrors. When I cycle, I don't cycle three abreast, we pull our group down to single file to allow traffic to pass, safer for them safer for us. I don't cut up the outside or inside of stationary traffic (unless there's a cycle lane), I don't pass a car turning left on the inside, even if there is a cycle lane, and in particular when I'm in the city. I stop at red lights, I am not a mobile pedestrian, I don't have the right to break the light. Stuff like that. But I have regular disagreements with other cyclists about their "right" to do that stuff and that the driver is always wrong and I find that those same people are the worst to travel to events with to due to their driving. Of course there are just sh*t drivers who never cycle or don't appreciate how precarious you feel when a truck skims you on back road, but that same person would be narky in all situations and contribute to a situation. Just my experience of people. Not all drivers are bad, not all cyclists are good. Some are both.

2RockMountain

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

we pull our group down to single file to allow traffic to pass, safer for them safer for us..

Probably not.

Wishbone Ash

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

..... When I cycle, I don't cycle three abreast, we pull our group down to single file to allow traffic to pass, safer for them safer for us......

What makes you think that is safer?

ED E

Have to disagree with most on thread here, taxis are a particular plague. Its rare mr punto on his way home will dive two lanes left with zero notice but happens daily when some twat holds his hand out on a hump back bridge. IME a taxi that won't do anything for a fare is a rare rare breed.

Watched a poor lad come within inches of being creamed by a taxi that did just that to drop a customer then mounted the curb at 45*. Regret I didn't stop and call AGS at Rathfarnham village now as it was 100% without due care and attention if not dangerous driving. No way that man should hold a PSV.

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What makes you think that is safer?

The fact that cycling three abreast is not permitted or good practice is probably good enough reason.

Kaisr Sose

average_runner wrote: »

It be wrong for the cyclists to thump the car as its wrong for anyone to thump a cyclist

You cannot assault a car, but a motorist driving without due care and attention leading to personal injury of pedestrian or cyclist is no different to assault/using a vehicle as a weapon. There will only be one loser here in such encounters.

Garda cyclists are told to hit a car that is encroaching on their space (yes apparently it happens to them too — if motorists don't look, how do they know it's a Garda? In my book, it's about all you can do to alert a negligent / inconsiderate motorist at short notice. It usually has immediate effect of getting them to pull out.

I have no problem doing it and it has saved my skin on numerous times. I even made a statement to the Garda where I admitted doing so and once it was done in self defence they had no problem with it. Would the motorist be more pleased to have your blood, teeth etc on their car?

I find most taxis appaling when it come to unusual and sudden manoeuvres. Occasionally some do put hazards on, gradually slow , and pull in. Text book, courtesy!

Many Dublin Bus drivers are not great. I have had many instances of them passing me and immediately pulling into a stop. No courtesy shown. Overtaking to then stop in front of the vehicle they just passed = Crazy and disrespectful. They would not do it to a motor vehicle. Usual locations: Stop on O'Connell bridge going sth, Aunguer St after the DIT and along Merrion Sq, heading out of town. As for Dublin Bus drivers running red lights and then pulling in to collect a fare — I don't get it. It's not like they are in a hurry! They drive a bus, the same way they drive their cars.

At the end of the day, it's really a driver attitude thing - not what is been driven.

Chuchote

You can't assault a car, but it's scary to be in a car when a passing cyclist thumps the roof. Happened to me once when a passenger and my heart rate went through the same roof.

The grandmotherly saying that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar applies here too. If you want to tell a driver they've endangered your life, you're better to tap on the window and say it mildly. Less heartwarmingly heroic, but more effective. Most drivers aren't out to kill you, they just don't realise that they're coming too close.

Of course if you see someone consistently carving people up on your morning route, it's time for the headcam, and passing the driver to look straight into his eyes and tap the camera and point at the driver, á la Meet the Fockers.

Kaisr Sose

@Cuchette
When a car is about to dump you on the road , into the kerb or onto s pavement, politely having a word with a driver is the last thing on your mind. It's about preventing personal injury/ staying on the bike. So what if the motorist gets a fright-that's the whole point. Getting them to wake up, pay attention to their driving and others around them. If works most times too! Ultimately it's their poor driving that is causing their HR and that of vulnerable cyclists to soar! Unfortunately, these 'vulnerable' or 'easily scared' drivers can seriously injure or kill somebody that is more vulnerable and far easier to scare than them!

Tony EH

ted1 wrote: »

Definitely more dangerous as they stop erratically. Busses have actual bus stops to stop at, and regular cars don't stop if someone sticks out their thumb last second.
I've been hit by a taxi, and very nearly two other times that are worth mentioning as both times it was raining and the taxi quickly pulled in without looking to pick up a fare that suddenly decided to get a taxi

A few years ago I was cycling through Ranelagh, when out of the blue a taxi overtook me and pulled into the cycle lane to pick up a fare. I clipped his wing mirror with my handle bar and it broke off. It stopped bouncing down the road a few feet in front of the car and I picked it up, with the intention of bringing it back to the driver.

Said driver got out of his car (throwing his door open into further traffic trying to go around him) and started shouting at me, giving out dog's abuse.

I threw the wing mirror on the ground, silently gave him the finger and moved off. Anything else would have been pointless.

There are some people out there on our roads who have no thoughts in their heads as to their wrongful actions and the impact it has/may have on others. They go about their actions without a single care about caution and taxi drivers can be the absolute worst offenders in that regard.

I have taxi drivers in my family, so that's not an "all taxis are..." comment. But it remains an observation that they are a vehicle that requires special "looking out for" when you're on the road, more so than any other in my experience.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

@Cuchette
When a car is about to dump you on the road , into the kerb or onto s pavement

Different, of course. I'm talking about the cyclists that chase down cars that passed too close and give them a big thump on the roof. I did that myself a few times in the distant past… wouldn't do it now.

But yes, if a driver is being ridiculously dangerous, a thump is in order. In fact, last time I thumped anything was when a bus passed me out on College Green and was coming closer and closer so that I was about to be turned into mincemeat between the side of the bus and the high wire-gridded hoarding.

Thump-thump-thump

No reaction.

Thump-thump-thump

I saw a couple of passengers peering out.

Thump-thump-thump

The bus juddered and veered suddenly to the right. I'd guess that the passengers had screamed at the driver, who pulled well away and sped ahead. He or she must have been in a dream not to have seen me when passing. Took a while to munch down my heart, which was thumping at the top of my throat.

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

The fact that cycling three abreast is not permitted or good practice is probably good enough reason.

He said 'we don't cycle three abreast' - so he was talking about moving from two abreast to single file, making the group much longer, and therefore much harder for a driver to find a safe overtaking spot - and also more likely that the driver will try to squeeze through at an unsafe location.

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

He said 'we don't cycle three abreast' - so he was talking about moving from two abreast to single file, making the group much longer, and therefore much harder for a driver to find a safe overtaking spot - and also more likely that the driver will try to squeeze through at an unsafe location.

Surely the safe thing to do would be to split into single-file-in-threes, with a two-car-sized gap between each trio, so the car could pass out three, rest in the middle, pass out three, and so on?

Craigevans1985

2RockMountain wrote: »

He said 'we don't cycle three abreast' - so he was talking about moving from two abreast to single file, making the group much longer, and therefore much harder for a driver to find a safe overtaking spot - and also more likely that the driver will try to squeeze through at an unsafe location.

We're not the tour de france lads! My cycles could be with two or three friends, and even when you go on a club cycle there are different abilities so the group is spread out a long way. A car can pass a single bike without crossing over the white line in a lot of instances, I know not always)
When I say safer for them and us, I think of the country road, where people tend to overtake cyclists regardless of the white lines or line of sight that they should have to overtake a car. If you are two abreast and a car appears from the other direction coming towards said overtaking motorist, he will swerve to avoid the oncoming car, and that means into the cyclist.
If you are in a single, the car has more room to swerve in before you get hit, doesn't mean you never get hit, but it would be safer for me to be in that situation rather than having a second bike, or worse a third, next to me which reduces the room the car has to squeeze back in.
As I am the vulnerable person on the road and much more likely to suffer serious injury than anyone in a car then I can't rely on drivers obeying the rules, giving me time and space, waiting for the dotted white lines to overtake, etc etc, but as a driver I do. Just me.

Macy0161

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the safe thing to do would be to split into single-file-in-threes, with a two-car-sized gap between each trio, so the car could pass out three, rest in the middle, pass out three, and so on?

Increasing the number of interactions, and increasing the time the car is on the other side of the road? Safest would be to stay in a group 2 a breast imo, and the motorist to wait for it to be safe to overtake.

If that's not workable, it's the size of the group that needs to be considered rather than two a breast v single file.

In most cases, a car is delayed seconds, at the extreme a couple of minutes (probably less than a traffic light sequence), behind a moving group. No need for motorists to be inpatient and no need for cyclists to feck up their group to potentially save a inconsequential amount of time.

Wishbone Ash

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

The fact that cycling three abreast is not permitted or good practice is probably good enough reason.

I meant the single file bit - not the three abreast bit.

2RockMountain

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the safe thing to do would be to split into single-file-in-threes, with a two-car-sized gap between each trio, so the car could pass out three, rest in the middle, pass out three, and so on?

Not really. It's generally easier for a car to pass out one group than several groups. It's easier to pass one slow HGV than several slow vans.

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

A car can pass a single bike without crossing over the white line in a lot of instances, I know not always)
When I say safer for them and us, I think of the country road, where people tend to overtake cyclists regardless of the white lines or line of sight that they should have to overtake a car. If you are two abreast and a car appears from the other direction coming towards said overtaking motorist, he will swerve to avoid the oncoming car, and that means into the cyclist.
If you are in a single, the car has more room to swerve in before you get hit, doesn't mean you never get hit, but it would be safer for me to be in that situation rather than having a second bike, or worse a third, next to me which reduces the room the car has to squeeze back in.
As I am the vulnerable person on the road and much more likely to suffer serious injury than anyone in a car then I can't rely on drivers obeying the rules, giving me time and space, waiting for the dotted white lines to overtake, etc etc, but as a driver I do. Just me.

It would be a fine wide road to allow a car to pass a single cyclist leaving 1.5m passing space. If you have a group of three cyclists, the choice is to have a long group or a wide group. With a long group, it is harder to find a safe overtaking spot, just like passing a long HGV is harder than passing an ordinary car.

Craigevans1985

2RockMountain wrote: »

It would be a fine wide road to allow a car to pass a single cyclist leaving 1.5m passing space.

I did say "I know, not always" I feel safer in single file, that's me.

Trond

Funnily enough I dont mind taxis in bus lanes, i think they are more used to cyclists than your ordinary driver.

What I find disgraceful about taxis is the majority never seem to indicate when changing lanes. Westmoreland St in the mornings is particularly dangerous. Had 3 run ins with taxis there this month alone.

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I meant the single file bit - not the three abreast bit.

Agh, ok!! Mis-read!

Pim Pictus

Rezident wrote: »

I really hope they bring in this 1.5m minimum passing distance, it feels like some taxis are deliberately passing very close to me to try and intimidate me.

I'm all for this rule in theory. I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

buffalo

Pim Pictus wrote: »

I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

Why? Would there be any requirement for all stopped traffic to leave 1.5m space at all times?

Macy0161

Pim Pictus wrote: »

I'm all for this rule in theory. I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

Just wondering for what logic? To slow down the progress? Would it apply to motorbikes and scooters that filter too?

Pim Pictus

buffalo wrote: »

Why? Would there be any requirement for all stopped traffic to leave 1.5m space at all times?

No, that would be impossible on most roads in towns and cities. Where possible after passing a cyclist I do keep right if I think they are going to be moving past again though.

However, if there is slow moving traffic it is inevitable that it will start moving faster than cyclists who are now often less than a foot away from moving traffic. It could be impossible for the cars they are along side to be suddenly 1.5 metres away. It's common sense to hang back to avoid this situation.

Pim Pictus

Macy0161 wrote: »

Just wondering for what logic? To slow down the progress? Would it apply to motorbikes and scooters that filter too?

Yes. Any motorbike passing on the inside is a fool and has a death wish anyway. I drive motorbikes and would never do it.

My logic is that it is safer to leave 1.5 metres so why wouldn't you if you can?

radia

Big difference in safety between a bike filtering up alongside stationary traffic at 15 mph and a car passing a cyclist at 40+ mph.

Pim Pictus

radia wrote: »

Big difference in safety between a bike filtering up alongside stationary traffic at 15 mph and a car passing a cyclist at 40+ mph.

So it's fine when traffic starts moving for cars to pass with the same distance once they're only going 20mph?

radia

No. When the bigger vehicle (car) is moving, there's a slipstream effect that adds danger. Slipstream from a moving bike is unnoticeable to a car (though even bike slipstream is noticeable to another cyclist).

Plus when the cyclist is the only one moving he/she has control over the passing distance and is very well placed to judge it, being right on the spot. When the car is moving, the cyclist cannot control the passing distance fully and the driver is probably sitting at the opposite side of the car rather than at the side where the passing is taking place, so there is more guesswork on their part about exactly how close the pass is. (Is that 5 cm or 10 cm?) It can feel pretty vulnerable.

Add to that the fact that a close pass can cause a cyclist - especially an inexperienced one - to wobble (either from slipstream or through alarm) so they're no longer where the driver thought they were, and you've a recipe for disaster.

Pim Pictus

radia wrote: »

No. When the bigger vehicle (car) is moving, there's a slipstream effect that adds danger. Slipstream from a moving bike is unnoticeable to a car (though even bike slipstream is noticeable to another cyclist).

Plus when the cyclist is the only one moving he/she has control over the passing distance and is very well placed to judge it, being right on the spot. When the car is moving, the cyclist cannot control the passing distance fully and the driver is probably sitting at the opposite side of the car rather than at the side where the passing is taking place, so there is more guesswork on their part about exactly how close the pass is. (Is that 5 cm or 10 cm?) It can feel pretty vulnerable.

All of that is besides the point I'm making though. If you travel up the inside of slow moving or stopped traffic you are creating an almost unavoidable situation where you will be passed very close by at least one car.

cdaly_

Pim Pictus wrote: »

All of that is besides the point I'm making though. If you travel up the inside of slow moving or stopped traffic you are creating an almost unavoidable situation where you will be passed very close by at least one car.

In this circumstance, once the cars start to move, I move out into the line of cars at the first opportunity until the speed is sufficient that normal overtaking behaviour should resume.

If that's not possible, I will hang back for a moment or two first...

magicbastarder

Trond wrote: »

Funnily enough I dont mind taxis in bus lanes

i do. why should i be allowed use the bus lane because i have paid a taxi driver to take me, if i'm not allowed use it myself?

Wishbone Ash

magicbastarder wrote: »

i do. why should i be allowed use the bus lane because i have paid a taxi driver to take me, if i'm not allowed use it myself?

Totally agree - why should someone who has decided to utilise a private form of transport be permitted to travel on lanes primarily designated for public transport?

Chuchote

Pim Pictus, the trouble with cars passing bikes at any speed is that our roads don't have very safe surfaces. If a car (1.5 to 2 tonnes without passengers or cargo) is passing me close at 30km/h, and I on my bike have to go to the right to avoid a pothole or a road drain or a slippery manhole cover or broken glass or a Coke Can, or… you know. If I have to move, the car will now hit me, and for a fragile human mixed with a bicycle frame to be crunched into by two tonnes of car is not a pretty thing.

On the other hand, if you're pulled up at traffic lights, it makes sense for me to filter along to your left and go to the front of the traffic, where I can be visible to the drivers as they move off.

The only time I'll break this rule is when the traffic includes large buses (especially tour buses, for instance) or trucks, whose bad design means that their drivers cannot see a cyclist to their left. If these are ahead, it's safer to hang back. Not just because I don't want to be killed, either; a trucker told me when I was hitching to Europe some years back that a friend of his, a self-employed truck owner, had wiped out a family while racing for the ferry; he became insane and later took his own life.

We all use the road in the way that's safest for ourselves and for others. Ar scaith a chéile…

2RockMountain

Pim Pictus wrote: »

I'm all for this rule in theory. I'd like to see it extend both ways though and for bikes not to be allowed cycle up the inside of a line of stopped or slow moving traffic unless there is 1.5 metres space to do so.

Why? What's the basis for this tit-for-tat? Should the same apply to cars over-taking cars, who should now be required to predict what is going to happen at the next junction?

Pim Pictus wrote: »

My logic is that it is safer to leave 1.5 metres so why wouldn't you if you can?

It's safer to wear a helmet while driving, so why wouldn't you if you can?

Pim Pictus wrote: »

All of that is besides the point I'm making though. If you travel up the inside of slow moving or stopped traffic you are creating an almost unavoidable situation where you will be passed very close by at least one car.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you don't know who is going to be going in what direction at the next junction.

the boss of me

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Totally agree - why should someone who has decided to utilise a private form of transport be permitted to travel on lanes primarily designated for public transport?

Taxis are not a private form of transport. They are public transport.. That's what the p in PSV stands for. As many bus lane's are under utilized it makes sense to allow taxis use them.

magicbastarder

That doesn't really address the concern. Why should a single passenger be able to use bus lanes when a car full of people, making much more efficient use of the road cannot? There's no greater benefit being bestowed simply because the taxi passenger is using 'public' transport.

Ballyvassman

If somebody is unlucky enough to come off because of one of these guys does anybody know if the emergency services can read your medical details via the Taggisar Stickers?

Wishbone Ash

the boss of me wrote: »

Taxis are not a private form of transport. They are public transport.. That's what the p in PSV stands for. As many bus lane's are under utilized it makes sense to allow taxis use them.

They are available to the public but when hired are essentially 'private'. I don't see why someone who has the funds to hire a PSV for themselves (i.e. privately) should be able to access lanes designated for multi-seat public transport vehicles.

I don't understand your point about bus lanes being 'under-utilised'. It would defeat their purpose if they were in constant use by small PSV's and similar vehicles.

the boss of me

magicbastarder wrote: »

That doesn't really address the concern. Why should a single passenger be able to use bus lanes when a car full of people, making much more efficient use of the road cannot? There's no greater benefit being bestowed simply because the taxi passenger is using 'public' transport.

You seem to be making the argument that multiple occupancy vehicles should be allowed use bus lanes. That's a whole different point.
Like it or not, taxis are and always have been viewed as an integral part of the public transport system. Say for example a person is traveling from Cherry wood to East Point.. There is no bus service connection from the Green line to East Point so a passenger may use a taxi for the last part of the journey.

the boss of me

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I don't understand your point about bus lanes being 'under-utilised'. It would defeat their purpose if they were in constant use by small PSV's and similar vehicles.

What's to understand ?? Take the bus lane along the r132 from the Airport to Santry. There is a bus scheduled on that bus corridor approx every five minutes. The bus lane can handle a lot more traffic than that so why not let taxis take up some of the slack ??

tomasrojo

Yes, a properly functioning bus lane looks empty most of the time if you’re sitting right next to it in a stopped car.

http://humantransit.org/2010/10/london-uk-conservatives-attack-m4-bus-lane.html

(Not sure whether it's a strong argument against letting taxis use bus lanes provided they don't start affecting bus schedules, but bus lanes carry huge numbers of people, despite appearing to be empty a lot of the time.)

Eathrin

I'd also argue that buses and bicycles are far more environmentally friendly than private vehicles and taxis.

Chuchote

Ballyvassman wrote: »

If somebody is unlucky enough to come off because of one of these guys does anybody know if the emergency services can read your medical details via the Taggisar Stickers?

Hadn't heard of these – what a great idea! Can you read them with a phone? Can any old passer-by satisfy his curiosity about your asthma and epilepsy, or only someone entitled to?

Maybe ask over on the Emergency Services forum (and come back and tell us?)

Taxis: I suppose the reason they can use bus lanes is that they take some of the strain off the buses. This worked well when taxis were relatively few and strictly licensed, but now that there are so many, bus lanes are often clogged with them, often with a single driver looking for work and driving around and around town.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

I never really understood why an out of service bus or an empty bus or minibus gets to use the bus lane.

Maybe because they need to get to a starting point before picking people up?

magicbastarder

the boss of me wrote: »

There is no bus service connection from the Green line to East Point so a passenger may use a taxi for the last part of the journey.

bus to fairview park, then maybe ten minutes walk.
or walk from clontarf dart station. i used to do it myself, was working in oracle years ago.

anyway, let's say there wasn't that option. i would regard as weak any argument that taxis should be allowed in bus lanes, because they fill holes in the public transport system.

it's just kinda odd that i could choose to drive into town, or go out on the road and hail a taxi, and make the same journey, but because i've paid someone else to do the driving, i get to use the bus lanes.

your typical taxi has a maximum capacity of four passengers, and takes up half the length of the lane that a bus does. so a bus with eight passengers on it would match the most efficient use taxis could typically make of a bus lane. it's not a big issue in the suburbs, but in the city centre, especially with the explosion in the number of taxis, i suspect it is having a measurable impact on the efficiency of the bus service.