This video shows a taxi driver deliberately passing cyclist Aberdeen Cycle Cam in intimidating fashion. “You put yourself in fucking danger,” he claims afterwards. “Use the cycle lane provided for you.”
The close pass comes at a junction where a cycle lane stops on the pavement at traffic lights.
The taxi driver speeds past, gesturing towards the side of the road.
When Aberdeen Cycle Cam catches up with him later on (because he’s stuck in a big queue of traffic), he rolls down the window and says simply: “Cycle lane!”
“So what?” replies the cyclist.
“Use the fucking thing, it’s for your safety,” advises the taxi driver.
Asked whether the close pass was to teach the cyclist a lesson, the taxi driver admits that it was.
“So you put me in danger to teach me a lesson?” asks Aberdeen Cycle Cam – and this is when it is suggested that the cyclist put himself in danger.
The incident occurred on August 28 and was reported to Aberdeen City Council.
Councillor John Reynolds, Convener of Licensing Committee, Aberdeen City Council, told The Sun: “The incident was investigated by enforcement officers and the licence holder was issued with a formal warning and reminded of his obligations in terms of his licence.”
51 thoughts on “Video: Taxi driver admits delivering punishment pass to teach cyclist a lesson”
Blimey, a formal warning eh?
Blimey, a formal warning eh? Taxi driver must feel suitably chastised and remorseful.
I might be generalising but I
I might be generalising but I strongly suspect most minicab drivers only do the job because they’re too stupid to be pond slime or have criminal records that preclude them for doing anything else… Only bother I ever have with traffic seems to be with these idiots
.
StraelGuy wrote:
A lot of them are brain donors.
If someone drives a car for a living, and they’re bad at that, imagine how unemployable they’d be in other professions.
The driver was angry becauase
The driver was angry becauase he didn’t use a bike lane on the pavement whose sole purpose seems to be so cyclists can pass the queue of cars to get to the ASL.
How would it help the taxi driver if he did use it?
Bobbinogs wrote:
GIven he didn’t injure anyone, I’m not sure what more can be done.
They are all licenced so if he clocks up any more incidents, he will have his licence removed (or not renewed).
hirsute wrote:
GIven he didn’t injure anyone, I’m not sure what more can be done.
They are all licenced so if he clocks up any more incidents, he will have his licence removed (or not renewed).— Bobbinogs
Someone with more legal knowledge than me, especially north of the border, may like to correct me, but deliberately endangering someone with a lethal weapon is an assault. Given that that particular weapon kills more people than any other, that should be taken extremely seriously, and at the very least his licence should be suspended for a suitable period, during which he can take anger management therapy.
Why wasn’t it reported to the police?
hirsute wrote:
GIven he didn’t injure anyone, I’m not sure what more can be done.
They are all licenced so if he clocks up any more incidents, he will have his licence removed (or not renewed).— Bobbinogs
It’s a Section 18 infraction, Attempted Wounding With Intent To do GBH, he should have had his licence taken away with immediate effect and the police should be charging him. 18 months in prison should suffice for these dangerous types.
The face of driving in the uk
The face of driving in the uk today, this should be made into a poster with a suitable caption. Angry people in two tons of metal and plastic who think that they literally have the right to behave any way they choose, and to bully cyclists because they are in the way
dreamlx10 wrote:
I had a similar experience on my way to work earlier this week. Filtering along the right of the traffic, rather than in the narrow and blocked cycle lane, a van driver whom I must somehow have upset leaned out of the window and yelled at me ‘use the fucking cycle lane!’. I flicked a V at him and continued on my way while he waited in the traffic. This sort of thing is water off a duck’s back to me, I don’t give a shit if they shout at me, but what was striking was the look of pure, undiluted hatred, anger and vitriol on the driver’s face. It was far worse than the picture at the top of this article, and very similar to the famous one of the angry guy on the way to Richmond Park. I don’t use a video or anything on my bike, but this would have been a lovely shot. There must be a photobook to be made of angry driver faces.
The cyclist did bring a lot
The cyclist did bring a lot of this on himself, there was no need to ride in the middle of the lane, all it does is antagonise the morons.
wingmanrob wrote:
Oh, you’re one of those.
vonhelmet wrote:
Shut up
wingmanrob wrote:
Solid argument.
vonhelmet wrote:
LOL thanks! One of my better ones haha
wingmanrob wrote:
And one of those as well, apparently.
wingmanrob wrote:
That seems like a totally sensible place to take the lane. I would always ride in the middle of the lane on a two lane road. Either a driver can move in to the other lane to pass or they should not be overtaking. Totally sensible to stop morons from squeezing past between you and a car. Why would you not want to stop morons from making dumb close passes on a multi lane road?
John Smith wrote:
Yes, I quite agree and everything you say is correct, but we’re the vunerable road user, and we’re ALWAYS going to come worse off in a colision. Isn’t it better not to get these idiots rilled up? If he’d ridden on the left, there still wouldn’t have been space for the taxi to pass, but maybe just maybe he might not have viewed the cyclist as having held him up.
wingmanrob wrote:
Nope: the cyclist being on the road AT ALL is what got Mr Taxi Driver all riled up. Isn’t that the point of the video and subsequent association whitewash sorry case?
wingmanrob wrote:
He would still have viewed the cyclist as holding him up as the complaint was he was not in the cycle lane. Being left the taxi, or many other drivers, might have tried to squeeze past. If you are worried about taking the lane because someone might ram you off the road in a fit of anger I suggest not riding on the road, but the reality is that is vanishingly unlikely to happen, where as being clipped by the wing mirror of someone who can’t work out how wide their car is is a very real risk, and you should support those with the confidence to assert safe defencive riding rather than blame the victim.
John Smith wrote:
I totally get your point and granted I don’t commute, so only cycle on quieter country roads for the most part, but he was in the middle of the lane quite some distance before the lights, he had an opportunity to check behind and move into the bus stop before the lights to allow any cars behind to go past.
I guess like motorists, we all cycle differently, my view which I accept is perhaps different to some of you is to avoid confrontation in the first place
wingmanrob wrote:
I think this is the key bit.
If you commute in anything like a town you have to be assertive, otherwise a) you don’t get anywhere and b) you get bullied into danger by impatient arseholes, emboldened by being surrounded by a ton of metal. ‘Safety first’ does not equate to meekly surrendering the lane or hogging the kerb.
It’s a world away from Sunday club or solo runs.
wingmanrob wrote:
Not taking the lane has far worse outcomes far more frequently, it also concees priority/position so that motorists will always expect people to get out the way, thus you’re conditioning the killers/those that do harm to carry on as before without any thinking or consideration.
If you don’t know this already suggest you open your eyes. The old pony about no point right if you’re dead is utter bollocks too with zero evidence of it being true over and above people ceding priortiy and defering road position.
You’re wrong, plain and simple.
wingmanrob wrote:
Victim mentality. You’ll always be a victim.
He also rode on the right of
He also rode on the right of the cycle lane after the lights, continued in the middle of the lane as the footage sped up, didn’t bother using the bus lane and continued in the middle of the road when it became 1 lane.
wingmanrob wrote:
OMG! You mean he used the road as is his legal right? The b@stard!
(admit it: you’re secretly a taxi driver aren’t you? 😉 )
wingmanrob wrote:
That’s not the full picture is it? He can take the lane on any road. And it’s clear there was no room to pass him on the single lane part. He used the bus lane, until he go to the section where he could catch the taxi and get an image of the drivers face/confront the driver (depending on how generous you are feeling).
John Smith wrote:
Yes you’re rightm I watched it again and you’re right, I still don’t agree with the way he was taking up the road, even if legally he wasn’t doing anything wrong.
wingmanrob wrote:
Also, if you watch it again, no one passes him whilst in the bus lane, he checks before pulling out, and there is no one coming. So who exactly do you think he is causing a problem for by taking the lane on the single lane part of the road? The only person he “gets in the way of” in the whole video is the taxi driver and the car behind, who manages to quite easily pass in the other lane. The taxi driver is just a knob who was looking for a fight.
Also, I now see this has been seen by some other news outlets, including the Sun. I do hope that this is picked up by the police…
Why in the name of Boardman
Why in the name of Boardman should he move into the bus stop? He’s not driving a bus and he is not stopping to let passengers board or alight his non-existent bus.
vonhelmet wrote:
Why should someone driving a tractor pull into a laybe to allow the 20 odd cars poodling along behind to get past
Why should you wave when someone allows you out at a junction
It’s just being nice and considerate to other road users 🙂
wingmanrob wrote:
You’re not really supposed to stop in a bus stop unless you are a bus. The clue is in the name. So no, it’s not really the same as a tractor pulling into a lay-by.
vonhelmet wrote:
I never suggested stop, I’d have thought that would have been obvious.
wingmanrob wrote:
Hang on, so you’re suggesting that as I’m riding down the road at 18-20mph (yes I’m awesome), I should pull into every bus stop if a car is behind me?
How exactly will this work as I’d imagine the average length of bus stop means that I’d only be in there for 3-4 seconds if I’m not stopping. Given a car is a safe distance behind me and travelling at the same or a lesser speed, and your new system where everyone is wonderful, wouldn’t the same driver be flashing me back out in front of them?
vonhelmet wrote:
Only buses can stop in bus stops,even taxis,oh the irony, would get a ticket at all times for doing it, so no dont stop in a bus stop unless you are a bus
I really don’t usually use
I really don’t usually use the term ‘gammon’, but there does seem to be a genuine observation in that epithet. Time-and-time-again, I find myself thinking that regular/professional drivers just look so distressingly unhealthy. Sitting on your arse breathing in fumes getting riled-up for hours and hours at a time cannot be good for you. Everything in this country seems to be set up to harm people’s health. (Iincluding an economy that leads to so many people having to make a living in crap driving jobs).
Mainly, I just think this is an example of the problems caused by crap cycle lanes. Ideally, do it right, but if you aren’t going to do it right, better to not bother putting them in at all.
Punishment passes – the
Punishment passes – the preferred tool of the tools who think they’re taking back control of “their” roads.
handlebarcam wrote:
Yes! Let’s take back control of our roads, after all, we’ve taken back control of our country; even if most of us are limping from shooting ourselves in the foot. Blood poisoning from lack of medical care and drugs to look forward to, followed by starvation. “Never mind cake, let them eat sovreignty.”
Some might consider this slightly off topic, but I’m pretty sure the Brexiteers are the same tools who think they own the roads, as the profile of crass stupidity is a 100% match.
burtthebike wrote:
Yes! Let’s take back control of our roads, after all, we’ve taken back control of our country; even if most of us are limping from shooting ourselves in the foot. Blood poisoning from lack of medical care and drugs to look forward to, followed by starvation. “Never mind cake, let them eat sovreignty.”
Some might consider this slightly off topic, but I’m pretty sure the Brexiteers are the same tools who think they own the roads, as the profile of crass stupidity is a 100% match.
[/quote]
Shut up, this is not a political forum for the rights and wrongs of the European Union and Britains decision to leave it. Your final sentence is crass stupidity. Keep with the road safety jargon that you spout as this is agreeable.
No I am not a Brexiteer but I do find your political views abhorhant on a cycling forum. No better than Corbyn preaching to the Glastonby crowds.
Pushing50 wrote:
Shut up, this is not a political forum for the rights and wrongs of the European Union and Britains decision to leave it. Your final sentence is crass stupidity. Keep with the road safety jargon that you spout as this is agreeable.
No I am not a Brexiteer but I do find your political views abhorhant on a cycling forum. No better than Corbyn preaching to the Glastonby crowds.
[/quote]
Wow, the hypocrisy here is just beautiful!
Pushing50 wrote:
Why the freak-out (and complete break-down of punctuation and grammar)? He only mentioned Brexit. It’s not as if he tried to start a helmet debate.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Shut up, this is not a political forum for the rights and wrongs of the European Union and Britains decision to leave it. Your final sentence is crass stupidity. Keep with the road safety jargon that you spout as this is agreeable.
No I am not a Brexiteer but I do find your political views abhorhant on a cycling forum. No better than Corbyn preaching to the Glastonby crowds.
[/quote]
Why the freak-out (and complete break-down of punctuation and grammar)? He only mentioned Brexit. It’s not as if he tried to start a helmet debate.
[/quote]
Damn, there goes my next post.
Pushing50 wrote:
Alright petal… did the nasty liberal trigger you or something?
John Smith wrote:
That’s the trouble with gammons, it’s so easy to wind them up that it really gets boring very quickly.
John Smith wrote:
Not the best post that I have ever written and I agree that it was OTT. Had a nightmare day yesterday with my sanctimonious, narcissist neighbour and I was in no mood for politics and going off piste of a subject again. Burt, I offer my apologies and will think before I post next time. Still got three likes though!!!!
burtthebike wrote:
How is this any different to saying that anyone who rides a bike is a pavement-cycling, red light-jumping, pedestrian-murdering nuisance?
burtthebike wrote:
I usually agree with pretty much everything you say regarding cycle safety, however you’re well off the mark introducing a certain political aspect into this discussion (Although cycle safety is most definitely political).
BTW i’m not a gammon, I’m not a right wing thug, I’m not racist, I do understand the financial implications and the porkies told on both sides and I voted leave. Make of that what you will but you and others who continually bring Brexit into discussions that have zero bearing on the subject matter are making yourselves look pathetic.
Stick to the topic at hand, want to discuss leaving the EU, do it elsewhere.
handlebarcam wrote:
Punishment pass AKA coward’s pass please road.cc but maybe tool’s pass ?
Amazes me that anyone would
Amazes me that anyone would drive for a living when they find the experience so stressful. I mean, why put yourself into an environment where you have no control over the actions of others and some of them are going to do things that wind you up to the point of throwing a tantrum?
Just another bully who’s
Just another bully who’s angry that he has a shit life and erupts when he has the chance to do so without repercussion.
Given that you’ve got the act
Given that you’ve got the act and confession on camera how can a ‘warning letter’ be seen as a reasonable response? What is in the warning letter?
Are there any political efforts underway to get the relevant laws to be changed?
If a roofer or tree surgeon dropped something that could kill near a pedestrian as punishent for walking too close to where they were working, would that also result in a warning letter?
bikes wrote:
I think the comparison is with points on your licence. Getting points does not mean you can’t drive, but if you clock up enough, you won’t be driving.
These drivers have to be licensed, so too many recorded incidents will be loss of licence.