A close pass by a taxi driver, that the cyclist on the receiving end says felt like the vehicle’s wing mirror barely missed him, was dealt with by Derbyshire Police issuing the professional driver a warning letter.
road.cc reader Kev was cycling to work in Derby on the A609 High Lane, in West Hallam, when the close pass happened, the taxi driver overtaking over the top of the brow of a hill, despite oncoming traffic and the road’s markings, the professional driver’s overtake the manoeuvre we are going to focus on in the clip.
As per the Highway Code, when there are double white lines where the nearest to you is broken, “This means you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe, provided you can complete the manoeuvre before reaching a solid white line on your side.”
Backed up by the Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26, for double white lines where the line nearest you is solid, “This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.”
In this case it appears the driver began the overtake on the section with the solid line nearest, the road not clear due to the oncoming drivers in the opposite direction.
“I nearly felt the wing mirror,” Kev told us, before explaining he deliberated over sending the footage to the police due to having submitted videos in the past and heard nothing back.
“It is pretty common on my commute, to be fair,” he explained. “I cycle to work on a mountain bike so I can go off road as much as possible, but there is only one small section which is purely off road. There are no cycle lanes from Ilkeston to Derby that I am aware of. I try to go via the ‘Great Northern Greenway’ but this only covers about a third of my commute, the rest is on roads.”
A week after the report was made to Derbyshire Police, the force replied to Kev explaining that they would be sending a warning letter to the driver involved.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
60 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 901: Taxi driver gets police warning letter over close pass that cyclist “nearly felt the wing mirror””
If that’s only a warning
If that’s only a warning letter what the hell do you have to receive to see the driver get fined? If you have the taxi details report it to the license authority too.
Most certainly report it to
Most certainly report it to the licensing authority, they may (rather than ‘will) take it more seriously than the Police.
TBH all the cars need a
TBH all the cars need a letter at least with the Taxi being the worst but this is a good example of the need to ride in the Primary Position. The rider is far too close to the kerb and drivers are unthinkingly using the lane . Requires confidence to do this though especially with cars travelling at that speed .
Personally, I wouldn’t cycle
Personally, I wouldn’t cycle on that road, it looks like hell. At the speed he is cycling at, I’d go onto the pavement.
neilmck wrote:
Except I’d wager that he wouldn’t just get a warning letter from the police for that? Suddenly he’d become a dangerous antisocial behaviourist and they’d enforce the Very Letter of the Law.
Doesn’t make any difference
Doesn’t make any difference if you are hit by the wing mirror- when the police are determined to take no significant action, that’s what they do. I have been hit twice- the first was before I got the camera and the police wrote it off as ‘only a momentary loss of concentration’ and the second time (with video) they just ignored the report. As for this licensing authority stuff: they do indeed pretend to be taking it seriously, but in practice it’s just ‘having a word with…’. That’s what they did with this
https://upride.cc/incident/nu62myh_blackburntaxi_closepass/
If the police only consider
If the police only consider that worthy of a warning letter, then I’d have no confidence there’s any deterrent to stop that happening again.
I’d also consider cycling carefully on the pavement there would not result in any police action against the cyclist. So that’s what I would probably do if riding a mountain bike.
It’s probably the courts are
It’s probably the courts are full, the letter is equivalent, get out clause.
You’d expect someone whose livelihood relied on being able to drive, wouldn’t simply accept points or driving course automatically.
But then you’d like to think professional drivers wouldn’t drive like that in the first place, though its scarily common ime.
You may cross the line if
You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a
pedal cycle,horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less, or a cyclist whatever his speed and whatever the oncoming traffic (Lancashire Law)https://upride.cc/incident/sh63ymkdg64yvn_corsacrv_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/sj15agx_sprinter_uwlcross/
etc. etc- all ignored by LancsFilth
The Taxi was way too close
The Taxi was way too close for comfort. Surprised the police did not do a bit more, that pass was really poor driving for a professional driver.
Don’t fall into the trap of
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that a ‘professional driver’ behind the wheel of a Taxi is in any way shape or form more capable than the average ‘non-professional’ driver. In my experience they are sometimes amongst the worst drivers on the roads! Not because they’re incompetent, but because they presumably think since they drive so much, and do so for a living, that they don’t need to comply with all of the usual silly little rules and polite etiquette that us ‘normal’ drivers are supposed to. Places to go, people to pick up innit! No time to do stupid unimportant things like give way properly, overtake safely or observe things like box junctions and no parking/drop-off areas!
Dicklexic wrote:
I agree, intuitively one would assume that spending eight or more hours a day on the road would make them better drivers but it’s not like sport practice, often the longer you spend driving the sloppier you get as bad habits are just repeated over and over again and if you get away with them they become ingrained. I know that when I did a few months as a motorcycle courier my riding definitely got worse simply because I stopped concentrating as much as I had previously and became more blasé about risk.
+1 on this. In my experience,
+1 on this. In my experience, driving professionally tends to bring complacency and arrogance over competence. I’ve had far more issues/run-ins with “professional” drivers than any other type. Taxis are by far the worst too – I’ve actually been kicked out of two taxis in the last couple years for calling them out on their driving. One was doing double the speed limit in residential areas, getting wheel-spin away from all the junctions. The second buzzed an elderly cyclist with a couple of inches room at about 60mph and I went ballistic at him.
Dicklexic wrote:
Agreed. I don’t recall a bad experience in the UK, but some of the scariest car rides I’ve ever had have been in taxis, and this was before the Uber/Lyft era.
Dicklexic wrote:
Doing something for a profession does not necessarily make somebody a professional.
But getting paid for it is
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional.
What it doesn’t mean they have to be any good at it. What I do for a living I try and do the best I can be and am always looking to improve and be better. And when I fail I feel somewhat ashamed. But a lot of professional drivers seem to lack pride in what they do. Especially some of those who only do it for part of their job…
A warning letter, if it
A warning letter, if it exists at all, that says simply “Now don’t do that again, m’kay? Otherwise we’ll have to send you another letter.”
moving on from the obvious
moving on from the obvious condemnation of the driving and the ‘puishment’ of said driver. I would always advise riding in primary whenever there is a solid white line on the riders side of the road
I disagree, it’s not up to
I disagree, it’s not up to the cyclist to police the road, had no car been coming the other way there’s room to overtake safely if they cross the white line, that’s the drivers choice, two cars before overtook safely even if they crossed the white line (there choice). Cyclists can only do so much. Now obviously you could argue that if a solid white line is in place it is not safe to overtake, and that has merit, however the bottom line is the taxi should have given more space or waited, no amount of road positioning can stop an idiot from being an idiot. Should cyclists take up primary whenever a car is oncoming? No.
They shouldn’t have to, but
They shouldn’t have to, but self preservation means it is often best to.
Out of interest – in what other situations do you equate “not facilitating dangerous law-breaking” with “policing the road”?
Is maintaining the speed limit in a car while someone is tailgating you “policing the road”?
Is not moving over when someone honks you for stopping at an amber light “policing the road”?
On a bicycle your primary concern is keeping yourself safe from harm. Then keeping others safe from harm.
After that it’s good manners to help maintain flow of traffic, but it’s definitely not a priority over they first two
It didn’t need to be
It didn’t need to be dangerous to the cyclist as the two previous cars proved when they over took.
It is not up to the cyclist to prevent overtakes, it is incumbent on the driver to not cross the white line or overtake safely. The fact that the solid white line is present means the cyclist shouldn’t need to take primary. Your criticism of the rider is unfounded.
Your other examples of whatever point you are trying to make are weird. If a car is tailgating, let them past, if a car honks for stopping at traffic lights, ignore them…any other questions?
You are missing a key point
You are missing a key point of comment; yes, it shouldn’t be the cyclists’ roles to police the roads, but with almost total indifference from police on protecting people outside drivers’ weapons of choice, there is no option. Hence the rise in bike cams.
Wrong it may be, but it is still a reality of #brokenbritain and political policing.
Who said anything about
Who said anything about “preventing” overtakes?
Unless it’s a particularly narrow road (not the case here) it’s practically impossible to “prevent” an overtake
However you can very effectively deter unsafe overtakes, and the question is why on earth would you not?
I made no criticism of the rider so I’m not sure what you’re on about there.
The tail-gating car can pass anywhere it’s safe to do so – just like the driver behind a cyclist in primary position – that’s the whole point. It is not my obligation in front of the tailgater to pull aside to facilitate an easier pass, any more than it is the obligation of a cyclist in primary to move to the kerb to to do the same
As a matter of fact, I do have another question for you – which is why do you happily accept that if I’m in a car I have no obligation to facilitate lawbreakers, and indeed should “ignore them” if necessary – but if I’m on a bike then I should help them to do so even if it puts me at personal risk?
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
I wonder if perhaps you have a better standard of drivers where you live …where I am there are several places with solid white lines where it is undoubtedly crucial to take primary.
No you shouldn’t “need to” … but sometimes you do. If the line was a kerb it might be different, but since it isn’t many drivers treat it as only applicable for overtaking other cars.
And in fact, a meaningful minority will make a concerted effort to not put a wheel over it to pass, even if it means clipping your handlebar.
Literally the only thing that will give them pause is if they would have to put their own life/paintwork on the line in order to pass you.
In that context, the only plausible thing to do to keep yourself safe is to take primary
Primary also gives you room
Primary also gives you room to trend left if a car does pass too closely, and keeping out of the gutter, with all it’s debris, is also a good idea.
Nothing I say here though excuses that idiot driver, and as a “professional driver” they should be held to a high standard.
Taxis are the worst.
Taxis are the worst.
It’s not about “policing” the
It’s not about “policing” the road. Riding in primary doesn’t give you powers of arrest.
Road positioning takes the choice away from the driver in certain situations, such as when there is oncoming traffic. Sure, a driver could still be an idiot, but in this case it would mean either ploughing into the cyclist or into the oncoming car and so is vanishingly unlikely. So I completely disagree that “no amount of road positioning can stop an idiot from being an idiot.”
I’ve found riding primary
I’ve found riding primary into upcoming blind bends certainly seems to discourage drivers from overtaking as they would have no choice but to cross onto the other side of the road wheras some would try to squeeze past keeping to our side of the road if riding nearer the curb.
added: motorists are a lot more cautious about colliding with other motorists than they are with cyclists. How many times have you committed to ride down the centre of a road with parked cars either side for someone try to squeeze through from the opposite way. It very rarely happens if it’s motorist on motorist. Subconsciously, not damaging their car is of higher priority than injuring other road users but I’m presuming/hoping that changes for most people who have actually being in a collision with a vulnerable road user.
Nobody is asking the rider to
Nobody is asking the rider to police the road, but for their own safety they should ride in a position appropriate to the conditions, in the clip above they are riding “in the gutter” and thus “inviting” a close pass, even in secondary position they would have been sufficiently far from the kerb to discourage this pass and would have had more space for emergency manoeuvering and in primary position they would have been controlling the lane to prevent the dangerous close pass. https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/road-positioning-cycling-explained
Backladder wrote:
so we agree riding in primary wasnt needed? Yes the cyclist was pretty slow and pretty far to the left, however that’s his choice and we should not excuse dangerous, frightening poor driving like that because the cyclist lacks confidence and is a bit slow. It is incumbent on the driver’s to pass safely whether overtaking a fast roadie, an old granny or a child all will be able and confident to ride in different ways. It’s not hard, just drive round them. Trying to suggest riding in primary in that situation is madness, secondary would have done. It’s just another way to take blame away from those actually at fault.
I think we all agree that the
I think we all agree that the drivers are very much the ones at fault – everyone in these comments seems to think that the Police should be taking action against the taxi driver; no-one has said the cyclist has committed any offences.
I also think we all agree that it would be lovely if we lived in some utopia where we could expect all drivers to drive safely at all times, and therefore cyclists would not suffer close passes whatever their road position happened to be.
However, that utopia is not reality. The reality is that drivers are varying degrees of fallible and imperfect. It is also clear that a cyclist’s road position does effect how other road users interact with the cyclist. So, until such a time that all drivers are perfect (or maybe we have got rid of drivers and travel everywhere on flying pigs), I think it is reasonable to suggest that cyclists take sensible measures to improve their own safety, including moving further away from the kerb to discourage close passes. I don’t think that is victim blaming nor detracting from the fault of the drivers; it’s just pragmatic advice. The Highway Code explicitly advises cyclists to ride “at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge” – which is essentially all we are advising too.
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
No we don’t agree, personally I would take primary, even if only for a short period although I can understand why some riders might not want to appear to be weaving around on the road.
I think appropriate to the
I think appropriate to the conditions is spot on, because it doesn’t mean you must ride in prime just because.
There are some really sketch roads with solid no overtaking lines that drivers have died in crashes on let alone cyclists, that I’ll ride in a way that’s about ensuring I’m not inviting passes, but I’m not blocking either.
Riding in primary wouldn’t
Riding in primary wouldn’t stop a motorist crossing the white line to overtake: arguably, it would encourage them to cross the white line giving plenty of space (as is stated in law).
What it would do, is discourage or stop them illegally overtaking *without crossing the white line*.
It is up to the cyclist to
It is up to the cyclist to ride according to the HWC and in this sense, is policing the road for non-motorised users.
This is needed because there isn’t any policing on the roads until after the RTI, unless it involves a car chase drama.
It isn’t about policing the
It isn’t about policing the roads, it is about reducing the likely hood of a dangerous overtake, in this case the taxi driver choose not to expose themselves to danger bu crossing the white line, however the didn’t give a shit about the riders safety.
If the rider had been in primary the taxi driver would have most likely slowed and waited as they didn’t want to endanger themself nor were they likely to deliberatly drive into the rider (the homicdal lunatics are actually really rare). The selfish driver only took that option because it was available to them, the rider need to remove the option and thus manage the situation better
Look at the still Pict at the
Look at the still Picture at the top of this article, had the driver been in secondary, roughly in line with the left most part of the lighter bit of tarmac, the taxi would have either hit the cyclist or the oncoming car or held back…who knows which. He wouldn’t need and I would argue, shouldn’t be in primary, roughly the right most but of the lighter area. The car should not have crossed the white line, should not have overtaken into on coming traffic and should not have close passed the cyclist irrespective of any of this. In addition if you look at the still pic at the point of overtake the solid line has become broken, should the cyclist have stayed in primary simply due to an oncoming car? Parroting back some rubbish about the cyclist should have been in primary is both patently rubbish and just reinforcing the pro car culture where blame is always shifted away from the motor vehicle drivers. You all talk about the lack of enforcement by the police which is obviously an issue highlighted by this case and 240 000 others each week but this isn’t helped by cyclists criticising other cyclists and suggesting the should do x,y or z to prevent these issues.
Indeed the highway code rule 72 does not mention primary.
Rule 72
Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.
1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations
on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
in slower-moving traffic – when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you
2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.
It also doesn’t mention pulling out to prevent overtakes over solid white lines
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
The key is in your text, allowing them to overtake when it is safe to do so, it was not possible to execute a safe overtake here
EK Spinner wrote:
The key is in your text, allowing them to overtake when it is safe to do so, it was not possible to execute a safe overtake here— anagallis_arvensis
It was, two cars did so, the solid line was ending, the road fairly straight the view clear. Are you seriously suggesting cyclists should alter road position depending on if a car is approaching. This vacuous arguement you are making could be made about almost every close pass. It’s just victim blaming tripe.
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
Actually, I do (sometimes), and I can’t believe I’m the only one.
If someone is behind me and I can see a queue of oncoming traffic, if the road is clearly not wide enough then I will ease out to my right to make sure that the person behind me doesn’t try to >>squeeze<< through between me and those oncoming vehicles.
It’s the same principle as if you approach a pinch point.
brooksby wrote:
I do this too: https://youtu.be/Yd5qBwVkxro
Some drivers can get a bit upset about it, but it’s far better than being close passed at speed.
What you dive from secondary
What you dive from secondary into the kerb when someone Beebs at you…I am not sure you understand what primary is
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
Watch it again, I was already in primary as they approached. They beeped as I blocked the close pass, then beeped again as they swerved towards me when passing. As I was in primary, I was able to move left and away from them, plus the speed was much lower.
It’s about as much control as you can get in that situation, using road position to reduce vehicle speed and create an escape route.
If you can be bothered to watch the following dull 4 mins of footage (evidential, it was reported), you’ll see me move between secondary and primary when there’s a potential conflict between an overtaking vehicle and an oncoming vehicle.
HoarseMann wrote:
Watch it again, I was already in primary as they approached. They beeped as I blocked the close pass, then beeped again as they swerved towards me when passing. As I was in primary, I was able to move left and away from them, plus the speed was much lower.
It’s about as much control as you can get in that situation, using road position to reduce vehicle speed and create an escape route.
If you can be bothered to watch the following dull 4 mins of footage (evidential, it was reported), you’ll see me move between secondary and primary when there’s a potential conflict between an overtaking vehicle and an oncoming vehicle.— anagallis_arvensis
I’ve watched it, at no timer were you in primary, you moved out to secondary and then dived back to the kerb asap. It’s clear now why we disagree given what you consider primary and what I consider primary.
You’re certainly not the only
You’re certainly not the only one, I always do it…we’re actually making driving easier for them as it is taking the decision making out of their hands. I’ve never had any negative comebacks from it….yet.
You always ride in primary if
You always ride in primary if a car is oncoming in the other lane? Really. I ride a lot with a lot of people and have never seen this!
Not really the same as this
Not really the same as this case is it, no line of oncoming traffic and the taxi is approaching from behind not waiting behind, what you describe is very different from this case
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
But ‘ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible’ IS ‘ride in primary’. AIUI, anyway.
Centre of your lane is
Centre of your lane is secondary plus a bit imo. Primary is towards the right of the lane I reckon.
That’s not how it’s commonly
That’s not how it’s commonly understood. Primary is usually used to describe centre of your lane. Secondary is somewhere to the left of there (but away from the kerb). Right of centre might be used when positioning for a right turn.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/road-positioning-cycling-explained
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
Cyclists shouldn’t have to take up primary whenever a car is oncoming, but in my experience, if you are confident enough, you definately should do.
At the very least, you should be following the highway code advice to keep a minimum of 0.5m away from the kerb.
I think we disagree in what
I think we disagree in what primary is tbh, primary is to the right of the centre of the lane imo, that’s what I was taught on advanced motorcycle training.
I’ll leave it here as I think we kind of agree but are arguing on crossed purposes. I agree the cyclist was too close to kerb just not that he should have been in primary, secondary would have done.
Or, as quiff stated earlier:
Or, as quiff stated earlier:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/road-positioning-cycling-explained
That’s all well and good but
That’s all well and good but in now point during the video are you in the centre of the lane
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
I know, cos I wasn’t in the video 😉
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
I was as-near-as-dammit in the middle of the lane. Front camera is mounted slightly to the left, but the rear camera is on the seat post, right in the middle:
Half expecting an eventual
Half expecting an eventual response on twitter from drivers about how the cyclist should be closer to the kerb (despite 1/3 the handle bar being over the kerb – i.e. they should be easily 1m further out… (note – while riding further out may be best practice, it IS NOT a defence for the driver; IMHO if anything it is an aggravating factor – drivers should be expecting the rider to correct this and so allowing for a safety margin after they do!))
Bluntly put van behind was too close and should be getting a warning. Taxi should be getting prosecuted >:(
Bro needs to be in primary
Bro needs to be in primary position.
Complaint to the taxi
Complaint to the taxi licensing authority?
Complaint to the taxi
Complaint to the taxi licensing authority?
This inevitably results in a claim that they’re taking it seriously ‘but we’re not going to tell you what we did about it’. That means they did nothing. Pseudo-punishment without ‘points’ is worthless.