Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 790 updated: Cyclist gets ANOTHER close pass from same taxi the day after punishment pass

UPDATE: Driver has "since left" job as taxi driver — Thames Valley Police send out warning letter...

Update 10/09/2022: road.cc reader Tom got back in touch having heard a response from Thames Valley Police regarding this double close pass from the same driver. The force told him:

For your information we have identified the taxi driver, a female. She had already seen the headcam footage online. She has since left that job.

She has not previously come to our attention and a warning letter has therefore been sent. I have spoken with her and given her advice regarding the minimum distance of 1.5 metres. She has been made aware that should a similar complaint be made against her the matter would be dealt with by way of a course or court. She apologises for any stress caused to you.

Tom was left disappointed by the decision, telling us: "Not even a driver education course which is disappointing as I've had a lot of close passes around the same time span as this one and Thames Valley Police have been sending these drivers on courses." 

He added it is "even more galling" when he suspects one of the passes was a punishment pass.

A road.cc reader on the receiving end of a suspected punishment pass from a taxi driver that we featured in our Near Miss of the Day series last week got in touch to tell us that the very next day he got another close pass from the very same vehicle.

Tom, the road.cc reader who sent in both clips – the later of the two appears above, with the incident happening at around 2 minutes 15 seconds into the video – told us that he reported the first one to the taxi firm concerned, who told him: 

Thank you all noted this has been forwarded to driver and our transport manager. Our fleet is allowed to use bus lanes appreciate safe distance should be kept by all road users and this will be addressed by us.

It looks as though that message to their drivers on safe passing distance needs to be further reinforced.

Tom also reported the original footage to Thames Valley Police, but another road.cc reader emailed us with a suggestion of another course of action that would be open to him – namely to to “report it to the council taxi licencing officer – they have the power to revoke their taxi or private hire licence.”

Here's our original article, published on Friday.

We’re heading into Oxford along the A40 for today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day feature in which the cyclist strongly suspects he was on the receiving end of a ‘punishment pass’ from a taxi driver who made a very close overtake on him as he was riding in the bus lane.

Tom, the road.cc reader who sent us the clip – the close pass itself is at around 55 seconds into the video – told us: “The following pass happened on 20th June, cycling into Oxford/Headington along the A40.

“There's a shared path to the left away from the road but at this time in the morning it's families walking to school, as I'm going along at around 20/22mph I prefer to continue along the roadway.

“In this instance I'm in the bus lane which is also for bicycle and taxi use. Here you can see a very close pass from a taxi driver who also blares their horn as they go.

“This makes me think it's a punishment pass, why I'm unsure. I assume it's because they think I shouldn't be in the bus lane, which is odd as there's a repeating blue sign for the bus lane with a picture of a bus, bicycle, and taxi in it.

“I've reported to the police already and raised a complaint with the taxi company (clearly visible on the side of the vehicle) and had the following response:

Thank you all noted this has been forwarded to driver and our transport manager. Our fleet is allowed to use bus lanes appreciate safe distance should be kept by all road users and this will be addressed by us.

“Maddening,” said Tom, who added: “I reported this to the police as soon as I got back on the 20th.”

> 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 [at] 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

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

55 comments

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... | 1 year ago
4 likes

Definition of fascism
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality
— J. W. Aldridge

I'd say the useful contributors to this site fall under the less authoritarian line, and the the contributions that I would generally describe as sad-ass trolling from your mama's basement fall under a line that supports an authoritative rule of law.

Long live the wide ranging freedom of two wheels that allows you to cock a smok at authority

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 1 year ago
3 likes

Even fascists don't agree what fascism is. Engelbert Dollfuss (fascist leader of Austria until 1934) & Mussolini both believed Hitler wasn't a fascist, just a totalitarian. Interestingly Mussolini initially supported Dollfuss against Germany as they were both worried about the nazis and Hitler later killed one and saved the other (temporarily).

Avatar
Roulereo replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 1 year ago
1 like

You don't have to go far to find modern day examples of real Facism in the Left and their "Progressive" governments... 

Over-reaching laws, rules and censorship, removal of anything which doesn't fit your party line as "Disinformation", a love for utalitarian uniforms (or masks), crushing of opposing views (no debate, just cancel culture), suppression of protest, severe economic regimentation in the name of Greenwashing, etc.

The idea that you somehow "cock a smok" in freedom while spending 99% of your time blindly following and spouting the authority's line, is laughable. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Roulereo | 1 year ago
2 likes

Do ever post anything in cycling?

Who is the 'authority'?
Have I stumbled into a Philip Pullman world ?

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
8 likes

Let's also not lose sight of the fact this is Oxford - scene of 2 deaths this year and now with a broken promise form TVP that they were going to take this sort of thing seriously. 
 

Shame on you TVP

Avatar
chrisonabike | 1 year ago
3 likes

So many of these are similar. A "cycle facility" - yet it's actually a sign. Quite understandably pedestrians want what little safe space there is too. "Have it both ways" - you can cycle on the road, even in your own space - only shared with buses and taxis! Where many (including "professional drivers") feel you shouldn't be and take it upon themselves to "educate" the cyclist. So choose: safety or convenience.

All that's missing is a reference to entitlement - ideally delivered by someone who drives in a way that is neither careful nor considerate.

Avatar
ktache | 1 year ago
4 likes

Ah, the smooth bit at the pedestrian crossing half way through. Bliss.

She may no longer be a taxi driver, but presumably she will still be driving.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to ktache | 1 year ago
6 likes

So if I commit a driving offence, just change jobs and they let you off?! Uh? Is that a new one?

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Sriracha | 1 year ago
0 likes
Sriracha wrote:

So if I commit a driving offence, just change jobs and they let you off?! Uh? Is that a new one?

It's very common in the police. Do something bad and face no action by resigning.

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
4 likes

These super-vibration videos from odd cycle-mounted positions are a waste of time- it gives the police too many excuses to do nothing. It's also a waste of time reporting offenders to employers or licensing authorities- they simply dispose of the case with 'we take this seriously and will take the appropriate action but we won't tell you what it was'. That means that they did nothing. The only worthwhile action is points and fines. A possible retort to me could be: But you report with technically perfect vibration free videos and still nothing happens to the offenders, but that's due to LIMP: Lancashire Indolence Mode of Policing. This is an non-existent plate HJ62 MXY on a Porsche often parked 50 yards from the police station in Garstang. The police do nothing about it, DVLA does nothing about it- it's a great way to avoid tiresome traffic regulations

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
8 likes

Fine bit of illegal parking behind the zig-zag at the pedestrian crossing too. My pet hate, happens all the time round here, usually delivery drivers and builders, most of whom seem genuinely baffled that they have been accused of breaking the law. I had a cross the road shouting match with someone who parked up and then reversed onto the zig-zag area to save 10 metres of walking for one small package. He was most insistent that I was breaking the law by photographing his misdemeanour and unconvinced by my knowledge of motoring law. Still, it pissed him off and took up more than the 20 seconds he lost by his crappy reversing technique.

Avatar
Hamster replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
0 likes

Unfortunately the footway adjacent to crossing zig-zags is not covered by the zig-zags. (Source ranty-highwayman when I was on Twitter some years ago)

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to Hamster | 1 year ago
1 like

Hamster wrote:

Unfortunately the footway adjacent to crossing zig-zags is not covered by the zig-zags. (Source ranty-highwayman when I was on Twitter some years ago)

I've seen Ashley Neil call parking on the pavement by zigzags illegal before. Same with parking on the pavement near double yellows.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to Jenova20 | 1 year ago
2 likes

I think technically Hamster is right - the regulation regarding zig-zags applies to the "carriageway" while the regulation regarding double yellows applies to the whole "road".

Zig-zags: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/27/made

Yellows: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made (see diag 1018.1) 

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to OnYerBike | 1 year ago
5 likes

Yes, I have to agree that Mr Loophole would win that one, another poorly drafted law where the writers have failed to conceive of the many and varied ways motorists seek to abuse the priviledge of their licensed activity. Clearly, a car so parked obstructs the view of people waiting to cross so it must be considered the sort of activity that should have been within the intent of the law.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
7 likes

There is an argument that all pavement parking is already illegal (except where expressly permitted) by virtue of the fact that it is illegal to drive onto the pavement. http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/footway_parking_legality.html 

Exactly why those bits of legislation are routinely ignored is unclear - the prevailing argument appears to be that it is impossible to secure a conviction without someone actually witnessing the vehicle being driven onto the pavement. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to OnYerBike | 1 year ago
2 likes

Correct.  In practice decriminalised, devolved to local authorities who may or may not do much, even if they could spare the resources.  Alas it really isn't a way of making the motorist a cash cow. Government guidance suggests "The primary purpose of penalty charges is to encourage compliance with parking restrictions. In pursuit of this, enforcement authorities should adopt the lowest charge level consistent with a high level of public acceptability and compliance."

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to OnYerBike | 1 year ago
0 likes

OnYerBike wrote:

I think technically Hamster is right - the regulation regarding zig-zags applies to the "carriageway" while the regulation regarding double yellows applies to the whole "road".

Zig-zags: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/27/made

Yellows: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made (see diag 1018.1) 

I must be misremembering the exact circumstances of that incident then, and rewatching is difficult because i don't know which video it's from. Thanks for the links laugh

Avatar
Bobbylala | 1 year ago
5 likes

I don't understand why this cyclists doesn't use the well-maintained bike lanes which are on either side of the road of this section of the A40. I work in Oxford and commute daily by bike and know this section of road well. It's simply dangerous and unnecessary to cycle on the dual carriageway (whether in the bus lane or not). It is also unnecessarily dangerous to use the 'doughnut' roundabout at the Headington intersect as there is an underpass for cyclists. Oxford's population has one of the highest proportion of cyclists in the UK, and I have never seen a cyclist use this section of the bus lane or cross the roundabout in the 12 years I have been working here. Presumably, this is because the majority of cyclists are sensible enough not to.    

Stating that because you cycle at 22mph (do you have to, at all times?) and the cycleway is a shared path that is busy at that time of day is not a reasonable excuse. It just shows you are not prepared to slow your journey time down for pedestrians, but you fully expect other commuters in cars and buses to have their journey slowed down for you. I use a shared path for most of my cycle into work, and just accept the fact that at times I will have to slow down for pedestrians.  

I'm not excusing the taxi driver's actions btw. They were aggressive and reckless. And I am aware that cycling in the bus lane is not illegal. However, an action not being illegal does not equate to it being sensible - a point which is unfortunately lost on too many cyclists.    

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Bobbylala | 1 year ago
9 likes

Thanks for the local knowledge.  In the most recent video though I'm not seeing any cycling infra - indeed there barely seems to be a path (e.g. over bridge at the beginning).

I'd be unlikely to take to most dual carriageways - probably here too.  However I'm also motivated to avoid concentrations of people.  Mostly for "making progress" but many people seem spooked by cyclists.  Dogs and children are unpredictable.

The real issue is (I'm assuming - without local knowledge) we've taken most of the road space, allocated it for motor vehicles then tacked on some paths.  Then "signed them into cycle paths".  (Planners!  Stop mixing pedestrians and cyclists - it can "work" and it's safe but it's not pleasant for either).  Or alternatively installed new roads (a bypass?) without thinking about whether this would be a useful route for non-drivers.

At least there's the (historic, presumably) grade-separated roundabout.  Is it easy to access though or more "get the non-motorists out of the way"?

Just as many normal people in cars get frustrated waiting behind cyclists, or horse riders, or tractors, not all cyclists want to repeatedly slow down to 5-8 mph.  Or stop frequently.  Or get on and off their bikes.  Cyclists - unlike drivers - have to expend actual energy as well as mental energy stop-starting.  Riding on roads they're only endangering themselves. Unlike the impatient / aggressive taxi driver...

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Bobbylala | 1 year ago
12 likes

The second clip is not on a dual carriageway and other drivers show it is perfectly possible to pass wide and safe.

I'd guess that the driver didn't recognise the rider so more a habitual deliberate close pass.

Avatar
Karlt replied to Bobbylala | 1 year ago
17 likes

Some false equivalences here. A mile stretch of road you can do at 20mph takes three minutes. Slowed to an average around 10mph at best on a shared path that stretch will take six minutes. Repeat that process several times over a ten mile commute and you start to make a big difference to that commute's feasibility.

Does not really compare with motorists being slowed for a few seconds, generally only to arrive at the back of the same queue slightly later, at which point they actually lose no time at all.

Avatar
Bobbylala replied to Karlt | 1 year ago
1 like

That is not a particularly convincing argument: how likely is it that on a shared path you will encounter a mile stretch of solid pedestrians, which is the assumption you have based your initial calculation on? This would then have to happen several times (even more unlikely) over a ten-mile commute to reach the 'big difference' you think it would make. I think all you have proved is my initial point that too many cyclists are unprepared to slow down their journey under any circumstances, but fully expect others to do so for them.  

Also, choosing to cycle in the bus lane over a perfectly viable adjacent cycle path (as demonstrated in the video) will mostly lead to slowing down buses (in this case the Thornhill Park and Ride bus), which in turn means you are slowing down multiple passengers, who have chosen a far more sustainable and cleaner form of transport than driving.     

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Bobbylala | 1 year ago
0 likes

Bobbylala wrote:

Also, choosing to cycle in the bus lane over a perfectly viable adjacent cycle path (as demonstrated in the video) will mostly lead to slowing down buses (in this case the Thornhill Park and Ride bus), which in turn means you are slowing down multiple passengers, who have chosen a far more sustainable and cleaner form of transport than driving.     

To be pedantic - if it's a park and ride bus they've chosen a somewhat more efficient form of transport for part of their journey.  Yes, many of these serve as "normal" buses for part of the route too.  The main point with park and ride for me is saving a ton of congestion / city driving / city centre parking.  That's a good enough justification on its own for me without getting into how much cleaner or "sustainable"* the bus is.

Unfortunately the equilibrium at the moment is often between public transport for short journeys and bike / scooter etc. rather than bike and car.  Looking at NL it seems a way round this is to encourage multi-modal transport e.g. bike + train etc.  Could even be car (to park and ride) + rental bike.

It's difficult to shift people from cars full stop though - "go anywhere, any time, with no effort in your own private space, carrying several others if needed".

* Bus transport should be more energy efficient per passenger than cars - although much less so than rail.  It's quite variable depending on how full the services run on average.  "Sustainable" - another buzzword which sometimes signals no thought or frank greenwashing.  Sustainable diesel buses!  Sustainable electric cars powered by coal-or-gas-fired power station produced sustainable electricity!  Frequently usage of this appears to mean - charitably - "out of sight, out of mind".

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Bobbylala | 1 year ago
4 likes

Bobbylala wrote:

Also, choosing to cycle in the bus lane over a perfectly viable adjacent cycle path (as demonstrated in the video) will mostly lead to slowing down buses (in this case the Thornhill Park and Ride bus), which in turn means you are slowing down multiple passengers, who have chosen a far more sustainable and cleaner form of transport than driving.     

...for part of their journey...

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Bobbylala | 1 year ago
6 likes

The A40 at the point where the incident occurred is 30mph limit (50mph preceding) and there's a bus lane the whole way. The blue bus lane signs include taxis and a cycle icon. It should be perfectly safe for a cyclist to use this route. The cyclist did not hold anyone up, there was plenty of road space for everyone.

Yes, there's a decent cycle lane running alongside, segregated from pededstrians, which is a rarity. But I can understand if there are groups of people walking all over it, then the bus lane is the better option.

As for using underpasses, they are not always the safer option and usually a lot slower. I once did a comparison riding the 9 mile journey into town, one using the most direct roads, the other using cycle paths and underpasses wherever possible. The road route took me 28mins, the mixed route took 42mins!

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
2 likes

Actually seeing separation from pedestrians on the cycle path - that's an amazing (for the UK) design!  I mean compared with e.g. NL it's 3rd class but I can see it was marked (only at the start, now faded...), it's not as narrow as most.  A bus stop bypass.  The pedestrians are in the bushes though.

So in terms of the parts of the design they've got the right idea there.  However if you check the end you're right back sharing with pedestrians.

Sometimes we *do* do it right, but only where it's easy.  Which is a start I guess...

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like

Yep, where it's easy. Cars do it right when it's easy (most of the time). It's just many drivers' heads explode at the mental effort of adjusting their approach around a cyclist.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
2 likes

Underpasses - UK ones tend to be ... grimy and sometimes hard to navigate.  Grade separation can be an excellent solution though, especially if motor traffic has to change height.  Or more so than cyclists / pedestrians.  If bikes have to change level going down then up is preferred.

Under: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/05/13/a-grade-separated-roundabo...

Over: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2022/01/05/a-new-cycling-viaduct-over...

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
2 likes

Going down then up only works if you can actually carry that speed into/out of the underpass. A lot of the under passes near me have 90 degree turns or blind junctions so you have to reduce speed and grind back up out of it.

and yes, quite unusual to have a wide cycle track and segregated pedestrians, only Stevenage seems to do that in any sort of quantity.

Pages

Latest Comments