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@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
55 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 790 updated: Cyclist gets ANOTHER close pass from same taxi the day after punishment pass”
And then they turned off
And then they turned off making no real progress.
I feel dizzy watching that !
Yes, definitely needs some
Yes, definitely needs some padding on the camera holder or a camera with built in dampening.
From my experience of
From my experience of Oxfordshire roads, that is likely to be after padding and image stabilisation.
I was going to say much the
I was going to say much the same thing, although the particular bit of road in question seems like pristine tarmac by Ox standards. Also the video keeps wobbling even when at a standstill at the roundabout – not quite sure how that works.
Lots of traffic in the other
Lots of traffic in the other lanes which is why he needed to use the bus lane so urgently. I reckon he is applying for a job in london and needed something on his CV so the LTDA accept him.
45 degrees and wobbly video.
45 degrees and wobbly video. I hope this doesn’t overtake “vertical video” as the new trend on social media.
Literally unwatchable?
Not sure this is a taxi. The
Not sure this is a taxi. The vehicle doesn’t appear on the list of registered taxis in Oxford, plus one of the vehicles at their depot has “Private Ambulance” written down the side of it!
On a bit of an aside.
On a bit of an aside. Brighton and Hove Police are outshining themselves with their victim blaming. Edit – [This wasn’t me/my partner involved – just something I found on twitter]
“We are appealing for witnesses after a serious collision between a cyclist and a stationary car on Eastern Road, #Brighton, around 10am on June 14. Anyone with information or relevant CCTV, doorbell or dashcam footage is asked to report online or call 101 quoting 1201 of 20/06.”
However there was a witness “The cyclist was my other half. I was just behind him. A black 4×4 ahead ooh slowed to turn into Chesham place when the passenger decided to jump out. He had no time to slow. Severe chest injuries needing operation. DUTCH REACH folks.”
I’m not sure but the appeal being put out by Brighton and Hove Police really makes it sound like ‘a cyclist wasn’t paying attention and crashed into a poor defenseless car’. Why did they not simply omit the word ‘stationary’ from their appeal to make it less victim blamey
Best wishes to your partner
Best wishes to your partner for a swift and full recovery.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I wasn’t the witness and my partner wasn’t involved. It was just something I came across on twitter this morning…. Maybe I should have made that clearer
Drop the coding [ quote ] [
Drop the coding [ quote ] [ /quote ] (without the spaces in the square brackets) at the start and end of the pieces you are quoting which can help distinguish.
There’s no way that absolute
There’s no way that absolute meat sack isn’t fully aware of what he’s doing.
I don’t understand why this
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.
Thanks for the local
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…
The second clip is not on a
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.
Some false equivalences here.
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.
That is not a particularly
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.
Bobbylala wrote:
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”.
Bobbylala wrote:
…for part of their journey…
The A40 at the point where
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!
Actually seeing separation
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…
Yep, where it’s easy. Cars do
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.
Underpasses – UK ones tend to
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-roundabout-in-rosmalen/
Over: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2022/01/05/a-new-cycling-viaduct-over-an-also-new-turbo-roundabout/
Going down then up only works
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.
True. I was of course
True. I was of course assuming “not the UK” where our talent to sabotage anything for pedestrians or cyclists makes you think “malevolent” rather than “incompetent or ignorant” sometimes. A more charitable explanation is just “motoring first and foremost, then – if we remember – anything else right at the end / bottom of the list”.
Stevenage (and Milton Keynes to a lesser degree) are interesting data points for this. “They built it and they didn’t come” is the cry. As a detailed analysis points to though they built a whole new town making driving very easy. This attracted people who were going to drive, at a time when this was a great aspiration.
Where driving and cycling are (almost) as convenient as each other, people drive. (Milton Keynes cycling infra still has some problems too).
Although it might take quite a few years before people decide to stick to “their” side why can’t we just build it sensibly? (A: because it is nowhere seen as a priority, or even a need because few pedestrians and no-one cycles etc.).
HoarseMann wrote:
Worth noting that the quality of the lane on the other side (going into town?) is much worse.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
The cycle path is bi-directional and the rider came from that side anyway, so it would be a reasonable alternative if not busy with pedestrians.
Bobbylala wrote:
There’s an underpass. ‘For cyclists’ is dubious though. It may tolerate cyclists, but it’s not really suitable for them, particularly for any ‘non-standard’ cycles.
Fair point. I would still opt
Fair point. I would still opt for using the pedestrian crossing at the end of the cycle path, rather than cycle on the roundabout.
Cyclists should go slow so
Cyclists should go slow so cars can go fast seems an odd belief to have.
So common it’s worth
So common it’s worth examining more deeply. Not a psychologist but I think there’s an unconscious “charity but you’ll have to be humble for it” thing going on with non-motoring provision in the UK, especially for cycling. So “OK, to keep you happy we’ll provide a cycle path BUT that’s certainly not to allow you to go as fast (or faster!) than the cars”.
There’s probably a techincal term for the use of “charity” to bolster your own “top dog” status while cementing the lower status of the recipient by donating “prolefeed”. Provision potlatch?
chrisonatrike wrote:
It’s almost a form of Stockholm syndrome isn’t it, you place the other party in a position of extreme peril such that they are disproportionately grateful for any perceived kindness on your part.
Bobbylala wrote:
You’ve failed to explain why the cyclist should be the one who makes all the compromises in this situation?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Especially when current Government guidance states that cycling provision should not make cyclists compromise, especially if they want cycling infrastructure used.
I’m just finding it odd that
I’m just finding it odd that Hugh thinks I should use a different cycle lane along the same stretch of road.
I’m happy to cycle along the bus lane here as it’s a 50-30mph road, I hardly ever actually have any buses pass me here cause I’m on the road for a couple of minutes max, if there are buses it’s not cyclists holding them up, it’ll be the traffic lights at the roundabout, the multiple traffic lights going into oxford, or more likely the sheer volume of traffic. I think Hugh is disingenuous to say I’m holding all the people in buses up here.
Using this bus and cycle lane rather than the shared paths either side of the a40 here to me makes sense. I’m able to progress at a speed I want with hardly any other interaction with vehicles. If I’m on either shared path I’m usually mixing with parents with small children going to or coming back from school.
This isn’t me being impatient, I’m just choosing a route that’s better for me.
Hugh is more than welcome to use a shared path and pootle along. I don’t have to do that.
More importantly here though is that if I or any cyclist chooses to use the bus, taxi, and cycle lane here we shouldn’t have to deal with this level of shoddy, dangerous driving.
.
.
‘ an action not being illegal does not equate to it being sensible – a point which is unfortunately lost on too many cyclists. ‘
.
And lost on many of the bike-fascists on this site.
.
I’m not sure you know what
I’m not sure you know what “fascist” means, fb…
Fine bit of illegal parking
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.
Unfortunately the footway
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)
Hamster wrote:
I’ve seen Ashley Neil call parking on the pavement by zigzags illegal before. Same with parking on the pavement near double yellows.
I think technically Hamster
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)
Yes, I have to agree that Mr
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.
There is an argument that all
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.
Correct. In practice
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.”
OnYerBike wrote:
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
These super-vibration videos
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
Ah, the smooth bit at the
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.
So if I commit a driving
So if I commit a driving offence, just change jobs and they let you off?! Uh? Is that a new one?
Sriracha wrote:
It’s very common in the police. Do something bad and face no action by resigning.
So many of these are similar.
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.
Let’s also not lose sight of
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
Definition of fascism
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
Even fascists do not agree
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).
You don’t have to go far to
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.
Do ever post anything in
Do ever post anything in cycling?
Who is the ‘authority’?
Have I stumbled into a Philip Pullman world ?