A concerned taxi driver’s association rep has warned cabbies of cyclists’ “sneaky” cameras costing professional drivers fines and penalty points.
Speaking to TAXI Newspaper, a publication of the Licensed Taxi Driver’s Association (LTDA), LTDA executive Lloyd Baldwin urged drivers to avoid being “tempted to pick up your mobile phone”, not because of the danger a distraction could cause other road users, but because of those pesky cyclists with their helmet cameras.
Telling the tale of one member who received a fixed penalty notice for six points and a £200 fine, Baldwin explained how the driver requested a copy of the video footage which he then forwarded on to the LTDA.
> Here’s what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
“He didn’t remember any such incident and had not been approached by a police officer,” Baldwin explained. “I advised that it was probably a report from a cyclist or possibly a member of the public and suggested that he contacted the police explaining that he didn’t know of any incident and to ask them to email him the evidence against him.
“I told him to relay to the police that he didn’t want to plead not guilty, then attend court only for the police to produce evidence which showed him making an error he was unaware of. The police agreed and sent him a video.
“The member emailed the video to me. What I watched showed just how sneaky these cyclists can be.”
Explaining what happened, the LTDA rep says the cyclist struck up a conversation with the driver so he could get footage of his law-breaking.
“Picture the scene. Our member is sitting in Sloane Street traffic, northbound at the lights with Knightsbridge,” Baldwin continued. “A cyclist drives past and has a look through his driver’s window. The cyclist saw that the cabbie had his phone in his hand. The cyclist carried on, but then reversed back and started a conversation with the cabbie about how a car had stopped in the cycle box.
“Obviously, the cabbie showed no interest and gave him a look of ‘so what?’. Little did he realise, the reason for the conversation was so the cyclist could film the member up close and report him to the police.
“Of course, the cabbie was unknowingly guilty and will have to face the consequences, but it goes to show you can never be too careful. I may sound like a broken record and friends of mine suggest I write about something else (they are happy to tell me how boring I am), but I know what damage these six points can do to a cabbie.
“So please be careful. In my experience, 90 per cent of reports made to the police are from cyclists.”
Reports to police of law breaking and dangerous driving on Britain’s roads are on the rise, with a 25 per cent increase in video submissions reported in the first three months after last year’s Highway Code changes.
Regular readers of this website will no doubt be familiar with CyclingMikey, one of the cyclists regularly reporting drivers using their phones behind the wheel, and who also uploads videos like the one below to his YouTube channel.
Last week an Edinburgh cyclist, driven off social media by abuse from trolls, said he would not give up on reporting dangerous motorists he captures on his helmet camera.
Speaking to road.cc, Edinburgh-based cyclist Deacon Thurston argued that the “societal acceptance” of anti-cycling attitudes – strikingly evident in the recent campaign against him, which saw one Twitter user invite others to join him on a “hit-and-run” – is a key barrier to coaxing people out of their cars and towards more sustainable modes of transport.
Thurston began regularly reporting and posting videos of law-breaking drivers on Twitter and YouTube just over a year ago, after being involved in an altercation with a motorist that the police couldn’t pursue due to a lack of evidence and witnesses.
“Two days later I became GoPro’s newest customer and I’ve recorded every ride since,” he told us.
“I report as much of the bad and dangerous driving to the police as I can possibly manage, the rest has tended to find its way onto Twitter and YouTube to raise awareness of just how widespread this behaviour is.”
64 thoughts on “Taxi association warns drivers of “sneaky” cyclists with cameras catching law-breaking behaviour”
Unknowingly guilty.
Unknowingly guilty.
Otherwise law abiding highly trained professional driver unaware of decades old law…
How’s a cabbie supposed to
How’s a cabbie supposed to know when someone wants them without a phone? How on earth would they know where to go – do you expect them to memorise all the streets in a city?
Besides they’re highly trained professionals who know the rules of the road like the back of their phone so they have the skill to use a phone while driving.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This comes across as because they are a professional driver they are above the law. If I was a solicitor, I wouldn’t get far with that defence in court!
I other words, they use their
I other words, they use their phone so frequently, how are they supposed to know which offence the police are talking about?
Unknowingly would be, I don’t know, parked at the side of the road, believing the engine was switched off when the auto-start cut in, but even then, a professional driver would know that a mistake had been made and correct it, rather than carry on.
This is a variation of “It’s not fair, how was I supposed to know there was a speed camera there, those warning signs are there whether there is one or not. I’d have to spend all my time checking my speedo if I knew there were speed cameras around and that can cause accidents!!!!”
IanMSpencer wrote:
Actually, no, an engine that has stopped turning (eg due to auto stop/start, or an electric or hybrid car at standstill) does not excuse phone use. The ignition (or whatever they call it for non-ICE motors) must be off.
Actually, that’s what I’ve
Actually, that’s what I’ve written – believing the engine was switched off only to discover it was auto-stopped is about the only plausible scenario I can come up with to be genuinely unwittingly breaking the law through an oversight. It’s easy enough to do, especially if you are dealing with a customer.
Sriracha wrote:
Big friendly button?
In Australia, the road rule only states you must be parked to use a mobile phone in a motor vehicle; there is no prohibition regarding the engine being on; many people legally park with the engine on, to keep certain vehicle functions operating, such as air conditioning.
‘Using a hand-held mobile phone is also illegal when your vehicle is stationary but not parked e.g. when you’re stopped at traffic lights.’
I get this… it’s like
I get this… it’s like speeding isn’t it? The law states that travelling at 34mph in a 30 zone is speeding, and travelling at 50mph in a 30mph zone are both speeding.
Many motorists will regularly decide that 34mph is worth the risk, whilst I’m sure that very few will be willing to take a punt at driving at 50mph in a 30 zone.
Problem as I see it is that the punishment for momentarily looking at your screen whilst in a traffic queue is the same as writing text messages or taking a call at 75mph on a motorway.
Personally if someone looks at their screen whilst stationary, I don’t care. It’s doing absolutely no harm, as long as they stay aware of what’s happening in front and pop the phone down as soon as the traffic starts moving. I appreciate however that the human condition dictates that people can’t be trusted to do that.
Is there an argument for scaling punishments for phone use in the same way as speeding? Would this help negate the ‘I was just…’ argument/ justification.
It’s an addiction.
It’s an addiction.
Those on their fix at 75mph are using while in traffic.
And those only abusing when stationary, don’t stop getting high when the traffic moves along a bit.
It’s been shown that it takes
It’s been shown that it takes a motorist 2/3 seconds to fully refocus from looking at a screen while stationary and then moving off. I’ve repeatedly witnessed phone users dropping their phone then jumping lights in a panic. Or nearly shunting the car in front as they close the WhatsApp Gap.
“I advised that it was
Love the distinction
So the recommendation is to
So the recommendation is to watch out for the sneaky cyclists rather than STOP DRIVING WHILST USING A PHONE!
Quote:
Well, gosh – I’m glad that they have their priorities in order…
“Of course, the cabbie was
“Of course, the cabbie was unknowingly guilty”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
*big intake of breath*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!
Sorry, I was laughing so much I forgot what my point was.
Bonk!
Bonk!
Punchline – a witch laughing her head off?
That was the line that got me
That was the line that got me – seriously, fuck off. There’s not a cabbie out there who doesn’t know it’s illegal…
Staggering self-justification
Staggering self-justification and victim-blaming. Bloody cyclists, always breaking the law themselves but just because I made a perfectly innocent phone call which is illegal and threatens their lives the snotty bastards reported me!
If the warning has the effect of preventing drivers making phone calls, then good. If it has the effect of making drivers even more hostile to cyclists, not so good.
It sounds very much like the LTDA rep has been caught and fined themselves.
Hahaha. Glad to see that that
Hahaha. Glad to see that that the LTDA have mastered the art of satire.
As a footnote he could have
As a footnote he could have added “unless you’re driving in Scotland. As Police Scotland have made it clear they are not interested in prosecuting this sort of behaviour to protect vulnerable road users. ”
I commend this excellent
I commend this excellent initiative from the LTDA.
Reminding their members about regulations they may think are trivial, the possible consequences to their livelihoods and the ability of the Police to prosecute based on video footage submitted by members of the public. All wrapped up in a “Don’t be a victim” messaging style rather than antagonising their members with a Nanny State dictat about how they must follow rules.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Hear, hear. It’s sad to say, but it’s possibly the only way they could successfully get a ‘put your phones down’ message without their audience refusing to read past the first couple of sentences.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Personally, I’d rather that the message was put out by the traffic police. When taxi drivers hear about various of their colleagues losing their jobs and livelihoods because they can’t keep to the rules, then they’ll soon comply. Not that the LTDA issuing warnings is a bad thing, but ultimately, it’s for the police to enforce the rules if traffic fatalities are to be reduced.
It’s the wording of the
It’s the wording of the delivery, ‘sneaky cyclists’, why would someone pipe up and say ‘smile, I’m recording you’ risking injury from the irate phone user, that could result in a close pass or an altercation. The reports are not taxi specific, it is anyone using a phone whilst behind the wheel of a vehicle. Dry your eyes princesses, if you don’t like having your collar felt, don’t do it.
it is anyone using a phone
it is anyone using a phone whilst behind the wheel of a vehicle
Not In Lancashire it isn’t!- no response or action from Lancashire Constabulary to these blatant cases of handheld phone use while driving
https://upride.cc/incident/yh66utp_audia1_handheldmobile/
https://upride.cc/incident/kd10wer_porsche_mobilephone/
By emphasising the role of
By the LTDA emphasising the role of some cyclists with this police action, it does seem to engender a generalised hatred of cyclists by some non cycling drivers..
Good. Warn them. Every single
Good. Warn them. Every single one of them. Let them know there are people who won’t stand for their law breaking behaviour. If you don’t like it. DONT BREAK THE F**KING LAW!!
Are they also warning of
Are they also warning of sneaky motorists with dashcams too?
I was driving a car yesterday
I was driving a car yesterday – the first time in about a month. As I approached this junction, I noticed a huge BMW thing hurtle to a stop with the driver yabbering in her phone. She then came in behind me. And for the next couple of miles of mid morning, fairly traffic free roads she was behind me chatting on her phone. We went through road narrowings, junctions and even a refuse lorry with men in the road loading bins – and she never once put her phone down. I thought, every day I am out on my bike and this is what goes on behind me but I don’t see it as I don’t have a mirror and am busy looking ahead, only looking behind before making a manoeuvre. So please, carry on sending footage to the police. I used to do it but the Police never did anything about it. Maybe I should start again.
It amazes me that there are
It amazes me that there are so many people who seem incapable of living without permanently nattering on a phone. You see it in cars, people walking in the street. They talk for hours, and when you catch snippets it is usually banal nonsense.
I doubt I spend more than 5 minutes a month on the phone when out of the house, and not a lot more when at home.
My employer removed CB radios
My employer removed CB radios from their employee vehicles which had been fitted and used for decades, because the ubiquitous nature of mobile phone use allowed managers to contact employees by phone; I keep my phone switched off while driving, which annoys the crap out of my manager..
Why would anyone who was
Why would anyone who was using a black cab put up with their driver acting illegally?
Frankly if it was me (it won’t be. I would rather walk than get a taxi anywhere), I would tell them to stop the cab and get out. I would also argue about payment and let them suggest they call the Police. That could be an interesting conversation.
Anyone who hasn’t got a handfree kit and “needs” to use the phone whilst driving in this day and age is a moron.
essexian wrote:
Anyone who hasn’t got a handfree kit and “needs” to use the phone whilst driving in this day and age is a moron.
— essexianWhile I agree completely with most of what you say, anyone who uses a hands-free phone is also a moron, as are the politicians who allow them to do so without making it illegal. The problem isn’t holding the phone, it’s the distraction caused by the call, so it doesn’t matter whether the call is hands-free or not, the danger caused remains the same.
While I can see what you are
While I can see what you are saying, you could say the same amount talking in the car, kids in the back being an pain and singing along to the radio.
Its a difficult balance. Perhaps if you have an RTC while using the phone: hands free or not, then this should count against you?
essexian wrote:
No, it isn’t the same, and all the research shows that.
I’d say that touch screen
I’d say that touch screen info-tainment systems are in a similar bracket. It’s often very distracting to make even minor changes to controls with touch screen conpared to a button or other physical control.
Yep: https://blogs.sussex.ac
Yep: https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/policy-engagement/files/2019/01/Talking-on-the-phone-while-driving-supplementary-doc.pdf
I am surprised by that.
I am surprised by that. However, if you say so then who am I to disagree.
This was just “received
This was just “received wisdom” for me – good to ask the question. Aquick Google shows there is indeed some research on this (just the top few):
The American Psychological association: Drivers Make More Errors When Talking On Cell Phone than To a Passenger
Hands-free devices as distracting as hand-held devices (Open University / University of Sussex)
Why research around distraction caused by mobile phones and devices may be resisted and what to do about it (Open university).
…and others
Talking to passengers does
Talking to passengers does not use the same part of the brain. Passengers go with the ebb and flow of traffic and road conditions so keep quiet when required.
hirsute wrote:
Meet my (non driving) mother in law..
essexian wrote:
Martin?
…… …….
(No subject)
essexian wrote:
You would be foolish to accept anything anyone says without confirmation.
eburtthebike wrote:
No, it isn’t the same, and all the research shows that.— essexian
Kids fighting in the back is likely more distracting than a hands free phone call, but obviously they will never legislate that multiple children cannot travel in a car with a single adult.
wycombewheeler wrote:
— wycombewheelerBut they have legislated that they must be strapped in so can’t really fight much.
essexian wrote:
There is extensive, peer reviewed research saying that a driver talking with vehicle occupants is not the same as when talking on the phone. Essentially, when talking with vehicle occupants, the driver will prioritise driving over the conversation when mental processing is required to deal with a situation on the road. Precisely the opposite is true when speaking on the phone while driving. There are papers on the TRL website you can see abstracts for if you want to check.
There’s been a lot of
There’s been a lot of research about the specific dangers of mobile phone use while driving, especially texting; interestingly, it’s legal to use CB and two way radios while driving, because the simplex nature of two-way radio means the brain is freed from listening to the other person’s speech (whilst driving, talking and thinking). Whether the freed attention from listening makes any significant difference can be debated. Research on divided attention suggests simplex communication is less cognitively demanding than full duplex conversation.
Although the use of two-way radios while driving is not covered by the hand-held mobile phone regulations, there are more general rules you need to be aware of.
A driver could face prosecution while using a CB radio if its use caused a distraction or affected the standard of driving.
The offence of failing to have proper control of the vehicle is long-standing and may be used to deal with incidents where the driver has been distracted by any equipment, including CB radios.
Just the fact that they feel
Just the fact that they feel the need to warn their membership speaks volumes about what proportion of cabbies are likely to play with their phones…
hutchdaddy wrote:
After. 3.5 years of daily cycle to work in London I’d say 98% of LTDA members were professional. The other 2%, not so much but still better than the average London driver. Phones a general problem, as evidenced by @CyclingMike et al. I recommend Air Horns that will cut through ICE and phone inattention. Sounding like a Truck even scares Trucks!
It must be the 2% that sound
It must be the 2% that sound like characters from The Sweeney, then.
Throwing the “you’re a nonce” bomb is desperately low stuff.
The overwhelming majority of
The overwhelming majority of drivers are fine. The few that ain’t cause upset every time they hit the streets.
hutchdaddy wrote:
this must be true because
1) we have some of the safest roads in the world
2) there is almost zero enforcement of shit driving
Therefore, the vast majority of drivers must really want to do the right thing.
So professional drivers who
So professional drivers who are supposed to have the highest standards for safety are getting upset because cyclists with headcams are proving these same professional drivers are breaking the law on a regular basis? And this is the fault of the cyclists?
OldRidgeback wrote:
Did you miss the memo? It’s always the cyclists’ fault.
eburtthebike wrote:
Well that makes a change from the.. “It wisnae me mister, a big boy did it and ran away.”
You couldn’t make this stuff up
https://twitter.com/Naughtycabbies/status/1625769883299618816
Logical explanation* is it’s
Logical explanation* is it’s a case of religious devotion. He’s just pulled over, turned the engine off of course and has pulled up a picture of a saint (I think that’s a nimbus / halo?).
* to a lawyer
Baldwin is reported as saying
Baldwin is reported as saying “I advised that it was probably a report from a cyclist or possibly a member of the public”. Since when are cyclists not members of the public? It looks like another attempt to dehumanise cyclists by the leader of a motorists association.
And yet I see a dozen
And yet I see a dozen violations of traffic laws by cyclists here in Cambridge when I venture into the city, and they all go ignored.
I see a dozen violations of
I see a dozen violations of traffic laws by cyclists here in Cambridge when I venture into the city, and they all go ignored
And I see dozens of violations traffic laws by vehicles here in Lancashire, and they all go ignored by the most idle/ bent or both police force in England. BG67 YVC was reported 5 days ago at this exact location for having no MOT, a failed MOT for ‘major braking defect’ and for being SORN-ed. It is therefore uninsured. Lancashire Constabulary has leapt into action and allocated an incident reference and done absolutely nothing else- as you can see, the offender is driving to this building site day after day
And none of them are
And none of them are operating several tonnes of metal.
If motoring offences were actually noticed then congestion would be sorted in weeks. 10% banned within a week for phone use, most within a day. And another 50% within a month, banned for speeding.
They just cannot help themselves.
And drink and drug driving.
And not forgetting the millions going because of the lack of MOT, insurance, VED or license. Then there’s numberplate cloning…
ktache wrote:
Like this one – 31 year old Laurie Coleman, from Harrogate,738mcg of benzolecgonine per litre of blood, that’s 14 times the limit for the main metabolite of cocaine. Also 2.3mcg of Delta 9 THC per litre.
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2023/02/15/drugged-up-driver-was-14-times-the-limit-in-newtown/
He copped a 23 month ban. Pitiful.
“the cabbie was unknowingly guilty”
Lloyd Baldwin should instead be telling cab drivers: “You are supposed to be professionals. Set an example – stay off your phone while operating powerful machinery or you deserve to get nicked”.