Taxi driver who lied about hit-and-run crash with cyclist gets stripped of licence after victim sends council headcam footage (+ video)

RobD wrote:

The willingness of drivers to just drive off after incidents like this is pretty scary. A few years ago I was hit from behind by a woman who just slowed slightly and then drove off after I'd been sent flying. When I drive I couldn't imagine not stopping if something like this happened, I just don't get the mindset of people to not want to see if the person they've obviously injured is ok.

Because you're not a driver.  Sure, you obviously have a car, and a driving licence.  But you're not 'a driver'.  You're not 'a motorist'. 

The deep, pervasive sickness in the British, is most easily seen in the sociopathic disregard for others' rights, that is an everyday - almost routine - occurrence on the country's roads.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

RobD wrote:

The willingness of drivers to just drive off after incidents like this is pretty scary. A few years ago I was hit from behind by a woman who just slowed slightly and then drove off after I'd been sent flying. When I drive I couldn't imagine not stopping if something like this happened, I just don't get the mindset of people to not want to see if the person they've obviously injured is ok.

Because you're not a driver.  Sure, you obviously have a car, and a driving licence.  But you're not 'a driver'.  You're not 'a motorist'. 

The deep, pervasive sickness in the British, is most easily seen in the sociopathic disregard for others' rights, that is an everyday - almost routine - occurrence on the country's roads.  

I'm not sure if I can agree with you on that.  I spend a lot of time on here saying how if you are riding a bike then you're a cyclist (none of that PoB/'Real Cyclists' rubbish...).  So, maybe you're a good motorist, maybe you're a bad motorist, maybe you're a sociopathic motorist, but if you are driving a car then you are a motorist.  At that point in time. 

brooksby wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

RobD wrote:

The willingness of drivers to just drive off after incidents like this is pretty scary. A few years ago I was hit from behind by a woman who just slowed slightly and then drove off after I'd been sent flying. When I drive I couldn't imagine not stopping if something like this happened, I just don't get the mindset of people to not want to see if the person they've obviously injured is ok.

Because you're not a driver.  Sure, you obviously have a car, and a driving licence.  But you're not 'a driver'.  You're not 'a motorist'. 

The deep, pervasive sickness in the British, is most easily seen in the sociopathic disregard for others' rights, that is an everyday - almost routine - occurrence on the country's roads.  

I'm not sure if I can agree with you on that.  I spend a lot of time on here saying how if you are riding a bike then you're a cyclist (none of that PoB/'Real Cyclists' rubbish...).  So, maybe you're a good motorist, maybe you're a bad motorist, maybe you're a sociopathic motorist, but if you are driving a car then you are a motorist.  At that point in time. 

Well, that's fair enough.  But I have to say that I agree with the 'Real Cyclists' thing.   Pick up an MTB on Gumtree and use it for the two-mile stint to work to save money (or if you're one of the tiny minority actually banned for being a c**t on the road), and you're not a cyclist. 

We have a car.  I can see it from where I'm sitting writing these words, since I took the day off to look after a poorly wife.   I drive it when I have to.  When I do, I am carrying out the act of 'driving' but I am not 'a driver'.  

At least, IMHO.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm not sure if I can agree with you on that.  I spend a lot of time on here saying how if you are riding a bike then you're a cyclist (none of that PoB/'Real Cyclists' rubbish...).  So, maybe you're a good motorist, maybe you're a bad motorist, maybe you're a sociopathic motorist, but if you are driving a car then you are a motorist.  At that point in time. 

Well, that's fair enough.  But I have to say that I agree with the 'Real Cyclists' thing.   Pick up an MTB on Gumtree and use it for the two-mile stint to work to save money (or if you're one of the tiny minority actually banned for being a c**t on the road), and you're not a cyclist. 

What is your definition of a 'Real Cyclist', then, if it's not someone who uses a bicycle for a 'two-mile stint' to get to work?  Aren't people using a bike for short journeys supposed to be encouraged?  Exactly how far does a commuter have to commute before they're counted as a 'Real Cyclist'? 

brooksby wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm not sure if I can agree with you on that.  I spend a lot of time on here saying how if you are riding a bike then you're a cyclist (none of that PoB/'Real Cyclists' rubbish...).  So, maybe you're a good motorist, maybe you're a bad motorist, maybe you're a sociopathic motorist, but if you are driving a car then you are a motorist.  At that point in time. 

Well, that's fair enough.  But I have to say that I agree with the 'Real Cyclists' thing.   Pick up an MTB on Gumtree and use it for the two-mile stint to work to save money (or if you're one of the tiny minority actually banned for being a c**t on the road), and you're not a cyclist. 

What is your definition of a 'Real Cyclist', then, if it's not someone who uses a bicycle for a 'two-mile stint' to get to work?  Aren't people using a bike for short journeys supposed to be encouraged?  Exactly how far does a commuter have to commute before they're counted as a 'Real Cyclist'? 

I'm not claiming to have the monopoly on wisdom, here.   Yes, I know - unusual for me.  

I think that to be 'a cyclist', the bicycle has to be more than just a means of locomotion from A to B.  The journey has to be - at least some of the time - more than simply utilitarian.  

That's why I am not 'a driver'.  When I 'drive', it is to get me from here to wherever I'm going.  It's not 'fun' (especially not surrounded by rabid London drivers, mostly white males under the age of 40, with T-shirt stretched over muscular arms and a tattoo snaking up the side of their neck).   

Perhaps another definition might be to consider someone 'a cyclist' if he spends money on his bicycle for reasons other than 'utilitarianism'.  So someone who buys a new inner tube - nope.  Someone who coughs up a hundred and fifty quid for a Brooks Cambium?  Yep.  By the same token, take your car in for its MOT, that doesn't make you a 'driver'.  Buy a new stereo, new wheels or anything designed to 'personalise' the fucking obscene waste of resources that cars are .. and you're 'a driver'.

I dunno, man.  It's a work in progress.  

RobD wrote:

The willingness of drivers to just drive off after incidents like this is pretty scary. A few years ago I was hit from behind by a woman who just slowed slightly and then drove off after I'd been sent flying. When I drive I couldn't imagine not stopping if something like this happened, I just don't get the mindset of people to not want to see if the person they've obviously injured is ok.

In 2016 some 145,000 uninsured vehicles were taken off the road. Source: Motor Insurer's Bureau. That's only the ones that got stopped. Given the massive cost of insurance for young people it is not surprising that there is a temptation when the economics of driving just don't work out, to take the chance. Then there are a considerable number of hardcore bastards who will happily drive without a license and by default no insurance. Add in those who suspect they may be over the limit, are aware of their sub standard eyesight but don't want to give up driving or have some other issue that they don't want to have to explain to a magistrate and you have a fair percentage of vehicles moving about on our road system which are unlikely to stop in the event of a minor shunt* and they have a clear chance to get away, e.g leaving a cyclist in a ditch on a quiet country lane.

Those people are not only more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision, but have a clear incentive not to hang around and give their details. Even if the driver is insured, licenced and the car correctly taxed, there is still a clear financial advantage to scarper and avoid a massive premium hike at renewal. For far too many people the penalty resulting from being caught is less than the cost of doing things right.

This is why I feel compelled to use a camera. I have a run in, close pass or other 'event' once or twice a year. I reckon I'm pretty good at seeing them coming and avoid confrontations, but the camera is always on.

*Minor shunt for the car, possibly major injury to a pedestrian or cyclist.

Mungecrundle wrote:

RobD wrote:

The willingness of drivers to just drive off after incidents like this is pretty scary. A few years ago I was hit from behind by a woman who just slowed slightly and then drove off after I'd been sent flying. When I drive I couldn't imagine not stopping if something like this happened, I just don't get the mindset of people to not want to see if the person they've obviously injured is ok.

In 2016 some 145,000 uninsured vehicles were taken off the road. Source: Motor Insurer's Bureau. That's only the ones that got stopped. Given the massive cost of insurance for young people it is not surprising that there is a temptation when the economics of driving just don't work out, to take the chance. Then there are a considerable number of hardcore bastards who will happily drive without a license and by default no insurance.

As long as you continue to see the British driver as 'ordinary' and like drivers in other countries, then your confusion will continue.  Sure, we're not flavour of the month in other countries, either.  But I have lived in four countries ('live' being 'more than two years) and cycled in probably thirty.  Nowhere are we despised the way we are in Britain.  Nowhere I have seen is it 'open season' on cyclists, with the courts, the police, the prosecuting authority and Parliamant collaborating to ensure that very, very few people who kill us, ever see the inside of a court room. 

Half a century of being told none-too-subtly that cyclists are subhuman vermin, means that when a driver hits a cyclist and drives off - and is subsequently caught - he is not feigning surprise.  He genuinely cannot understand why he has been stopped when all he did was to hit a cyclist.   His sense of injustice is as real as would be yours, if you were arrested for crunching a beetle underfoot.  

'What??' you would cry.  'FFS, it was only a beetle!'

You have to make that leap to understanding that to the majority of British drivers, we are not human.  We are of no more worth than a piece of earth that gets clogged in the tread in your shoes.  

There were frantic efforts to convince the world that Emma Way was 'an aberration'.  She wasn't.  She was entirely 'normal'.  And her views were shared by the vast majority of British drivers. 

In some ways, contempt or disregard for members of an out group is a common human trait.  Just look at the way vegans are described in the right-wing press (and by those who comment on articles in this section of the media).  But cyclists are a special case.  In no other country in the world and towards no other minority group, have I seen the vicious, hysterical, teeth-baring hatred with which we are regarded by a large percentage of the British population.    

It's often said - if I may paraphrase - that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats its most vulnerable members.  As probably the second most vulnerable group of road users after pedestrians, the spittle-flecked witch hunt waged by the dominant culture in this country against cyclists, speaks volumes about what Britain is and what it represents in 2019.  

hampsoc wrote:

Never understood why 'professional' and 'taxi driver' appear in the same sentance.  As far as I know, there is no formal roadcraft type training undertaken.  Professional HGV driver etc would be different of course.

Maybe because they are paid to drive, which makes them, by default, professionals.. It's their profession.

TedBarnes wrote:

The Council's response seems, for a change, appropriate, but what about the Police?

I also strongly suspect that this will not in any way prevent the same person applying for a taxi driver's license from another council, especially as they have not been named. 

I would imagine that the police have submitted a report to the CPS and are waiting confirmation of charges being made.  I think various councils ask if you have been refused a license to operate in the past as well as if you have points etc on your actual license. It doesn’t bode well for the fella whoever he is. 

giff77 wrote:

TedBarnes wrote:

The Council's response seems, for a change, appropriate, but what about the Police?

I also strongly suspect that this will not in any way prevent the same person applying for a taxi driver's license from another council, especially as they have not been named. 

I think various councils ask if you have been refused a license to operate in the past as well as if you have points etc on your actual license. It doesn’t bode well for the fella whoever he is. 

Do they ask, or do they perform any sort of actual check?!

ChrisB200SX wrote:

giff77 wrote:

TedBarnes wrote:

The Council's response seems, for a change, appropriate, but what about the Police?

I also strongly suspect that this will not in any way prevent the same person applying for a taxi driver's license from another council, especially as they have not been named. 

I think various councils ask if you have been refused a license to operate in the past as well as if you have points etc on your actual license. It doesn’t bode well for the fella whoever he is. 

Do they ask, or do they perform any sort of actual check?!

have just checked my own authorities website and part of the application procedure asks if you have been refused or been suspended from holding a licence and to provide details. Also asks for driving offences as well as any criminal offences. I would assume that all other authorities are the same. What I would like to see is that taxi drivers private or hackney actually sit a test as well and even sit a psyc test. 

giff77 wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

giff77 wrote:

TedBarnes wrote:

The Council's response seems, for a change, appropriate, but what about the Police?

I also strongly suspect that this will not in any way prevent the same person applying for a taxi driver's license from another council, especially as they have not been named. 

I think various councils ask if you have been refused a license to operate in the past as well as if you have points etc on your actual license. It doesn’t bode well for the fella whoever he is. 

Do they ask, or do they perform any sort of actual check?!

have just checked my own authorities website and part of the application procedure asks if you have been refused or been suspended from holding a licence and to provide details. Also asks for driving offences as well as any criminal offences. I would assume that all other authorities are the same. What I would like to see is that taxi drivers private or hackney actually sit a test as well and even sit a psyc test. 

What worries me is the fact that they ask on the form.
Why are they asking? If they are performing appropriate checks and they need to know these things then they wouldn't need to ask.
It's possible, but seems unlikely, that they are asking on the form to try and catch out the liars... but that's redundant, because presumably if you have been refused/suspended, etc., then you would be denied regardless of telling the truth or not?

ChrisB200SX wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

giff77 wrote:

TedBarnes wrote:

The Council's response seems, for a change, appropriate, but what about the Police?

I also strongly suspect that this will not in any way prevent the same person applying for a taxi driver's license from another council, especially as they have not been named. 

I think various councils ask if you have been refused a license to operate in the past as well as if you have points etc on your actual license. It doesn’t bode well for the fella whoever he is. 

Do they ask, or do they perform any sort of actual check?!

have just checked my own authorities website and part of the application procedure asks if you have been refused or been suspended from holding a licence and to provide details. Also asks for driving offences as well as any criminal offences. I would assume that all other authorities are the same. What I would like to see is that taxi drivers private or hackney actually sit a test as well and even sit a psyc test. 

What worries me is the fact that they ask on the form.
Why are they asking? If they are performing appropriate checks and they need to know these things then they wouldn't need to ask.
It's possible, but seems unlikely, that they are asking on the form to try and catch out the liars... but that's redundant, because presumably if you have been refused/suspended, etc., then you would be denied regardless of telling the truth or not?

How long did it take for the authorities to finally cotton on to that Glasgow bin lorry driver?

I seem to recall that he just kept ticking the box marked "Nothing to see here: move along" until he actually killed some people and it all caught up with him...