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.”

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-790-taxi-driver-makes-punishment-pass-293877

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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,
> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-790-taxi-driver-makes-punishment-pass-293877

Whatever has ‘Tom’ got to grumble about?

He got Police! Action! Camera!

The taxi driver kissed his ass

She was probably dismissed from the job

She’s probably learned a valuable lesson

WTF is he still moaning about it?

Why are cyclists always playing judge and jury, getting it wrong, and then
complaining?

Too much self-entitlement?

--
Spike

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.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I’m sure M’lud will be aware that judges are not allowed to guess the
intent of legislation, but have to go with what it actually says.

--
Spike

Let's be clear - the taxi driver didn't leave her job because of this footage. She's perfectly at liberty to drive due to the fact she didn't get an endorsement for committing a motoring offence, let alone be disqualified.

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.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's be clear - the taxi driver didn't leave her job because of this
> footage. She's perfectly at liberty to drive due to the fact she didn't
> get an endorsement for committing a motoring offence, let alone be disqualified.

And you know this how?

> 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.

This is the same police you enthuse over when they do something you like?

--
Spike

Secret_squirrel | 2401 posts | 21 hours ago
6 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 from TVP that they were going to take this sort of thing seriously.
Shame on you TVP.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Secret_squirrel | 2401 posts | 21 hours ago
> 6 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 from TVP that they were going to
> take this sort of thing seriously.
> Shame on you TVP.

Yes, they ought to ban cyclists from riding into known danger spots.

🙄

--
Spike

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.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Whatever are you blathering about?

🤔

--
Spike

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 (link is external) 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!

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 (link is external) 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!

Whatever are you blathering about?

🤔

--
Spike

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.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

That reminds me…

What web site is it that we can upload videos of poor or illegal cycling
to?

--
Spike

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.

swldx...@gmail.com [HRH Prince Del Boy] 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)

It might be, or not.

It depends on whether it needs to be.

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

What has it to do with "Ashley Neil"?

Causing a motor vehicle to wait within the zig-zag markers on the
approach side is an offence, punishable by a fine and an endorsement.
That the offence exists is the very reason why the zig-zag road markings
were introduced.

It makes no difference what this or what "expert" has to say about it.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> 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.
<shock><horror >

Something Must Be Done

🙄

--
Spike

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 (link is external)

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.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 (link is external)

> 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.

What?

You mean like…well…actual evidence?

Well I never.

🙄

--
Spike

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 regulation.

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/HJ62MXY-IllegalPlate-21Jun22.jpg

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 regulation.

> https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/HJ62MXY-IllegalPlate-21Jun22.jpg

Almost as good as cyclists having no identifying marks at all.

--
Spike

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 (link is external) 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 (link is external)).

Although it might take quite a few years before people decide to stick to "their" side why can't we just build it sensibly (link is external)? (A: because it is nowhere seen as a priority, or even a need because few pedestrians and no-one cycles etc.).