Near Miss of the Day 295: “Idiot” taxi driver undertaking traffic queue close-passes cyclist at speed

ROOTminus1 wrote:

I've yet to try it, but in theory as they are a professional driver you could report them to the HSE for violations under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER). I've not checked if there are specific exemptions for road licensed motor vehicles, but I know vehicles of other description are covered by those regs. It's an angle I'd be willing to try if I fell victim to a professional driver using a company vehicle on work business.

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers. They do not have to attain a further licence. All they do is prove that they have a held a licence for a minimum of 12 months and submit themselves to disclosure to prove they are a person of good standing to receive a permit. Some councils will make them sit a test but this will be an in house affair. They also need to get a private hire vehicle licence for their car which needs to meet certain requirements. All they do is drive for a living.  You can lump all the courier companies into this category as well as they drive vehicles that do not require extra training.  A company (builders merchant) I worked for used small vans to deliver goods as it meant they didn’t need to employ drivers with HGV licenses and saved money as a result  

The H&S approach may work with the taxi company or council as they are failing to provide a safe environment for the public by allowing their drivers operate like total tools!  

If the police are going to do nothing. Complain strongly to the council. They hopefully will flag the permit and either remove it or not renew it. 

giff77 wrote:

......  Some councils will make them sit a test but this will be an in house affair. ......

The "taxi test" may indeed be mandated by the local council but it is almost invariably carried out by the DVSA, the agency that conducts the government's testing programme.  And yes, it requires a higher standard than the normal car test.  And yes, it includes manoeuvres unique to the taxi drivers' job.  And yes, candidates do fail.

There is certainly some mileage in complaining to the council about poor driving.  It is far from unknown for a driver to be stripped of his/her licence for falling below acceptable standards and that would be my first avenue of action.

Best of luck.

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

hampsoc wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

 

To be fair to taxi drivers, you do typically undergo special training to qualify for a driving license and driving safely is a particular skill.

The issue is more that 'professional' often implies a certain level of competence, whereas there's plenty of counter-examples in many other professions (e.g. cowboy builders, politicians etc).

hawkinspeter wrote:

hampsoc wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

 

To be fair to taxi drivers, you do typically undergo special training to qualify for a driving license and driving safely is a particular skill.

The issue is more that 'professional' often implies a certain level of competence, whereas there's plenty of counter-examples in many other professions (e.g. cowboy builders, politicians etc).

I was thinking of this very same thing, not that long ago.  In fact, anyone can learn to drive, since at the end of the day, it's muscle memory.   Once you've been doing it long enough, it becomes second nature.  Driving safely, however, requires the ability to think, and most important - to consider other peoples' rights, and to have on one's mind constantly, the very real possibility that one's actions could potentially kill someone, or very seriously hurt them.  

Driving safely is a function of intelligence, and I'm sorry, but there can be very few holders of joint first class honours in maths and physics, who go on to become a cabbie.

Put more succinctly: most taxi drivers are as thick as shit. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

hampsoc wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

 

To be fair to taxi drivers, you do typically undergo special training to qualify for a driving license and driving safely is a particular skill.

The issue is more that 'professional' often implies a certain level of competence, whereas there's plenty of counter-examples in many other professions (e.g. cowboy builders, politicians etc).

I was thinking of this very same thing, not that long ago.  In fact, anyone can learn to drive, since at the end of the day, it's muscle memory.   Once you've been doing it long enough, it becomes second nature.  Driving safely, however, requires the ability to think, and most important - to consider other peoples' rights, and to have on one's mind constantly, the very real possibility that one's actions could potentially kill someone, or very seriously hurt them.  

Driving safely is a function of intelligence, and I'm sorry, but there can be very few holders of joint first class honours in maths and physics, who go on to become a cabbie.

Put more succinctly: most taxi drivers are as thick as shit. 

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I've seen lots of poor taxi driving but I've also seen very careful ones as well.

Also, Fred Housego won Mastermind in 1980 which is a clear counter-example to your sweeping statement. However, taxi driving is a career that people resort to when other options aren't available so the stupid may be over-represented.

Edit: Just found Frances Arnold, a Nobel Laureate that used to drive a taxi.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

hampsoc wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

 

To be fair to taxi drivers, you do typically undergo special training to qualify for a driving license and driving safely is a particular skill.

The issue is more that 'professional' often implies a certain level of competence, whereas there's plenty of counter-examples in many other professions (e.g. cowboy builders, politicians etc).

I was thinking of this very same thing, not that long ago.  In fact, anyone can learn to drive, since at the end of the day, it's muscle memory.   Once you've been doing it long enough, it becomes second nature.  Driving safely, however, requires the ability to think, and most important - to consider other peoples' rights, and to have on one's mind constantly, the very real possibility that one's actions could potentially kill someone, or very seriously hurt them.  

Driving safely is a function of intelligence, and I'm sorry, but there can be very few holders of joint first class honours in maths and physics, who go on to become a cabbie.

Put more succinctly: most taxi drivers are as thick as shit. 

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I've seen lots of poor taxi driving but I've also seen very careful ones as well.

Also, Fred Housego won Mastermind in 1980 which is a clear counter-example to your sweeping statement. However, taxi driving is a career that people resort to when other options aren't available so the stupid may be over-represented.

Edit: Just found Frances Arnold, a Nobel Laureate that used to drive a taxi.

You must be living in a different place.  I live in London - for another three days anyway - and the only 'safe' taxi drivers I've seen, are the ones whose colossal idiocy is taken into account by other road users, who keep out of their way.  They are a lethal menace, whose utter disregard for the safety of others is made worse by their belligerent, mouthy belief that their pursuit of money is more important than other people's lives and comfort.

But of course, there as exceptions, as you quite rightly point out.  Those exceptions just constitute an infinitesimally small percentage of the global 'swarm' of the cockroaches that they are.

Clever people can be selfish.  Take those two doctors whom 'Cycling Mikey' stopped from driving on the wrong side of the road.  Take Lord Winston.  But those two doctors weren't endangering anyone, really.  They were breaking the law and being twats, but no one was placed in imminent danger of death.  But every single time I have almost been killed by some thick f**k on the roads and have bothered to remonstrate, the response has always been gobby abuse, delivered in a SE London accent with a command of vocabulary that would embarrass an eight year old.  

In response to 'fluffykitten' - it's entirely possible that I have 'issues' with people of low intelligence.  But I can tolerate a lack of brains.  I can tolerate malice.  What I can't abide is when stupid people are nasty.  And that's basically the British taxi driver.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

You must be living in a different place.  I live in London - for another three days anyway - and the only 'safe' taxi drivers I've seen, are the ones whose colossal idiocy is taken into account by other road users, who keep out of their way.  They are a lethal menace, whose utter disregard for the safety of others is made worse by their belligerent, mouthy belief that their pursuit of money is more important than other people's lives and comfort.

But of course, there as exceptions, as you quite rightly point out.  Those exceptions just constitute an infinitesimally small percentage of the global 'swarm' of the cockroaches that they are.

Clever people can be selfish.  Take those two doctors whom 'Cycling Mikey' stopped from driving on the wrong side of the road.  Take Lord Winston.  But those two doctors weren't endangering anyone, really.  They were breaking the law and being twats, but no one was placed in imminent danger of death.  But every single time I have almost been killed by some thick f**k on the roads and have bothered to remonstrate, the response has always been gobby abuse, delivered in a SE London accent with a command of vocabulary that would embarrass an eight year old.  

In response to 'fluffykitten' - it's entirely possible that I have 'issues' with people of low intelligence.  But I can tolerate a lack of brains.  I can tolerate malice.  What I can't abide is when stupid people are nasty.  And that's basically the British taxi driver.

Yeah - Bristol for me.

I'm wondering if you're falling victim to selection bias with regards to taxi drivers as I've seen poor driving by all sorts of other drivers too.

It's been very rare that remonstrating to drivers has had a positive effect, so these days I let the camera do the recording and the police do the talking.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

hampsoc wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

 

To be fair to taxi drivers, you do typically undergo special training to qualify for a driving license and driving safely is a particular skill.

The issue is more that 'professional' often implies a certain level of competence, whereas there's plenty of counter-examples in many other professions (e.g. cowboy builders, politicians etc).

I was thinking of this very same thing, not that long ago.  In fact, anyone can learn to drive, since at the end of the day, it's muscle memory.   Once you've been doing it long enough, it becomes second nature.  Driving safely, however, requires the ability to think, and most important - to consider other peoples' rights, and to have on one's mind constantly, the very real possibility that one's actions could potentially kill someone, or very seriously hurt them.  

Driving safely is a function of intelligence, and I'm sorry, but there can be very few holders of joint first class honours in maths and physics, who go on to become a cabbie.

Put more succinctly: most taxi drivers are as thick as shit. 

Nah - it's not about being 'thick'.  I'd be really cautious about calling any group 'thick', in fact I'm not entirely sure about calling any individual 'thick'.  Much of the time what looks like 'stupidity' is deliberate and is employed because it benefits the person being 'stupid'.  People are often just as clever as they are incentivised to be.

Taxi drivers are often stressed, in a hurry, and sometimes (I suspect) full of a resentment that makes them less-than-concientious about the well-being of other road-users.  Can't help noticing that the last spree-killer the UK produced was a taxi-driver.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

hampsoc wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Taxi drivers are in no way professional drivers.

can you explain why you think this to be the case. Which occupations do you regard as professional drivers?

Not wanting to answer for someone else, but this always irritates me when a group of drivers somehow infer they are 'professional' simply beacuse they happen to get paid for driving.

profession (noun): any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.

In summary, I would consider occupations where people who have to undergo weeks of specialist training by qualified instructors.  i.e. not taxi drivers.    I might include HGV drivers though. 

 

To be fair to taxi drivers, you do typically undergo special training to qualify for a driving license and driving safely is a particular skill.

The issue is more that 'professional' often implies a certain level of competence, whereas there's plenty of counter-examples in many other professions (e.g. cowboy builders, politicians etc).

I was thinking of this very same thing, not that long ago.  In fact, anyone can learn to drive, since at the end of the day, it's muscle memory.   Once you've been doing it long enough, it becomes second nature.  Driving safely, however, requires the ability to think, and most important - to consider other peoples' rights, and to have on one's mind constantly, the very real possibility that one's actions could potentially kill someone, or very seriously hurt them.  

Driving safely is a function of intelligence, and I'm sorry, but there can be very few holders of joint first class honours in maths and physics, who go on to become a cabbie.

Put more succinctly: most taxi drivers are as thick as shit. 

 

Nah - it's not about being 'thick'.  I'd be really cautious about calling any group 'thick', in fact I'm not entirely sure about calling any individual 'thick'.  Much of the time what looks like 'stupidity' is deliberate and is employed because it benefits the person being 'stupid'.  People are often just as clever as they are incentivised to be.

 

Taxi drivers are often stressed, in a hurry, and sometimes (I suspect) full of a resentment that makes them less-than-concientious about the well-being of other road-users.  Can't help noticing that the last spree-killer the UK produced was a taxi-driver.

 

 

'Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation… (Carlo M. Cipolla)

ROOTminus1 wrote:

I've yet to try it, but in theory as they are a professional driver you could report them to the HSE for violations under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER). I've not checked if there are specific exemptions for road licensed motor vehicles, but I know vehicles of other description are covered by those regs. It's an angle I'd be willing to try if I fell victim to a professional driver using a company vehicle on work business.

I worked for the HSE for 10 yrs (left a few years back) and was often asked these sort of questions but unfortunately PUWER would unlikely to be relevant in these circumstances, largely because the incident occured on the public highway and so Road traffic legislation would be a more appropriate avenue to investigate and consider a prosecution and the HSE have no enforcement power relating to Road Traffic Legislation.

  As you may be aware in any potential prosecution the likeleyhood of sucess has to be considered and very rarely (if at all)  has legislation related to 'The Health and safety at work act 1974' been applied in these circumstances.

Even though all all work activities taking place on the public highway theoretically fall to the HSE's enforcement, only in very rare occasions would it be appropriate to take over the lead from the Police.

Road traffic incidents arising from the movement of a vehicle on the road are only potentialy investigated by the HSE when someone was actually injured and where either the injured person was engaged in, or a person was injured as a result of:

exposure to a substance being conveyed by a vehicle;

vehicle loading and unloading activities but not picking up or dropping off passengers;

construction, demolition, alteration, repair or maintenance activities on or alongside public roads; and

an accident involving a train.

The work vehicle (taxi) in this case was not involved in any work activity other than travelling and so the Police are the lead agency and have the final say.

People do not realise that the HSE's hands are tied in many circumstances as the appropriate 'Enforcing Authority' ie the HSE, the Police, the Local Authority can only investigate where legislation dictates they are allowed to. 

In some circumstances the Police may ask the HSE for expert assistance in an investigation, but even then, usually on the public highway the Police are in charge.

Hope this helps

yupiteru wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

**snip**

I worked for the HSE for 10 yrs (left a few years back) and was often asked these sort of questions but unfortunately PUWER would unlikely to be relevant in these circumstances, largely because the incident occured on the public highway and so Road traffic legislation would be a more appropriate avenue to investigate and consider a prosecution and the HSE have no enforcement power relating to Road Traffic Legislation.

  As you may be aware in any potential prosecution the likeleyhood of sucess has to be considered and very rarely (if at all)  has legislation related to 'The Health and safety at work act 1974' been applied in these circumstances.

Even though all all work activities taking place on the public highway theoretically fall to the HSE's enforcement, only in very rare occasions would it be appropriate to take over the lead from the Police.

Road traffic incidents arising from the movement of a vehicle on the road are only potentialy investigated by the HSE when someone was actually injured and where either the injured person was engaged in, or a person was injured as a result of:

exposure to a substance being conveyed by a vehicle;

vehicle loading and unloading activities but not picking up or dropping off passengers;

construction, demolition, alteration, repair or maintenance activities on or alongside public roads; and

an accident involving a train.

The work vehicle (taxi) in this case was not involved in any work activity other than travelling and so the Police are the lead agency and have the final say.

People do not realise that the HSE's hands are tied in many circumstances as the appropriate 'Enforcing Authority' ie the HSE, the Police, the Local Authority can only investigate where legislation dictates they are allowed to. 

In some circumstances the Police may ask the HSE for expert assistance in an investigation, but even then, usually on the public highway the Police are in charge.

Hope this helps

Sadly, it explains it perfectly.

It's so frustrating that in situations where there is a potential overlap of legislation, the agency with with the poorest rate for seeking convictions takes the priority. It says something that I more faith in any of the RSPCA/HSE/ONR/EA to seek justice in their jurisdictions than certain regional Police forces.

Maybe if the Highways Agency were to take responsibility for upholding the Road Traffic Act, and given the respective powers, we'd have an even national approach to it's enforcement, not the regional lottery we currently have. This is the only circumstance where I wish the rest of the country was more like Birmingham.