# Official Close Pass Licencing response



## magnatom (30 Jan 2009)

Putting aside all the discussion about the validity about my road position before the overtake in this video, everyone, including those who disagreed with my road position thought the driver was way out of order. As well as this, no-one having looked at the video (and it has been looked at in fine detail!) has suggested that I swerved towards the vehicle. 

With this in mind, and also considering that the licencing board are supposed to investigate and come to a conclusion about any complaint made to them about a driver, have responded to me with the following...

_ *complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266* _​_ I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised. _​_ We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your letter of complaint. _​_The driver stated that while he was in the process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the space that he would normally leave for cyclists. He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then approached him, shouting and swearing. As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. _​_ Although the driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any upset caused. _​_ This concludes our investigation._

I'd be interested in your opinions on this.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Jan 2009)

Point them to the video and let them make their own minds up as to why he's lying so much.


----------



## HLaB (30 Jan 2009)

I don't think they actually watched the video, I'd ask them to watch it and rethink.


----------



## yello (30 Jan 2009)

> _ This concludes our investigation._



Either go up a level or forget it. They've stopped listening.


----------



## magnatom (30 Jan 2009)

I sent the video, so they had that. What gets me the most is that they call this an investigation. All they have done is talk to the driver and tell me what he said. They have come to no conclusions, they have ignored the evidence and have just swept it under the carpet.

Bad driving on the road annoys me. This pi$$ed me off when I read this. I certainly will be taking this further. They also completely ignored my suggestions for campaigns etc. Now I don't mind them not wanting to get involved, but they should at least acknowledge what I have written.


----------



## Bollo (30 Jan 2009)

_ *complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
*I refer to the above and we can now make you aware of the conclusions reached while flicking through a copy of Top Gear magazine.
We traced and interviewed the driver detailed in your letter and I can confirm that he pays his licence.
The driver stated that while in the process of ferrying a nun to a children's home for no charge, you attempted to urinate from your bike against the side of his cab, while hammering on the cab window with an empty bottle of Buckie. The driver, concerned for your mental and physical welfare stopped to offer first aid and counselling. __The driver stated you then approached him,turning blue and bending time and space like Dr Manhattan in the forthcoming Watchmen movie. Fearing your powers could destroy all of Glasgow he decided to drive away, as his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this.
Although the driver feels you should not be on the f**king road, he promises to get you next time.
Just f**k off, cycle-boy!_​


----------



## Joseph (30 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> _The driver stated that while he was in the process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the space that he would normally leave for cyclists._



As you can see from the video, as soon as you (allegedly) swerved into the area he acknowledged was dangerous, he immediately performed an emergency stop.


Mags, it's a bunch of ****.

PM me the the reference for your complaint, I'll write in a letter to the council chief exec.


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2009)

That's life - one side vs the other.... needs to be concrete..... the law is an ass if you are the victim... my solicitor has given all the "lows" to me despite being in the "right" - even my getting private physio (on doctors orders) may mean I don't get my cash back...

They won't do anything...at least the licensing folk have spoken to him - that's enough..... he may be more careful next time.

Private hire - don't trust them - I was well stitched up years back when I turned into a car park, and a private hire car cab reversed into me ...... I've also had friends stitched up when a private hire driver has hit them... - crooks !

I see it as at least a positive result - the driver was questioned.... he may think next time...


----------



## Crackle (30 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> _*complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266*_
> 
> _I refer to the above and we can now make you aware of the conclusions reached while flicking through a copy of Top Gear magazine._
> _We traced and interviewed the driver detailed in your letter and I can confirm that he pays his licence._
> ...


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2009)

I've just viewed this a few times in high quality - there is no way you moved off your line.

Your cam is excellent by the way.... but as said above, you'll be sided against...just poor driving that's it.......


----------



## downfader (30 Jan 2009)

Tell them having reviewed their letter you now feel that contacting the police is the only way forward. A criminal record would be the end of his job if it ends up that way. No one wants that, but they've proved incapable of dealing with the situation.

Send duplicate complaints to your mp and the council itself and tell them why. 

Lastly I would perhaps see the press as a last resort.


----------



## thomas (30 Jan 2009)

I had (which looking back) an incident which wasn't as bad as some people have had. It really annoyed me though so I told the on campus police officer (having told him about an incident before). Again he didn't take it seriously and wrote an email to me saying how the police wouldn't do anymore because I was partially responsible (I stopped when being tailgated and told the driver to give me room).

I wrote a complaint, then made it less complainey...a statement was taken by the Sargent of the station. Unfortunately, even though it's gone further up the ladder I've still not heard back. Looks like I might be popping into the station on my way home tomorrow.

I would say you should complain about their outcome and ask to speak to someone more superior. They seem to be taken an attitude of livelihood over life.


----------



## magnatom (30 Jan 2009)

Bollo,

You have a appitude for reading between the lines!


I don't want to take this to the police. I think this guy could learn his lesson without him loosing his job (although I am sure the police wouldn't do much anyway). However, during this 'investigation' it would not appear from what has been written that any action has been taken to inform the driver that this type of driving is not acceptable. So I will certainly take this further.

Joseph, thanks for the offer. I think it would be better coming from me (do you have some connection with the exec that would help?). I think I will try and contact the licencing section back to see if they will look into my 'concerns' about their investigation. If not then I will take it further, i.e. council/MP etc. 

I'll keep away from the press at the moment (although I have a couple of contacts that might be interested), as that brings its own problems. 

What worries me most is that this is the response I got with damning video evidence. What happens if you don't have this.


----------



## jezhiggins (30 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> _ Although the driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any upset caused. _​_ This concludes our investigation._



If you did want to continue, I think this is the area to work on. "Although the driver feels it was safe to pass" is exceptionally weak wording. Regardless of his feeling, your video shows him overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic. The Highway Code is clear on when and where overtaking is or isn't a good plan, and into oncoming traffic is solidly in the isn't category. So he can feel whatever he likes, but the expected standard of driving says otherwise 

If you were feeling more argy-bargy, and I think I would, you might ask them what their opinion is. You, after all, provided video evidence which shows the guy driving like arse, while he's blamed it all on you. Do they have a conclusion of their own?

Jez


----------



## BentMikey (30 Jan 2009)

I would certainly reply to that letter, and ask them to pass an additional letter on to the driver.

In that letter to the driver, you can explain his several failures of observing the highway code, how his impatience risked your life and that of the oncoming car driver, and that he would only have been waiting for you in the queue ahead anyway. I would quote the highway code at him, and explain that he's lying about you moving out as can clearly be seen on the video. I'd also mention how put his registration on youtube, searchable, and that his bad driving will remain there as an embarassment to his professional driving


----------



## Joseph (30 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Joseph, thanks for the offer. I think it would be better coming from me (do you have some connection with the exec that would help?). I think I will try and contact the licencing section back to see if they will look into my 'concerns' about their investigation. If not then I will take it further, i.e. council/MP etc.



No connection at all. (Well, not unless you count my other recent complaining; but more about that if/when it finally concludes.)

Private hire falls under land/environmental services, your next step up (if you didn't know already) is this guy:

Robert Booth BA(Hons), DMS, DPM
*Executive Director of Land and Environmental Services* 
231 George Street
GLASGOW 
G1 1RX
Phone: 0141 287 9100
E-mail: robert.booth@glasgow.gov.uk

I've experienced other people low down in environmental services and I was rather unimpressed (even before your response), so up to this guy is likely the correct next step. As you say, not worth bringing the press in at this stage.


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

Why not let it go?he knows what happened ,so do you,do you have to hound this guy ?If you followed all incidents like this you would have loads on your list to push your complaint about,and probably no time for anything else.Let it go.


----------



## barnesy (31 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> The driver stated that while he was in the process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the space that he would normally leave for cyclists.



This is just a stupid excuse. Any of us who drive aswell as cycle im sure allow cyclists plenty of room when overtaking. 
This is incase the cyclist were to swerve off their line, if i was overtaking with the right amount of room a cyclist would still never be close enough to my car to be able to touch it, even if they were swerving or wobbling.
Fact is it was stupid of him to think he could overtake there in the face of oncoming traffic and he was never allowing you any room.
Id take it further if you can, although i doubt the driver is going to learn anything


----------



## alp1950 (31 Jan 2009)

jezhiggins said:


> If you did want to continue, I think this is the area to work on. "Although the driver feels it was safe to pass" is exceptionally weak wording. Regardless of his feeling, your video shows him overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic. The Highway Code is clear on when and where overtaking is or isn't a good plan, and into oncoming traffic is solidly in the isn't category. So he can feel whatever he likes, but the expected standard of driving says otherwise
> 
> Jez




I think Jez is right here Mags. 

The problem with these cam videos is that it is very difficult to look at them & be entirely certain about road positioning and movements relative to other road users. Do I think you moved out?- no. Does the video provide incontestable evidence that you didn't?-it seems to support your position but I'm not sure that a neutral would find the video evidence absolutely clear cut. 

However as Jez points out, whether or not you moved out is largely immaterial as no matter what position you were in the driver should not have attempted to overtake if there was insufficient room. Does the video provide sufficient evidence that he acted recklessly? There was incoming traffic, but can we be certain of his position both in relation to the centre of the road and also yourself. Again I think that the video supports your position, but would it meet a legal standard of proof? I have my concerns that it would not, and in the unlikely event that this was ever tested in court I suspect your case would fail without a video shot from an external viewpoint. 

BTW are you sure that the licensing services are the best way to pursue this? Surely, they're not going to take action without some form of official censure, whether a conviction for dangerous driving or whatever. Would it not be better to take the video to the police?


----------



## marinyork (31 Jan 2009)

If you're bothered then write back. It's just them trying to fob you off with official talk. For what you've already done you'll have really pissed off the drivers boss because you made them spend time "investigating" it for a couple of minutes. They'll be extremely ticked off. If you write back to someone higher up they'll then have the heat on the back of their neck.

As for the driver, they may have been given a telling off but more from anger of their boss's time being taken up. Who knows. Complain anyway.


----------



## downfader (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Why not let it go?he knows what happened ,so do you,do you have to hound this guy ?If you followed all incidents like this you would have loads on your list to push your complaint about,and probably no time for anything else.Let it go.



Sorry col but thats airy fairy talk. If we are put at risk we should speak up. This guy who wrote back is not doing his job properly as a public servant and said taxi driver could end up costing the council/tax payer money if he ends up knocking someone over or smashing into someones car.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

downfader said:


> Sorry col but thats airy fairy talk. If we are put at risk we should speak up. This guy who wrote back is not doing his job properly as a public servant and said taxi driver could end up costing the council/tax payer money if he ends up knocking someone over or smashing into someones car.




I just think it seems that for what happened,which he was also to blame by blocking the exit and staying there,it turns into a very vindictive thing,and him saying he doesnt want this driver to lose his job but just get told off seems a red herring.What does he think might happen when he goes to such extent to get this brought to everyones attention?Because he wasnt happy that the driver wasnt disciplined in someway,he keeps pushing,and demanding for somesort of action.No,there is getting something done,and there is being vindictive.
The driver has already been contacted about this,i think that would have been a bit of a shock to him,and made him think about it,and probably be wary in future,but no thats not enough is it?What exactly do you want to happen to this driver?


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> The driver has already been contacted about this,i think that would have been a bit of a shock to him,and made him think about it,and probably be wary in future,but no thats not enough is it?What exactly do you want to happen to this driver?




Rubbish, how will he learn or be bothered to think next time, if he gets away with a) driving badly in the first place and  lying about it afterwards?


----------



## silverbow (31 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I would certainly reply to that letter, and ask them to pass an additional letter on to the driver.
> 
> In that letter to the driver, you can explain his several failures of observing the highway code, how his impatience risked your life and that of the oncoming car driver, and that he would only have been waiting for you in the queue ahead anyway. I would quote the highway code at him, and explain that he's lying about you moving out as can clearly be seen on the video. I'd also mention how put his registration on youtube, searchable, and that his bad driving will remain there as an embarassment to his professional driving



Whilst reading this remember I have no legal qualifications whatsoever. I'm just drawing on experience of successfully litigating against a very slippy individual who pulled out all the tricks in the book. I won because my lawyer was first class (and very rich, even richer with my money!).

BentMikey is right, you need to write again before you take this any further, if that is what you intend to do. Make any apologies that you need to. I.e. I didn't mean to knock the top of your car it was a reaction against you driving so close self preservation if you will - I was extremely scared, ditto for the language... State that you are not satisfied with their findings, and when you would expect a reply i.e. 14 days. Restate any actions that you expect them to undertake. 

Then send via recorded the delivery. 

The one thing I would say is your achilles heal is that the video in on youtube. If I was the driver I would say that you are prejudicing the public against me.... it's you who is the problem.... I know this is all rubbish but I was told by my lawyer that to win any dispute you play the long game - take a few cheap punches from the other party, but remember who is delivering the knock out blow!

I'd write to the company again - await the expected poor or no response and then write the council and the MP stating how you feel and why you think training is needed.

But sometimes when dealing with difficult individuals you just have to admit that there is little point in pursuing any further.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Rubbish, how will he learn or be bothered to think next time, if he gets away with a) driving badly in the first place and  lying about it afterwards?




So you think its rubbish?Ok what do you think should happen to him?


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> So you think its rubbish?Ok what do you think should happen to him?



Well, if he thinks it's ok to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic, and leaving inches to spare, I don't think he should be driving for a living.

Failing the sack, I'd like him to get some sort of official warning.

Come on, that letter basically says "Our driver says you're a liar and a thug, and we belive him, despite video evidence to the contrary". Is that fair?


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Well, if he thinks it's ok to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic, and leaving inches to spare, I don't think he should be driving for a living.
> 
> Failing the sack, I'd like him to get some sort of official warning.
> 
> Come on, that letter basically says "Our driver says you're a liar and a thug, and we belive him, despite video evidence to the contrary". Is that fair?




Its not fair,but im sure everyone lies to defend themselves in someway.So he should lose his job because of this incident?Or because he lied?


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Its not fair,but im sure everyone lies to defend themselves in someway.So he should lose his job because of this incident?Or because he lied?



He should get whatever is coming to him for the incident. But it seems he can get away with that, by lying. 

So, every crim who pleads 'not guilty' should get off should they?


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> He should get whatever is coming to him for the incident. But it seems he can get away with that, by lying.
> 
> So, every crim who pleads 'not guilty' should get off should they?




Why do you say that?


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Why do you say that?




Because if someone is arrested and charged, and pleads not guilty, there is a decent investigation of the evidence. The judge or jury don't just say "oh, well, if you say so, obviously you didn't do it". 

This guy drove badly, but because he says he didn't they aren't following it up. That's not right. Especially when there is video evidence to the contrary.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Because if someone is arrested and charged, and pleads not guilty, there is a decent investigation of the evidence. The judge or jury don't just say "oh, well, if you say so, obviously you didn't do it".
> 
> This guy drove badly, but because he says he didn't they aren't following it up. That's not right. Especially when there is video evidence to the contrary.




You asked me if every crim who pleads guilty should get off? I asked you why you say that as it seemed like you were saying thats my view?


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> You asked me if every crim who pleads guilty should get off? I asked you why you say that as it seemed like you were saying thats my view?



Col, you're not making sense. I asked you something, and when you asked me why, I explained. What's the problem? I'm not making any assumptions about your view, I'm just trying to put an example to you. You seem reluctant to answer for some reason.

Do you think it's right if someone does something wrong and then gets away with it because they say they didn't and no one bothers to check up?


----------



## classic33 (31 Jan 2009)

How about this piece. It seems it may not be a one off
http://triathlonscotland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9742&sid=ed0fc2a3021c98e6a129f85a405b946d


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Col, you're not making sense. I asked you something, and when you asked me why, I explained. What's the problem? I'm not making any assumptions about your view, I'm just trying to put an example to you. You seem reluctant to answer for some reason.
> 
> Do you think it's right if someone does something wrong and then gets away with it because they say they didn't and no one bothers to check up?




Again this seems out of character for you arch,of course i dont.


----------



## tdr1nka (31 Jan 2009)

Again I don't see that Mags was blocking an 'exit'(?) and was holding his space as conditions dictated.

Irrespective of whether the driver viewed Mags as an experienced cyclist or not he chose to overtake dangerously where it was his duty to hold back until he could overtake safely, no matter how irritating and pointless he thought Mag's road position.

A lot of drivers(especially 'professional' drivers)want cycles out of their way in the gutter or preferably off the roads altogether. It's only by bringing drivers like this to task that they might start to consider driving with a little more tolorance.

Arch, if it helps I think Col is talking in terms of crimes where no one has been hurt and no actual physical damage done.


----------



## John the Monkey (31 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> A lot of drivers(especially 'professional' drivers)want cycles out of their way in the gutter or preferably off the roads altogether. It's only by bringing drivers like this to task that they might start to consider driving with a little more tolorance.


Exactly.

If this country is serious about getting people using their bikes for getting to work, running little errands &c it's this that matters. Not fannying about with exemptions for bikes on one way streets or playing "hide the bike" with cyclepaths.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2009)

*A lot of drivers(especially 'professional' drivers)want cycles out of their way in the gutter or preferably off the roads altogether.* It's only by bringing drivers like this to task that they might start to consider driving with a little more tolerance.

They won't get their wish.


----------



## tdr1nka (31 Jan 2009)

The main thing lacking on British roads is motoristss executing patience and empathy with other road users, which sadly is the last thing that speed limits, traffic calming and cycle lanes encourage in drivers.

My mind boggles when drivers get frustrated with learners and how after anything up to 3 years on a moped and some taxi drivers forget what it was like to be on two wheels in traffic.


----------



## purplepolly (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> I just think it seems that for what happened,which he was also to blame by blocking the exit and staying there,it turns into a very vindictive thing,



overtaking cyclists at the entrances to and exits from roundabouts isn't exactly a good idea. These places have the larges concentrations of diesel and oil spillages on UK roads making them dangerous enough for cyclists (and motorcyclists - see the recent thread). Imagine what would happen if a cyclist slips at the same time as a motorist is cutting it too close.

there was a pinch point immediately ahead casued by parked cars, from this point onwards there would have not been enough room for a car and bike

So what was he supposed to do instead in between having to take primary because of a hazard and a pinch point? Slow down as much as possible and pootle along in the gutter until he has to swing out into the path of traffic when he gets to the pinch point in order to allow the car to overtake?

Fact of the matter is, a driver with the slighest residual grain of common sense whatsoever wouldn't have overtaken in that place anyway, regardless of what position was taken by the cyclist


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> overtaking cyclists at the entrances to and exits from roundabouts isn't exactly a good idea. These places have the larges concentrations of diesel and oil spillages on UK roads making them dangerous enough for cyclists (and motorcyclists - see the recent thread). Imagine what would happen if a cyclist slips at the same time as a motorist is cutting it too close.
> 
> there was a pinch point immediately ahead casued by parked cars, from this point onwards there would have not been enough room for a car and bike
> 
> ...




Your right,he would have been safely passed before the pinch point.Have you also noticed how a lot of what ifs,and in the gutter type things are mentioned in defence?I believe there are cyclists out there who dont block the road as they exit roundabuts,and give way for courtesy and safety reasons,even if it means losing a few seconds from their journey.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2009)

This is going to go on forever.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> This is going to go on forever.




Your probably right.


----------



## Joseph (31 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> Fact of the matter is, a driver with the slighest residual grain of common sense whatsoever wouldn't have overtaken in that place anyway, regardless of what position was taken by the cyclist



I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but given a slightly slow to average cyclist in secondary position in normal road conditions, that can be a good place to overtake, and one of the best on that road. (It's wide, there's no parked cars, good visibility, no pedestrians.) After that the road narrows and then there's a huge blindspot of a hill and you're in a highish foot traffic residential area.

On the icy day in the video, in the position mags was in, with oncoming traffic, it was a very dangerous move.

I definitely thinks mags needs to take it further. As others have commented, the driver may not yet appreciate that he made a mistake or that he should behave differently in the future, and the licensing authority do not appear to have done a good job of their "investigation".


----------



## tdr1nka (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Your right,he would have been safely passed before the pinch point.Have you also noticed how a lot of what ifs,and in the gutter type things are mentioned in defence?I believe there are cyclists out there who dont block the road as they exit roundabuts,and give way for courtesy and safety reasons,even if it means losing a few seconds from their journey.



But in this instance being discussed there are some very clear reasons as to why Mags was entitled to hold his position.

There are very few genuine instances(in an urban environment)where a cyclist will hold up traffic for more than a few seconds.
It sends out a very bad message if cyclists feel they should have to give way to motorists over that of their own safety.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> But in this instance being discussed there are some very clear reasons as to why Mags was entitled to hold his position.
> 
> There are very few genuine instances(in an urban environment)where a cyclist will hold up traffic for more than a few seconds.
> It sends out a very bad message if cyclists feel they should have to give way to motorists over that of their own safety.




Thats the point isnt it? He would have been safer if he let this car go earlier,instead of blocking the way and the car diving for a space that wasnt there at the worst time?


----------



## purplepolly (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Thats the point isnt it? He would have been safer if he let this car go earlier,instead of blocking the way and the car diving for a space that wasnt there at the worst time?



Have just studied the video again and at the point that the car has just passed mags, mags is at the start of the pinch point, therefore if he had taken a position more to the left, he would have had to pull to the right to avoid the parked cars at the same time as the car was passing.

Ultimately, though, the driver is repsonsible for the vehicle and his own actions, and even if he thought a cyclist was being a bit inconsiderate it doesn't excuse dangerous driving that could potentially have hospitalized someone.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> Have just studied the video again and at the point that the car has just passed mags, mags is at the start of the pinch point, therefore if he had taken a position more to the left, he would have had to pull to the right to avoid the parked cars at the same time as the car was passing.
> 
> Ultimately, though, the driver is repsonsible for the vehicle and his own actions, and even if he thought a cyclist was being a bit inconsiderate it doesn't excuse dangerous driving that could potentially have hospitalized someone.




Im not excusing anything,but a bit of forethought could save situations like this.


----------



## purplepolly (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Have you also noticed how a lot of what ifs,and in the gutter type things are mentioned in defence?I believe there are cyclists out there who dont block the road as they exit roundabuts,and give way for courtesy and safety reasons,even if it means losing a few seconds from their journey.



A lot of what if's? Yes because that's the essence of good driving - anticipating what might happen, not just what you think is going to happen. So in the roundabout scenario, it is reasonable to expect a good driver to anticipate that a cyclist or motorcyclist may skid and therefore leave adequate space, just as it it reasonable to anticipate that a child may run out onto the road. Unfortunately many drivers are just plain bad or selfish.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> A lot of what if's? Yes because that's the essence of good driving - anticipating what might happen, not just what you think is going to happen. So in the roundabout scenario, it is reasonable to expect a good driver to anticipate that a cyclist or motorcyclist may skid and therefore leave adequate space, just as it it reasonable to anticipate that a child may run out onto the road. Unfortunately many drivers are just plain bad or selfish.




Its easy to say what if,and this could/might have happened as an excuse,but doing it at the time takes common sense,which it seems is largely lacking.Most of us will read ahead as a matter of course,and also most of us i believe,dont think we are the most important thing on the roads.


----------



## tdr1nka (31 Jan 2009)

Maybe not the most important thing on the road but certainly a higher priority with regard safety.

As I see it Mag held a clear and visible position until he could see round the side of the bus by which time he was nearly upon the pinch point.

Col, you're giving the impression that the car was right behind Mags from the exit of the roundabout, which as we saw Mags check behind one can assume it wasn't.


I see untold unsafe riding everyday and this is not, IMO, an example of unsafe cycling.
It is paramount that cyclists ride as confidently and safely as they need and not to feel bullied, disregarded or put in danger by other traffic


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Arch, if it helps I think Col is talking in terms of crimes where no one has been hurt and no actual physical damage done.



Not really, I'm talking about a general principle. Col appeared to think the guy would have learned a lesson, and shouldn't be pursued further. I suggested that nothing that had happened would have given him any incentive to change his ways, and that he shouldn't get off just because he claimed he'd done nothing wrong. I used the crimes thing as an analogy and col seemed to have a problem seeing my point.

The question about 'do you think someone should get off just because they plead not guilty' was meant to be virtually rhetorical - his failure to answer and defensiveness suddenly made it look like I doubted his morals, which I don't.


----------



## tdr1nka (31 Jan 2009)

Fair point.
If it's any help I agree with you entirely.


----------



## magnatom (31 Jan 2009)

Thanks everyone, well almost eveyone!

My plan as has been suggested is to play it fairly cool. Write back to the Licencing board, and point out that they have not provided a conclusion, a course of action, did the driver drive to the standards expected of them etc. I will ask them to provide me with this information within 14 days (this bit might just make them think I'm starting to think legal). Depending on what comes of this, I can then take it up a notch as joseph has suggested. 

As you know I'm not one to sit back and just let it go. Personally I think too much of that happens generally.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2009)

*Fact of the matter is, a driver with the slighest residual grain of common sense whatsoever wouldn't have overtaken in that place anyway, regardless of what position was taken by the cyclist*

In the perfect world you mean.


----------



## magnatom (31 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *Fact of the matter is, a driver with the slighest residual grain of common sense whatsoever wouldn't have overtaken in that place anyway, regardless of what position was taken by the cyclist*
> 
> In the perfect world you mean.



It isn't a perfect world, but the vast majority of the time, cycling exactly the same way, I have no problems. Look at my Not Official Close Pass video.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2009)

Same here,I don't have too much trouble,(touch wood) but it does happen.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jan 2009)

If you ask me - yes I think he drove extremely badly, yes I think you should follow it up, yes I think the licensing authority's investigation has been inadequate, but if you don't mind me saying I do also think that you let it get to you a bit too much. As noble (and probably effective) as your work in bringing them to book is, there are _always_ going to be bad drivers. If you can get to work safely despite them and don't let them ruin your day, then you've won. Simple as that.


----------



## Bollo (31 Jan 2009)

_Ben_ said:


> If you ask me - yes I think he drove extremely badly, yes I think you should follow it up, yes I think the licensing authority's investigation has been inadequate, but if you don't mind me saying I do also think that you let it get to you a bit too much. As noble (and probably effective) as your work in bringing them to book is, there are _always_ going to be bad drivers. If you can get to work safely despite them and don't let them ruin your day, then you've won. Simple as that.



That's a good attitude to cycle with and one that I aspire to and, most of the time, manage to achieve. I'm guessing you've read the first few pages of the 'Invisible' thread.

Another thread a while ago talked about attitude to driver errors, and from what I remember many who posted agreed that the driver's attitude was more important to how they regarded an incident than the level of danger. This is an example of a bad attitude at an organisational level. I'd have been p1ssed off by the original pass but _probably _not have complained (remember the camera rarely gives the full effect of an incident). Life is often too short. If I had complained and received that response I'd be on the warpath just like mags.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Not really, I'm talking about a general principle. Col appeared to think the guy would have learned a lesson, and shouldn't be pursued further. I suggested that nothing that had happened would have given him any incentive to change his ways, and that he shouldn't get off just because he claimed he'd done nothing wrong. I used the crimes thing as an analogy and col seemed to have a problem seeing my point.
> 
> The question about 'do you think someone should get off just because they plead not guilty' was meant to be virtually rhetorical - his failure to answer and defensiveness suddenly made it look like I doubted his morals, which I don't.




Just the fact that you didnt try to point out any of this ,says a lot to me about you.I didnt have a problem,i asked why you said it.
I did answer you,im in no doubt about your intentions here now


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Fair point.
> If it's any help I agree with you entirely.



Of course



magnatom said:


> Thanks everyone, well almost eveyone!
> 
> My plan as has been suggested is to play it fairly cool. Write back to the Licencing board, and point out that they have not provided a conclusion, a course of action, did the driver drive to the standards expected of them etc. I will ask them to provide me with this information within 14 days (this bit might just make them think I'm starting to think legal). Depending on what comes of this, I can then take it up a notch as joseph has suggested.
> 
> As you know I'm not one to sit back and just let it go. Personally I think too much of that happens generally.



Yes you hound this man until he loses his job,you know its the right thing to do.



Bollo said:


> That's a good attitude to cycle with and one that I aspire to and, most of the time, manage to achieve. I'm guessing you've read the first few pages of the 'Invisible' thread.
> 
> Another thread a while ago talked about attitude to driver errors, and from what I remember many who posted agreed that the driver's attitude was more important to how they regarded an incident than the level of danger. This is an example of a bad attitude at an organisational level. I'd have been p1ssed off by the original pass but _probably _not have complained (remember the camera rarely gives the full effect of an incident). Life is often too short. If I had complained and received that response I'd be on the warpath just like mags.



Again of course,would we expect anything else?


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Maybe not the most important thing on the road but certainly a higher priority with regard safety.
> 
> As I see it Mag held a clear and visible position until he could see round the side of the bus by which time he was nearly upon the pinch point.
> 
> ...



Why would he need to see round the bus on the other side while blocking the road?
He noticed the car well before the pinch point,but instead of giving he held and made a big deal out of it.
Of course its unsafe cycling,how many others have this problem when not blocking traffic from passing?
He has had more incidents than most on her i think,why? because he insists on riding ignorantly and dangerously,then when he causes something to happen,blames everything on other vehicles,he is more than dangerous because he really believes he isnt.Or he doesnt and just says that


----------



## tdr1nka (31 Jan 2009)

I know I would have needed to see around the bus in case any one was filtering on the outside of the traffic. I would have also held my line up to the pinch point albeit a little faster.

I feel you're ignoring the fact that if we all had cameras we could all post vids of this nature almost everyday.
IME I'm not at all sure Mags is alone in encountering motorists like this it just he is using his vids to bring attention to the fact.


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> I know I would have needed to see around the bus in case any one was filtering on the outside of the traffic. I would have also held my line up to the pinch point albeit a little faster.
> 
> I feel you're ignoring the fact that if we all had cameras we could all post vids of this nature almost everyday.
> IME I'm not at all sure Mags is alone in encountering motorists like this it just he is using his vids to bring attention to the fact.




By filtering on the outside?The only thing possible with that bus is overtaking on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend? So holding the line would be more dangerous for him 
A lot faster was needed to make it less of an obstruction,and more of a genuine safety maneouver.
Im not ignoring that fact either,its all too common seeing bad drivers as well as bad cyclists,but i dont think posting it and laying blame on everyone else would help much.
He talks of constuctive critisism,iv given my opinion on how these things might be avoided,and im branded a troll,or very bias towards him?If he posted a vid of him doing well somewhere i would say so too,but iv yet to see one.Even his earlier vid posts which i thought were dubious and said so,had a reason for him cycling in a certain manner,even if it did make matters worse.


----------



## tdr1nka (1 Feb 2009)

col said:


> By filtering on the outside?The only thing possible with that bus is overtaking on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend? So holding the line would be more dangerous for him




In London you could easily expect to find a motorcyclist coming towards you in this kind of situation. And as with the car it would be the motorcyclists call to give way.
IMO Holding this line gave Mag the driest and safest line with plenty of room to maneuver.


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> In London you could easily expect to find a motorcyclist coming towards you in this kind of situation. And as with the car it would be the motorcyclists call to give way.
> IMO Holding this line gave Mag the driest and safest line with plenty of room to maneuver.




Ah i see,its a very unlikely but altogether possible situation that could develope?And in my opinion it gives him less time and further to go if it did happen.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Your right,he would have been safely passed before the pinch point.Have you also noticed how a lot of what ifs,and in the gutter type things are mentioned in defence?I believe there are cyclists out there who dont block the road as they exit roundabuts,and give way for courtesy and safety reasons,even if it means losing a few seconds from their journey.



Mag's road positioning is completely irrelevant. The point is, he was there (rightly or wrongly) and the taxi driver should have waited behind him until it was safe to pass.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Im not excusing anything,but a bit of forethought could save situations like this.



I agree. If only the driver of the taxi had thought ahead a little.


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I agree. If only the driver of the taxi had thought ahead a little.




Or the cyclist been a little more willing to give a bit?


----------



## BentMikey (1 Feb 2009)

The cyclist didn't need to give way there, and shouldn't have since he didn't think it was safe to do so. That's as stupid as saying you expect cars to pull over and get out of your way if you want to do more than the speed limit.

There is only blame to be attached to the taxi driver for his impatience and bad driving.


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> The cyclist didn't need to give way there, and shouldn't have since he didn't think it was safe to do so. That's as stupid as saying you expect cars to pull over and get out of your way if you want to do more than the speed limit.
> 
> There is only blame to be attached to the taxi driver for his impatience and bad driving.




Of course bent


----------



## Cab (1 Feb 2009)

downfader said:


> Tell them having reviewed their letter you now feel that contacting the police is the only way forward. A criminal record would be the end of his job if it ends up that way. No one wants that, but they've proved incapable of dealing with the situation.
> 
> Send duplicate complaints to your mp and the council itself and tell them why.
> 
> Lastly I would perhaps see the press as a last resort.



Seconded. Excellent advice I think; the taxi driver endangered you, the licensing people don't give a monkeys, send a copy to your councillor and to Plod.


----------



## Cab (1 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Or the cyclist been a little more willing to give a bit?



And be overtaken with exactly the same lack of respect only this time with no room to escape.


----------



## Arch (1 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Just the fact that you didnt try to point out any of this ,says a lot to me about you.I didnt have a problem,i asked why you said it.
> I did answer you,im in no doubt about your intentions here now



If you can't understand my posts, which I think are usually clear to most people, maybe you need to think about them a bit more. And look up things like analogy and example in the dictionary. If I have to explain everything specially to you in twice the number of words, I'm just not going to bother.


----------



## magnatom (1 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> I haven't seen it mentioned so far, so I will dare to bring it up. Magnatom does not actually have any video evidence does he? He has a video that looks at events from around his eye level, it does not show how he was moving, he could have been slowly moving out to the right to squeeze the taxi, only a quick 'dive' right would show on the camera. We don't really see how far from the kerb he was throughout the whole incident. Also, he has taken it home and 'done stuff' to it on his computer, I am sure a court of law would not even allow it as evidence. We have no sense of the drivers view of events either.
> 
> You have to decide what you want, if that is realistic considering the 'evidence' you have then got to go to the cops, it's no use arseing about with council officials, they are going to do nothing. I fear you have to let it go, it will eat you up like a cancer if not.



To and extent, you are right Maggot. I don't have definative evidence. However, what I do have is a follow up video, where I take a similar line which of you view the video gives you an idea of what normally happens. Cars wait behind and overtake when safe to do so.

As for me actively moving over to squeeze the taxi. What you have to remember is that I always know for a fact, that any incident that happens to me that I happen to video will be inspected over in every detail. This one was no different. So if I do actively try to bring about incidents I would have to be a bloody good cyclist, with an idea of angles light etc, to continually hide the fact.

However, and this is the most damning evidence in my favour, what does the driver say when he stops to talk to me. Does he say I swug out at him, does he say that I caused the incident? No. He says, 'You were in the middle of the road!' Now is that what he would say if I had swerved out at him. He would more likely say, 'you were all over the place', you swung out' etc. So at the drivers OWN admission I was far out in the lane at the time of the overtake. (He says it twice!). So lets just take the drivers word for it......


----------



## magnatom (1 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Good point Mr Holmes! However, my primary point stands, be clear what you want as an outcome, think objectively if that is achievable with the 'evidence' you have, if so go for it. If not, put it to bed and don't let it eat you away.



No worries about eating me away. I am always one to look for a positive, and I see this as a positive development. If I have to take it higher up then I can suggest that change is required etc. Suggest meeting with them and getting cyclist views across, and possibly a campaign etc. Always an opportunity, never a problem!


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

Here is my reply back. Short, polite and too the point. 



> Thank you for your letter Ref: xxx xxxx xxx and dated 29th January 2009. In this letter you describe the reactions of the taxi driver to my complaint, i.e. that he thinks that I swerved towards him, and that he felt that it was safe to pass at the time of the incident. However, what your letter does not include is any indication of your findings, i.e. did you feel that the driver was driving in a safe manner? Did the driver drive dangerously? You have also failed to include any information about any disciplinary procedures that you may have taken against the driver.
> 
> As I supplied you with video evidence of the incident, I assume that you have reviewed the taxi drivers account of the incident with this in mind.
> 
> I would be grateful of you could supply this information, as this will dictate my next course of action with regards to this complaint. I look forward to your reply within the next 14 days.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Feb 2009)

Concise and well put Mags!
More power to your elbow.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2009)

Good letter Mag. Best of luck with this, no one should get away with driving like that.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

Aha! It seems that one of the junior licencing officers in Glasgow has been a naughty boy!

I've just received this very speedy e-mail:



> I refer to the letter sent to you and can advise you that the letter was
> sent on my behalf and in my absence as I was on annual leave last week.
> I can also advise you that the letter would not have been forwarded to
> you in its current state had I been in a position to review it prior to
> ...


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

You really got a result there,now lets see what they do about it? I worry that people who make mistakes, or are ignorant to your superior understanding on the roads, which in all probabilility are the majority of problems on the road, are in for a lot of grief now you have this option. You are too keen to take this type of action and keep pushing it. I wait for a result for you, when someone does actually lose thier job, and you and some others say how they deserved it, and they caused it themselves.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Feb 2009)

I love it! They're going to investigate the investigation now?


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> You really got a result there,now lets see what they do about it? I worry that people who make mistakes, or are ignorant to your superior understanding on the roads, which in all probabilility are the majority of problems on the road, are in for a lot of grief now you have this option. You are too keen to take this type of action and keep pushing it. I wait for a result for you, when someone does actually lose thier job, and you and some others say how they deserved it, and they caused it themselves.




Col, you are talking a complete load of gibberish! So it is not just my riding you don't like but my complaint technique as well! I suppose I am to blame for the chap at the licencing board sending out the reply too early? 

Oh yes, you are right. If I hadn't been too far out on the road then the taxi wouldn't have passed so close, so I wouldn't have had to send a complaint, and the junior staff member wouldn't have sent out the letter to early and he wouldn't have got in to trouble from his boss.

In fact, if I had never been born.....

Yes you are right. It is my fault. What is my penance Col...


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Col, you are talking a complete load of gibberish! So it is not just my riding you don't like but my complaint technique as well! I suppose I am to blame for the chap at the licencing board sending out the reply too early?
> 
> Oh yes, you are right. If I hadn't been too far out on the road then the taxi wouldn't have passed so close, so I wouldn't have had to send a complaint, and the junior staff member wouldn't have sent out the letter to early and he wouldn't have got in to trouble from his boss.
> 
> ...




What is more worrying is that you cant see what your riding style is actually causing sometimes, and then because of your crusade, you take it to extremes, and other people are going to suffer because of it. Unless you can see, but choose to go on with it anyway.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> What is more worrying is that you cant see what your riding style is actually causing sometimes, and then because of your crusade, you take it to extremes, and other people are going to suffer because of it. Unless you can see, but choose to go on with it anyway.




So you really are saying that if someone in the licencing board loses their job over this, then I am at fault!! (I think rapped knuckles is more likely, but there you go)

Now that has to be a classic that even a novice bonj couldn't come up with. Priceless!


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> What is more worrying is that you cant see what your riding style driving is actually causing sometimes, and then because of your crusade impatience you take it to extremes, and other people are going to suffer because of it. Unless you can see, but choose to go on with it anyway.





Send this to the taxi driver..........


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> So you really are saying that if someone in the licencing board loses their job over this, then I am at fault!! (I think rapped knuckles is more likely, but there you go)
> 
> Now that has to be a classic that even a novice bonj couldn't come up with. Priceless!



I mean drivers,there are plenty who dont have your understanding or opinion on what is the right way to drive,and then there are those which make mistakes on the road, but im sure you will make the most of these.


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Send this to the taxi driver..........



Replace with the word cyclist, it goes all ways, and a cyclist imaptient and not willing to give an inch is just as dangerous.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I mean drivers,there are plenty who dont have your understanding or opinion on what is the right way to drive,and then there are those which make mistakes on the road, but im sure you will make the most of these.




Umm, the Highway Code provides a pretty good understanding of the way drivers are expected to drive, nothing to do with me!

I would like to also point out at this point that in the original letter to the licencing board I did stress that I did not want the driver to loose his job, but stressed that some retraining might be in order. Glad to clear that up!


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I mean drivers,there are plenty who dont have your understanding or opinion on what is the right way to drive,and then there are those which make mistakes on the road, but im sure you will make the most of these.



In general drivers should and need to be much more aware of how and where a cyclist can use the road and not be in a position to disregard or compromise the safety of others.

Ignorance is bliss then is it? Oh great, I feel so much safer.

FWIW Mags has always been an advocate of educating drivers and raising awareness. No one is out to deliberately lose people their jobs.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

In fact, for completeness, here is my original complaint.



> I am writing to you as I was unfortunately involved in a nasty incident with one of your licensed drivers (Plate number 2266, registration number SG54KRJ) on the 6^th January 2009 at approximately 8:35am.
> 
> I am a cycle commuter and cycle daily between xxxx and the xxxxx where I work. I have been doing this now for 3 years and in that time have learned a number of techniques for safe cycling. I also try my best to remain within the rules of the road, i.e. I do not red light jump or pavement cycle. In fact I now campaign for better cycling and better driving on the roads. As part of my campaigning I video my commute every day using a helmet camera and post videos of incidents (including any mistakes I make) on the web.
> 
> ...


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Umm, the Highway Code provides a pretty good understanding of the way drivers are expected to drive, nothing to do with me!
> 
> Of course its nothing to do with you, there is your wipe your hands clause. Your educational ways take a dark turn there.
> 
> I would like to also point out at this point that in the original letter to the licencing board I did stress that I did not want the driver to loose his job, but stressed that some retraining might be in order. Glad to clear that up!




Your opinion doesnt stop procedure,you get the ball rolling,and then keep nudging it so it doesnt lose momentum,and someone is going to suffer needlessly. But hey your covered, read above.


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> In general drivers should and need to be much more aware of how and where a cyclist can use the road and not be in a position to disregard or compromise the safety of others.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss then is it? Oh great, I feel so much safer.
> 
> FWIW Mags has always been an advocate of educating drivers and raising awareness. No one is out to deliberately lose people their jobs.




Ignorance is not bliss, but it exists aplenty on the roads.

Are you sure? Educating is great,but hounding and pressuring to get someone disciplined in some way is another thing completely.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Your opinion doesnt stop procedure,you get the ball rolling,and then keep nudging it so it doesnt lose momentum,and someone is going to suffer needlessly. But hey your covered, read above.


So if Mags doesn't do anything and someone is hurt/killed due to the lack of driving skills displayed by the idiot in the taxi... that'll be Mags' fault too will it?


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> So if Mags doesn't do anything and someone is hurt/killed due to the lack of driving skills displayed by the idiot in the taxi... that'll be Mags' fault too will it?



As usual you miss the point.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Feb 2009)

If you made one it might be a first...


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> If you made one it might be a first...




That you actually understand you mean?


----------



## Arch (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Aha! It seems that one of the junior licencing officers in Glasgow has been a naughty boy!
> 
> I've just received this very speedy e-mail:





This gets better...

(unless it's the same person, suddenly realising they aren't dealing with someone they can fob off - even so, that's a good thing)


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> That you actually understand you mean?


Yes... that's it, Col. You're just too damned smart for me. 

Your point about Mags "getting the ball rolling,and then keep nudging it so it doesnt lose momentum,and someone is going to suffer needlessly*" was lost on me. Obviously my response saying that if "he didn't do anything it would be his fault too" was completely irrelevant and misplaced because I didn't fully comprehend the finer nuances of your deep and meaningful comment...

You were blaming Mags for his approach and your thoughts that it would lead to "someone suffer(ing) needlessly" and my counter argument that if he did nothing then someone would also suffer needlessly... Gosh, I really don't know why I made such an out of context, stupid and vacuous comment which clearly showed my low intellect for reasoning... what a fool I have been. Thank you Col for showing me the error of my ways.

Muppet.



* Sorry about the sh*t spelling and lack of decent punctuation, it was taken verbatim from Col's post.. and he doesn't *do* punctuation properly.


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> I appreciate what you have said (highlighted above) but the guy is looking more likely to lose his job the further you push this. How on earth could a taxi firm continue to employ someone who has been found in need of re-training? How on earth could they justify putting a passenger in his car, in the full knowledge he was not good enough to do the job? Also, what re-training can he have, is there a taxi driving NVQ or something equivalent? (and that is not meant to be sarcastic, is there such a qualification?)
> 
> No, I am afraid that our taxi driving friend is doomed (which, with the video taken at face value is no bad thing). Like I said a few pages ago, what did you really want for an outcome? You have to bear in mind that any punishment you may see fit may not be at the licencing authorities disposal, I would think he either has or has not got a licence, end of. Lets hope he doesn't find out where you live eh?



The driver isn't necessarily doomed! If the licensing authority is anything like the PCO in London (a supine and toothless body) the driver will not lose his job - I'd wager a slap on the wrist and apology is the most likely outcome (with the possibility of some remedial training thrown in if they want to be seen as taking the case seriously).


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> I appreciate what you have said (highlighted above) but the guy is looking more likely to lose his job the further you push this. How on earth could a taxi firm continue to employ someone who has been found in need of re-training? How on earth could they justify putting a passenger in his car, in the full knowledge he was not good enough to do the job? Also, what re-training can he have, is there a taxi driving NVQ or something equivalent? (and that is not meant to be sarcastic, is there such a qualification?)
> 
> No, I am afraid that our taxi driving friend is doomed (which, with the video taken at face value is no bad thing). Like I said a few pages ago, what did you really want for an outcome? You have to bear in mind that any punishment you may see fit may not be at the licencing authorities disposal, I would think he either has or has not got a licence, end of. Lets hope he doesn't find out where you live eh?



If he looses his job then, that is unfortunate. However, it is his doing, and his doing alone. I will lose no sleep over someone else's mistakes. I would however, be surprised if he did loose his job, but there is no point in second-guessing the investigation. 

As for training, there is some training that all taxi drivers have to take at the start . Now I understand that this is focused on the knowledge etc, but how hard would it be to add a road safety module to this, and if a driver is not up to standard he could be asked to resit. If there is no safety aspect currently then I am happy to push for this. Taxi drivers are like any other group, there are good and bad, but they are on the road significantly more, so the effect from the bad is more significant. Therefore, is it wrong to expect high, in fact higher standards than non-professional drivers?

As for finding out where I live. That is quite a jump to make about this taxi driver. Would you be the sort to take revenge this way maggot? The vast majority of people would not. So I suggest that this is very unlikely. If in the unlikely situation that something did occur, I would deal with any consequences as best I could, and without a doubt the police would quickly find out who he was. I will not bury my head in the sand because of the small risk of theoretical reprisals.


----------



## 4F (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> As for finding out where I live. That is quite a jump to make about this taxi driver. Would you be the sort to take revenge this way maggot? The vast majority of people would not. So I suggest that this is very unlikely. If in the unlikely situation that something did occur, I would deal with any consequences as best I could, and without a doubt the police would quickly find out who he was. I will not bury my head in the sand because of the small risk of theoretical reprisals.



I would as I can be quite a vindictive b*****d and will often hold grudges for years  I recently got my own back on someone who stiffed me 10 years ago  hohum


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Aha! It seems that one of the junior licencing officers in Glasgow has been a naughty boy!
> 
> I've just received this very speedy e-mail:



Mags, the cynic in me suspects that the first letter may well have been a standard response to limit workload. Like insurance companies denying all claims out of hand knowing that a certain %age will not pursue further.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I would as I can be quite a vindictive b*****d and will often hold grudges for years  I recently got my own back on someone who stiffed me 10 years ago  hohum




Ah, but I stiffed no-one. In fact I should be trying to find out where he lived!


----------



## Arch (2 Feb 2009)

I wonder if all this is part of the issue about how we value jobs. Driving, unless perhaps it's an HGV, police pursuit car or F1 racer, is seen as a pretty basic job that anyone can do if they have a driving licence. And yet it's really very important that it's done well, and with the right attitude. It's a similar problem to that of care workers and so on - maybe thought of by many as the preserve of the unqualified, and hence not highly valued either in monetary or status terms.

Has there ever been a society in which jobs are 'properly' valued, I wonder?


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> The 'I know where you live' bit was supposed to be light hearted
> 
> Have you thought what you will do if the licencing people come back and say "we've fully investigated this, no further action will be taken"? At what point are you going to let it go? What do you want as an outcome?




Again you are jumping the gun. Let's wait until I get a response and then I will decide on any further action if any. 

I would still be keen to get the licencing board or someone connected to be involved in positive publicity for cyclists road safety, so that could be a follow up regardless of outcome. We'll see.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> I wonder if all this is part of the issue about how we value jobs. Driving, unless perhaps it's an HGV, police pursuit car or F1 racer, is seen as a pretty basic job that anyone can do if they have a driving licence. And yet it's really very important that it's done well, and with the right attitude. It's a similar problem to that of care workers and so on - maybe thought of by many as the preserve of the unqualified, and hence not highly valued either in monetary or status terms.
> 
> Has there ever been a society in which jobs are 'properly' valued, I wonder?




I'm sure there is some truth in that. 

How about Japan. When I was lucky to visit there I was amazed at how much pride people took in their jobs, even when it was just directing pedestrians around a broken manhole cover!


----------



## Arch (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I'm sure there is some truth in that.
> 
> How about Japan. When I was lucky to visit there I was amazed at how much pride people took in their jobs, even when it was just directing pedestrians around a broken manhole cover!



That's the sort of thing. I don't know how well a Japanese Man Man Hole Cover Attendent gets paid, but they don't do a job by halves.

I love the display on the Bullet Train in the NRM. There's a film of it in action. Drivers wear white cotton gloves, guards work to a stopwatch level of timing and the ticket collector turns and bows to the carriage as she leaves it.

I may have to start a thread on P and L, so as not to digress too far...


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> That's the sort of thing. I don't know how well a Japanese Man Man Hole Cover Attendent gets paid, but they don't do a job by halves.
> 
> I love the display on the Bullet Train in the NRM. There's a film of it in action. Drivers wear white cotton gloves, guards work to a stopwatch level of timing and the ticket collector turns and bows to the carriage as she leaves it.
> 
> I may have to start a thread on P and L, so as not to digress too far...




Aye, the trains were amazing. I loved the ticket collectors who would come on and bow as he entered and left the carriage (saying something in Japanese) and would continue bowing as he looked at your ticket. Amazing country, I would love to revisit some day. As you, say, we digress....


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Now thats a good idea, have you thought of involving groups like Sustrans and the CTC and even BC to further the idea?



Magnatom (the cycle-camera crusader) is in the latest CTC mag, keep up, Maggot!


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Now thats a good idea, have you thought of involving groups like Sustrans and the CTC and even BC to further the idea?
> 
> Like you said in a much earlier post, much better to see solutions than problems. Taking this one step further, I am a believer in the fact that people work towards things, rather than away from things. So working with the licencing dept towards an education programme, rather than one driver away from a bollocking is a really good idea.




You see, Maggot, you've not been paying attention!  This is what I do/am about. Something happens to me, I get annoyed for a little while, get over it and think, so what can I get from this that would be positive. That's how the First Bus thing happened, that's why I am in talks with Arriva, and maybe I can get something going with the taxis. It's all in my first complaint letter! 

On a recent management type course and on it they discussed Belbin's Team Role theory. I need to take a proper questionnaire but I reckon I am a Resource Investigator with a hint of Plant


----------



## 4F (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Well I am not in the CTC, bunch of bloody in-bred, beardy weirdos. Is he on the page opposite an advert for cycling capes and canvas saddle-bags?



So you have seen the mag  then !!


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Well I am not in the CTC, bunch of bloody in-bred, beardy weirdos. Is he on the page opposite an advert for cycling capes and canvas saddle-bags?



It is actually opposite the Hasbro Magnatom Cycling Doll. The set comes with an adjustable camera, hybrid bike, and the doll has a cord that you pull and Magnatom swears in an authentic Glasgow accent. You can buy taxis, buses and HGVs and a giant Glasgow map as extras - stick the Magnatom doll in primary position and you have hours of fun for the whole family...

If you want a pdf of the article, I can pm it to you.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> I have been paying attention, it's just that you seem to have no outcome in mind, thats all. You seem to be using this one taxi-driver almost as a sacrifical lamb to drive through your very laudable aims of safer roads and more skilled and tolerant driving. The problem with this is, you don't ever know when you have reached the end. If you want him to have a bollocking, thats fine, if you want him sacked, thats fine, if you want Glasgow council to implement a kind of respect campaign, thats fine. It's the not knowing which one you want thats the problem. I think you should state publicly what your acceptable outcome to this situation is, you don't want to come across as a vindictive bastard do you?
> 
> You need to know when you have succeeded in your aim, and as you have no end-point you never will know if you have succeeded.



Oh come on Maggot. The road safety campaigning has nothing to do with the complaint, it is on top of it. I am just trying to get something positive out of something negative. 

Go and read the letter I sent (a few posts above). In it I quite clearly state that I don't want him to lose his job, but I would like him to reprimanded (i.e. informed that he was in the wrong) with the aim of making him think about his driving in future. I also ask, if possible that he have some education in the matter of road safety. All clear end points and in the letter I posted. 

What is there, not to know!


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> One last thing, have you considered the possibility that he made a genuine mistake, and now feels bad about it?




Then he would of stopped and apologised, not stopped and started yelling....??

I'd agree, I think the point is that something should be done and it doesn't matter what as long as it seems like a sensible and honest outcome. At the moment it's just been fobbed off a bit.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> magnatom, I read the letter, but stating you don't want him to lose his job is irrelavant. Someone has handed in video evidence of his reckless and dangerous driving, what choice do they have, if they prove the case, but to remove his licence? It's not for you to decide his punishment, if any.
> 
> One last thing, have you considered the possibility that he made a genuine mistake, and now feels bad about it?



 You asked me for my end points. I gave you them and your not happy with them! There's no pleasing some folk.

Anyway the following was included in information sent to me by the licencing authority



> The Unit’s involvement in the allegations raised will be limited to pertinent points contained in your complaint


I would suggest that one of such points was my suggestion that the driver should probably not lose his job. I have already stated, that if he does lose his job, then that is my fault, so I can't understand why you keep going on about this. 

As for a mistake. I don't think so. He actively forced his way through a gap that was too small. His comments after the video reflect this . Mistakes do happen, but this was no mistake. If he felt bad about it, then why make up lies about me swerving and suggesting that he felt he did no wrong.


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Feb 2009)

What's the solution then, where people who drive for a living can't/don't drive safely? Do we simply accept the consequences of that as the cost of doing business?


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> So you don't want him to lose his job, you want him told off and if possible, maybe some education in the future. They are hardly robust are they?
> 
> Temporarily remove his licence until he has had further training. That may encapsulate all you want in one robust and clear sentence.
> 
> ...



Maggot, I'll have whatever your having. 

Ok. The next time I write a complaint I will write a 25 page essay which I will first hand over to my lawyers to ensure that the case, endpoints, complaints, legalities etc are as watertight as possible. Any failure to comply with the points raised within..........

A bu%%er it. I can't be bothered any more. 

Move along now. Nothing to see here.....


----------



## Arch (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Reacting aggressively when you have just embarressed yourself is a perfectly normal thing to do. In the moment it hurts to have your mistake pointed out to you in such a vigorous manner. It's often only in reflection you feel like a dickhead.



True, but if the first responce is anything to go by, he then lied and tried to shift all the blame onto Magnatom. Spur of the moment aggression is one thing, lying is another...


----------



## Cab (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> What is more worrying is that you cant see what your riding style is actually causing sometimes, and then because of your crusade, you take it to extremes, and other people are going to suffer because of it. Unless you can see, but choose to go on with it anyway.



Mags riding style means that he'll get less close overtakes than he would if riding in the gutter, and those that he does get are most likely considered and intentional.


----------



## classic33 (2 Feb 2009)

Why is a person who had a close brush with a "professional driver" (he drives for profit) being told that he was wrong, is wrong & will always be wrong.

I put a link into this about a similar case where the driver was charged with assault after running a cyclist down. Where is the differrence here, bearing in mind that the taxi is no lightweight. Would the taxi driver have made the same move on a vehicle that was larger than the one he was driving at the time?

The onus whilst using the roads is on the vehicle following, not on the vehicle leading. Looking backwards, whilst moving forwards, all the time can lead to accidents.

162
*Before overtaking you should make sure*

the road is sufficiently clear ahead 
road users are not beginning to overtake you 
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

163
*Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should*

not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake 
use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out 
not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle 
move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. _Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in_

If wanting something done is wrong then I doubt he'll be the only one that is wrong.


----------



## Cab (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> magnatom, I read the letter, but stating you don't want him to lose his job is irrelavant. Someone has handed in video evidence of his reckless and dangerous driving, what choice do they have, if they prove the case, but to remove his licence?



More likely he'll be reprimanded, a note put on file, and told not to do it again. You don't necessarily lose a taxi driving job for what this guy did.


----------



## Cab (2 Feb 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> What's the solution then, where people who drive for a living can't/don't drive safely? Do we simply accept the consequences of that as the cost of doing business?



The _correct_ solution would be to remove dangerous drivers from the roads regardless of whether they're doing it for a living. The reality is that any taxi licensing authority would be loathe to revoke someones license (and livelihood) even for a series of 'near misses'; the potential for adverse publicity and for a court to overturn such a decision would make that unappealing.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> > magnatom, I read the letter, but stating you don't want him to lose his job is irrelavant. Someone has handed in video evidence of his reckless and dangerous driving, what choice do they have, if they prove the case, but to remove his licence?
> 
> 
> More likely he'll be reprimanded, a note put on file, and told not to do it again. You don't necessarily lose a taxi driving job for what this guy did.




Life is more precious than livelihood. If the film results in showing his driving isn't legally allowed he should loose his licence. Most likely something will go on file for repeat offences.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> I appreciate what you have said (highlighted above) but the guy is looking more likely to lose his job the further you push this.



Well, surely that's ok? Oh, hang on ...



> No, I am afraid that our taxi driving friend is doomed (which, with the video taken at face value is no bad thing).



As I thought. I don't see why the bloke should continue to be employed as a professional driver. If I consistently drove like that, I wouldn't expect to keep my job for very long. Anyone can make a mistake, but it's how you deal with the aftermath of a mistake that shows the sort of person you are, and the taxi driver in this case showed himself to be aggressive and unrepentant. The sooner he's off the road, the better.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

Actually, thinking about it, it might be a bad thing if he looses his job. If he stays on, then he is more likely to tell his mates that cyclists are riding with helmet cameras on. Maybe he will help to spread the word..

(Yes I realise he could also tell his mates to aim for the cyclists with the cameras, but hey ho!)


----------



## silverbow (2 Feb 2009)

I con't believe this thread is still current!

I was just wondering if had occurred to anyone that the reason Mags received a 'corrective response' from the licensing authority is because someone googled 'magnatom' and found cyclechat and this thread. Just a thought....


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Actually, thinking about it, it might be a bad thing if he looses his job. If he stays on, then he is more likely to tell his mates that cyclists are riding with helmet cameras on. Maybe he will help to spread the word..
> 
> (Yes I realise he could also tell his mates to aim for the cyclists with the cameras, but hey ho!)




If he lost his job his 'mates' would probably never mess with a cyclist with a camera


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

silverbow said:


> I con't believe this thread is still current!
> 
> I was just wondering if had occurred to anyone that the reason Mags received a 'corrective response' from the licensing authority is because someone googled 'magnatom' and found cyclechat and this thread. Just a thought....



The only person who Googles "Magnatom" is Magnatom.


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> The only person who Googles "Magnatom" is Magnatom.



Ha! If only that were true, I have enemies.....


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Ha! If only that were true, I have enemies.....



Yeah, keep an eye out when passing grassy knolls, don't spend too long on blaconies and avoid the theatre...


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Yeah, keep an eye out when passing grassy knolls, don't spend too long on blaconies and avoid the theatre...




As the policeman said to me (see my CTC article )

Yer no Martin Luther King!


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

Magantom - your internet notoriety/fame is creating a backlash:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/23c62d8104272e40#


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Feb 2009)

Lovely. 

So the answer then, is to let drivers drive how they want, mete out summary justice to those they deem to be cycling or walking in a way they disapprove of, I suppose? The upshot is that where Mr. Toad thinks he knows the highway code better than you (having studied it extensively at the time he passed his test, and not looked at it since), he's fully entitled to barge past without consequence, and woe betide you should you dare to complain.

I despair of this bloody country, I really do.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

John, I think the answer might be not to post complaints on an internet forum until you get a full response/judgement.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2009)

relevant - this account has been banned for violating the google groups terms of use. LOLOL!


----------



## mr_cellophane (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Magantom - your internet notoriety/fame is creating a backlash:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/23c62d8104272e40#



I notice that the OP's account has already been banned. Quite fast work from someone there.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

I think that user has been banned dozens of times...


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Magantom - your internet notoriety/fame is creating a backlash:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/23c62d8104272e40#




Now that is sad! Serial complainer! This does annoy me a bit that people make the facts up for themselves without actually trying to find the facts out. For example User76 suggested that I never post any of my mistakes. I do on a good number of occasions (maggot did apologise but it is a good example). 

So, let me think, serial complainer. How many complaints have I made since I have started filming. I have contacted the police about one driver, I have contacted two bus companies (both with positive results), I have contacted one company because a driver threatened to assault me, and I have contacted the taxi firm in this incident. So in total 5 complaints. Now to put that into context have a look at the number of videos I have posted.

I can't quite understand the title of the post spindthrift - magnatom antics? Anyone know what that is about. 

So obviously this person browses this forum, and yet rather than confront me here with their views they write counter complaints. Very sad, and I am sure that the licencing board will see it as such.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

Spinners cross posted your complaint on various fora including uk.rec.cycling. As he has a larger group of internet "fans" than even you, that explains why he was referenced in the title. 

URC has been infested with trolls for years...


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Spinners cross posted your complaint on various fora including uk.rec.cycling. As he has a larger group of internet "fans" than even you, that explains why he was referenced in the title.
> 
> URC has been infested with trolls for years...




Spindrift,

I know you are trying to help, but please don't cross-post my posts. This is what happens and it isn't constructive (assuming you will read this!)


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2009)

I'm not sure there's any point in asking him to do that, it'd be like asking Col to stop arguing blindly against everything you post.


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure there's any point in asking him to do that, it'd be like asking Col to stop arguing blindly against everything you post.




Aye, probably right. So you've also noticed that Col argues blindly against me. That'll be why he's calling you a liar....


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure there's any point in asking him to do that, it'd be like asking Col to stop arguing blindly against everything you post.



No its not



magnatom said:


> Aye, probably right. So you've also noticed that Col argues blindly against me. That'll be why he's calling you a liar....B)



Im calling him what he called me,whats up with that?


----------



## classic33 (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> As for finding out where I live. That is quite a jump to make about this taxi driver. Would you be the sort to take revenge this way maggot? The vast majority of people would not. So I suggest that this is very unlikely. If in the unlikely situation that something did occur, I would deal with any consequences as best I could, and without a doubt the police would quickly find out who he was. I will not bury my head in the sand because of the small risk of theoretical reprisals.




Is there a number in the 20's or 70's in any part of the address.

But for him to locate & then come after you would make it pre-meditated, not a spur of the moment thing. 

Have you sent a copy of the letters to the local taxi drivers association, local licencing tends to be run more by these than those employed in the actual department.

http://www.192.com/local/GLASGOW/TAXI/GLASGOW_TAXI_ASSOCIATION/X95108488E3804F9B9FC3588F8F132E99 or 
http://www.touchglasgow.com/business/list/bid/2665730


----------



## Cab (3 Feb 2009)

Usenet isn't what it was. With so many idiots online, many unmoderated groups are now just a place for empty vessels to make as much noise as they like, to act in ways they simply wouldn't be able to on moderated fora. Its made worse by people who just don't get over being banned from civilised sites. This seems like a prime example of that to me.

Magnatom, ignore it, ain't worth the grief.


----------



## magnatom (7 Feb 2009)

OK. Here is their final and more 'official' response. 



> *complaint against driver of **Private Hire Car **licence **2266* ​ I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised. ​We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your complaint. The driver recalled the incident and provided his version of events. He stated that, in retrospect, he may have passed too close to you and has asked us to forward his apology to you. ​ Having taken account of all available information we have concluded that the driver did not contravene any of the conditions attached to his Private Hire Driver Licence and in keeping with our role as detailed in our earlier acknowledgement of your complaint, we carried out our investigation in the role of mediator. ​ We took the opportunity to advise the driver that, for future reference and in everyone's interest, he should take greater care in relation to his interaction with fellow road users. ​ It is our view that the driver has learned a valuable lesson as a direct result of your complaint and our subsequent investigation, however, should you wish to pursue the matter, you should progress your concerns through Strathclyde Police. ​ This concludes our part in this unfortunate incident. ​ Yours sincerely​



What are your thoughts, taking into acount the previous mistaken response.


----------



## Lurker (7 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> OK. Here is their final and more 'official' response.
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts, taking into acount the previous mistaken response.



Interesting. 

"...any of the conditions attached to his Private Hire Driver Licence..."

What are the conditions? 

Given that they suggest the next step might be an approach to the Police, do they have a set of internal procedures with associated sanctions? Again, one could ask to see these since they should be in the public domain. 


".... This concludes our part in this unfortunate incident."

Some might take issue with the use of 'unfortunate' since it (wrongly) implies an 'act of God'....


----------



## downfader (7 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> OK. Here is their final and more 'official' response.
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts, taking into acount the previous mistaken response.



OK. Heres my view and you may not like it as a fellow camera-cyclist. Given that a serious offence has potentially taken place there are many that would have done one of two things: the majority would have grumbled and then ignored it/moaned online (not necessarily a good thing) and a minority would have gone to the police in the first instance.

I know you wanted to try and be diplomatic but in cases such as these perhaps it is better the let the police deal with it. You're not after anything other than safe roads at the end of the day (gone all jeremy kyle there, sorry 'bout that) and I feel that a policeman would bere a weight far better than a taxi authority. 

The police are more impartial, and should they feel a driver has behaved wrecklessly actually have real powers to deal with it. After my own collision with a car last year I do feel that if anything happens to me I will let the police deal with it rather than posting it on youtube in future... (ignoring curiosities I catch on camera or dedicated rides)


----------



## Origamist (7 Feb 2009)

That's pretty much what I expected. Some of the people who were saying the driver was doomed or would be sacked were way off the mark. 

I'd confirm that the investigation will be kept on file and leave it at that.


----------



## col (7 Feb 2009)

I think its pretty much what most would expect, but someone losing their job because of a complaint based on safety is a real possibility, and maybe worth keeping in mind.

Does this answer satisfy you mag, or are you taking it further?


----------



## Arch (7 Feb 2009)

I think that's a result. The driver's had a kick up the arse and probably a bit of a fright and promised to do better. If he doesn't (and like Mr Toad, anyone can _promise_ to do better), any more reports against him will be taken seriously. 

Yes, you could go to the police, but I'm afraid I'm not sure you'll get much more out of it, and may be handicapped by not having taken it straight to them. A gracious line drawn under it (with a condescending stroke of your pen, of course) is perhaps the best way.

I do admire your unwillingness to let this sort of thing go unchallenged though. So many of us do just grumble, and that'll never get anything done.


----------



## Origamist (7 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I think its pretty much what most would expect, but someone losing their job because of a complaint based on safety is a real possibility, and maybe worth keeping in mind.



It certainly is worth keeping in mind: don't be afraid to put your safety before someone's career. Well said, Col.


----------



## col (7 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> It certainly is worth keeping in mind: don't be afraid to put your safety before someones career. Well said, Col.




The sort of reply I should have expected from you. Think how serious the incident is, or how much you instigate it before you try to get someone into trouble.


----------



## Origamist (7 Feb 2009)

col said:


> *The sort of reply I should have expected from you*. Think how serious the incident is, or how much you instigate it before you try to get someone into trouble.



Yes, it has helped you clarify what you actually wanted to say; but please, don't thank me. I feel it my duty to help you.


----------



## col (7 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Yes, it has helped you clarify what you actually wanted to say; but please, don't thank me. I feel it my duty to help you.




No Im grateful, it shows the ignorance that needs to be overcome, cheers


----------



## Origamist (7 Feb 2009)

col said:


> No Im grateful, it shows the ignorance that needs to be overcome, cheers



Col, your life and safety on the road means more to me than the career of any taxi driver.


----------



## col (7 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Col, your life and safety on the roads means more to me than the career of any taxi driver.




Why thank you, yours does to me too


----------



## Joseph (7 Feb 2009)

I'd be inclined to drop it at this point.

As someone else mentioned, it's perhaps worth asking questions like "will this be kept on file?" and "if a similar complaint happens against this driver in the future what action can/would you take?". It's unlikely to be worth taking this one to the police at this stage, but at least you'd know whether it's worth taking further cases to the licensing authority or not. And if gives you another chance to offer to go in and talk to the drivers about how to interact cyclists


----------



## Joseph (7 Feb 2009)

Couldn't find the standard conditions for Glasgow private hire licenses, but I'd imagine it's not 100 miles away from these ones:

http://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/licensing/taxi/phd/phdconditions

which doesn't appear to mention anything about the standard of driving or mention anyone other than the hirer.


----------



## mr_cellophane (7 Feb 2009)

I would do 2 things
1 - Check that this incident will be kept on his file
2 - Ask to see these "Conditions" attached to his Licence. I have found some and nowhere is the standard of driving mentioned.

He was probably obeying this one from Glasgow's


> (6) The driver of a private hire car which has been hired shall drive to the destination by the shortest practicable route unless otherwise instructed by the hirer.


Unfortunately the shortest route was over you. 

I wonder how many stick to this one


> (14) The driver of a private hire car shall, after the completion of *each *journey, search the private hire car for any property which may have been left therein.


 

www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/76D2C7BD-9E0F-4A82-AFB8-D1E1462EC30B/0/PHCDCOND.DOC


----------



## Arch (7 Feb 2009)

User76 said:


> Yeah, he's probably crapping himself



Well, ok, but assuming the emails we've seen tell the story correctly:

Someone junior asked him about it and he said oh yeah, that pillock, it was all his fault, tell him to F off.

Couple of days later, someone senior gets back from holiday, hauls him in, and questions him in such a way that he feels he may actually have been at fault after all and oh, sorry.

He thought he'd got away with it, and it was then proved that he hadn't. That _may_ have taught him something.

Of course if the emails aren't telling the story (maybe someone thought they could palm Magnatom off, then realised they couldn't), then the driver may indeed not have learnt a thing.


----------



## HLaB (7 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> Well, ok, but assuming the emails we've seen tell the story correctly:
> 
> Someone junior asked him about it and he said oh yeah, that pillock, it was all his fault, tell him to F off.
> 
> ...


That sums up my thoughts too


----------



## magnatom (7 Feb 2009)

Interesting. I get an e-mail suggesting that the guy didn't give a toss, by accident. Boss comes back, waits a few days and then sends an e-mail telling me that the guy is sorry. Mmm. I wonder. 

My gut tells me that some truths are being stretched here. What I would love to know is, since the last e-mail, have they really had another chat with the driver, invited him in, found a convenient date and told him he was in the wrong, and suddenly he has come over contrite, or...... have they waited a little bit and wrote to me and changed the approach of the letter such that it will get me off their back.

I'm just hypothesising of course, but the sudden change in attitude of the driver over a few days just seems a little, contrived. I hope I am wrong of course, perhaps I am.

Hey, ho. Despite what I may think, I reckon the driver will at least think twice before doing it again, which is the result I am looking for. Hopefully one less driver who will just ignore cyclists. 

I can understand those who say the police should have been my first port of call. However, despite popular belief I am not out to put people out of a job. A bollicking/dress down, where the driver is informed of the issues with their driving is enough for me, certainly in this case. I just have a sneaky suspicion that it didn't quite happen like that.

What does surprise me though is that taxi licence conditions have no clause in them that the driver should drive with due care and attention for other road users etc. Hmmm. Something that needs to be addressed perhaps?


----------



## thomas (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I can understand those who say the police should have been my first port of call.



They wouldn't have done anything extra probably.


----------



## downfader (8 Feb 2009)

thomas said:


> They wouldn't have done anything extra probably.



I think that depends on the force and the officer. They are slowly starting to realise that this sort of stuff matters and that a driver leaving little room for error is not cool. Cyclists are becoming a bigger minority due to many reasons and this does lead to a bigger need for safer roads


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Interesting. I get an e-mail suggesting that the guy didn't give a toss, by accident. Boss comes back, waits a few days and then sends an e-mail telling me that the guy is sorry. Mmm. I wonder.
> 
> My gut tells me that some truths are being stretched here. What I would love to know is, since the last e-mail, have they really had another chat with the driver, invited him in, found a convenient date and told him he was in the wrong, and suddenly he has come over contrite, or...... have they waited a little bit and wrote to me and changed the approach of the letter such that it will get me off their back.
> 
> ...





This is all covered in the highway code as you said earlier, so it isnt anything to do with you, as you said. He has passed his driving test like anyone else.

What needs to be taken into account when approaching the police is that they need to take all reasons into account to warrant taking the time to investigate a cyclists complaint. Like how serious was the incident, could the cyclist have avoided , if so why not? Pedance and attitude ect ect. So even the police can see through some reports as a cyclist being awkward or instigating the incident in a way to make it more serious than it need be.

So instead of saying the police are not interested or not doing their job properly, make sure you heve a genuine and unchoreagraphed incident in the first place, they are not as gullible as you think you know.


----------



## magnatom (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> [/color]
> 
> 
> This is all covered in the highway code as you said earlier, so it isnt anything to do with you, as you said. He has passed his driving test like anyone else.
> ...


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


>



Good answer Whether you like it or not, these reasons will pop into their heads about some.


----------



## magnatom (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Good answer Whether you like it or not, these reasons will pop into their heads about some.




If you say so Col.


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> If you say so Col.




I did mag


----------



## downfader (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> [/color]
> 
> 
> This is all covered in the highway code as you said earlier, so it isnt anything to do with you, as you said. He has passed his driving test like anyone else.
> ...



You know if its THAT easy to choreograph an incident then why dont you go out there and prove it? I'm getting a little sick of reading your posts where you seem to go out of your way to discredit other people. The road situation was clearly laid out and you are adding credence to the minority of motorists viewpoint that we are a menace. 

The cyclist was infront - it is the same situation with overtaking a car - you dont barge through simply because you want to go faster or are feeling impatient with the guy in front's progress. Your attitude says that we should be subserviant to bigger vehicles and their drivers. Its not a race out there, we;re not fighting for pole position.


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

downfader said:


> You know if its THAT easy to choreograph an incident then why dont you go out there and prove it? I'm getting a little sick of reading your posts where you seem to go out of your way to discredit other people. The road situation was clearly laid out and you are adding credence to the minority of motorists viewpoint that we are a menace.
> 
> The cyclist was infront - it is the same situation with overtaking a car - you dont barge through simply because you want to go faster or are feeling impatient with the guy in front's progress. Your attitude says that we should be subserviant to bigger vehicles and their drivers. Its not a race out there, we;re not fighting for pole position.





Im afraid it seems some are.
Again it seems some do.
Your sick? How do you think others feel that we will get tarred with the same brush? And possibly even given a harder time on the roads than needs be?


----------



## purplepolly (8 Feb 2009)

it would be very easy for him to choreograph this so as to get only minor injuries. All he would need is eyes in the back of his head so he could see the taxi approaching, exactly how fast it was going and it's exact position on the road. He would then also need psychic powers in order to know exactly what the taxidriver was going to do and when. Then all he would need to do would be to calculate the necessary angle of impact. Easy. 

Coincidently, I'd only just found the link to the google thread and was just about to reply here about the google OP hinting about the situation being contrived by the cyclist, when I came back here and read... spooky


----------



## magnatom (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Im afraid it seems some are.
> Again it seems some do.
> Your sick? How do you think others feel that we will get tarred with the same brush? And possibly even given a harder time on the roads than needs be?


Go on col, be a man. If you think I am a menace, come on out and say it. You've pussyfooted around this issue for long enough. Simple question. Do you think I am a menace on the roads or not? Yes or no?


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Go on col, be a man. If you think I am a menace, come on out and say it. You've pussyfooted around this issue for long enough. Simple question. Do you think I am a menace on the roads or not? Yes or no?




In some of your incidents where we have had it out before, yes i do. Im not for one second thinking you will admit this, but making an incident worse than it needs to be is in my book a menace.


----------



## Lurker (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> In some of your incidents where we have had it out before, yes i do. Im not for one second thinking you will admit this, but making an incident worse than it needs to be is in my book a menace.



'Menace' defined:

menace
noun 

1. a perceived threat or danger
2. the act of threatening
3. a dangerous person

verb to menace (transitive or intransitive)

1. to make threats (against someone); to intimidate
2. to endanger someone or something; to imperil or jeopardize

http://www.allwords.com/word-menace.html


----------



## magnatom (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> In some of your incidents where we have had it out before, yes i do. Im not for one second thinking you will admit this, but making an incident worse than it needs to be is in my book a menace.



Your post is a perfect example of a troll post. You answer the question, and feel the need to follow it up with a jibe about the fact that I will not admit something that you think I am, but which I obviously do not think I am. Thereby attempting to wind me up by asking me to admit something that you know I never would. Trolling, pure and simple. Good luck with that.

I think  will just about sum up my response to any of your posts in the future quite nicely.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Feb 2009)

Don't send the video!

Make the complaint with details of the incident.... then await the reply.

Then when you get the compulsory pack of evasive lies rely with the video and ask how the drivers statement correlates with the evidence.

Then question whether with the combination of bad driving and the evidence thatthe driver has lied about the incident raises the question as to whether they are "a fit and proper person" to hold a licence


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Your post is a perfect example of a troll post. You answer the question, and feel the need to follow it up with a jibe about the fact that I will not admit something that you think I am, but which I obviously do not think I am. Thereby attempting to wind me up by asking me to admit something that you know I never would. Trolling, pure and simple. Good luck with that.
> 
> I think  will just about sum up my response to any of your posts in the future quite nicely.




Your at it again arnt you I answered a question you asked and you monopolise on it. About you not admitting to what i suspect has been said before so for you to claim troll again is a bit silly really, I answered what i believe, if you want to play at name calling because of it,thats your usual way it seems, then dont ask a question you might not like the answer too, or is that trolling in itself when you name call as you didnt get an answer you hoped for?
This does seem to show you in a childish light i think, your rolling eyes summing up nicely as an answer, just because you dont like it.
Grow up or dont ask a question.


----------



## magnatom (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Your at it again arnt you I answered a question you asked and you monopolise on it. About you not admitting to what i suspect has been said before so for you to claim troll again is a bit silly really, I answered what i believe, if you want to play at name calling because of it,thats your usual way it seems, then dont ask a question you might not like the answer too, or is that trolling in itself when you name call as you didnt get an answer you hoped for?
> This does seem to show you in a childish light i think, your rolling eyes summing up nicely as an answer, just because you dont like it.
> Grow up or dont ask a question.


----------



## Origamist (8 Feb 2009)

I imagine if Col saw footage of me cycling pretty much my entire commute in primary he'd spew up his spleen and his prose would suffer a complete syntactical breakdown... But seriously, if Magnatom truly is a menace, I must be a cycling psychopath! Everyday I wantonly brutalise drivers, endanger their families and torment their pets as I cycle on the same roads as them. Only last week a bus driver shouted "murderer" at me as I ran over a semi-frozen worm whilst trying to avoid (but still intimidate) a car that pulled a sudden U-turn in front of me. Do you know how difficult it was to choreograph that incident? 

Cunobelin's point about holding the film in reserve is astute. The licensing authority would find it harder to defend a driver who was later shown to be disingenuous and deceitful when the footage was produced. Poor driving might not interest them much, but dishonesty probably would.


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


>



It seems that you ask me a question then call me a troll on answer?

Be a man not a child and admit you are a menace sometimes


----------



## Bollo (8 Feb 2009)

I've been at the port again col!

To incidents col will object,
"Maggers, he shows no respect.
I tell him he's mad,
His cycling is bad,
But my syntax is often suspect."


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> I've been at the port again col!
> 
> To incidents col will object,
> "Maggers, he shows no respect.
> ...




Very good


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Feb 2009)

Is that a joke or is col's cycling bad?

If so why?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Feb 2009)

col said:


> It seems that you ask me a question then call me a troll on answer?
> 
> Be a man not a child and admit you are a menace sometimes



Col, I hate to say it, but you are being pretty infuriating on this one. Mags may or may not have been cycling too far out into the road, but that's irrelevant. What is important is that the taxi driver barged past him leaving insufficient room, which was bad. And then gave him a load of abuse, which was worse. besides all this, Mag was there and you weren't, which means that his comments about where he needed to be on the road carry more weight than yours. You need to concede this one, in my opinion.


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Col, I hate to say it, but you are being pretty infuriating on this one. Mags may or may not have been cycling too far out into the road, but that's irrelevant. What is important is that the taxi driver barged past him leaving insufficient room, which was bad. And then gave him a load of abuse, which was worse. besides all this, Mag was there and you weren't, which means that his comments about where he needed to be on the road carry more weight than yours. You need to concede this one, in my opinion.



Your right,i will, but it doesnt change my belief.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Feb 2009)

I don't think I like very much when the car sort of stops in front of you moment.You don't know who the hell is going to get out and also what he is carrying.


----------



## Bollo (8 Feb 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Is that a joke or is col's cycling bad?
> 
> If so why?



You need to look at the quotation marks for it to make sense.

col's posts really make my brain hurt and as someone who's had meningitis, I know what a sore brain feels like! But I can't help but read them. It's like smelling your own farts - it's wrong, but you do it anyway. So as a coping mechanism, I have started to reply to col's posts in verse.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> You need to look at the quotation marks for it to make sense.
> 
> col's posts really make my brain hurt and as someone who's had meningitis, I know what a sore brain feels like! *But I can't help but read them. It's like smelling your own farts - it's wrong, but you do it anyway*. So as a coping mechanism, I have started to reply to col's posts in verse.


That's a gem, Bollo. Nicely sums up how many people on here must feel.. I think my sig line has just been found.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> You need to look at the quotation marks for it to make sense.
> 
> col's posts really make my brain hurt and as someone who's had meningitis, I know what a sore brain feels like! But I can't help but read them. It's like smelling your own farts - it's wrong, but you do it anyway. So as a coping mechanism, I have started to reply to col's posts in verse.



Message Board Gold!


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> You need to look at the quotation marks for it to make sense.
> 
> col's posts really make my brain hurt and as someone who's had meningitis, I know what a sore brain feels like! But I can't help but read them. It's like smelling your own farts - it's wrong, but you do it anyway. So as a coping mechanism, I have started to reply to col's posts in verse.



Fair enough,but I will always believe that some incidents didnt need to unfold in the way they did,due to choreography.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Feb 2009)

Col, it's not a dance we do on our bikes... it's just a method of travel. Do you really think Mags has a professional telling him how to orchestrate close passes just so he can post them on the internet??


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> That's a gem, Bollo. Nicely sums up how many people on here must feel.. I think my sig line has just been found.




How does that sum it up?, a case of assumption again ?


----------



## col (8 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Col, it's not a dance we do on our bikes... it's just a method of travel. Do you really think Mags has a professional telling him how to orchestrate close passes just so he can post them on the internet??




No, he probably does it himself .


----------



## purplepolly (8 Feb 2009)




----------



## magnatom (9 Feb 2009)

col said:


> No, he probably does it himself .





Out of interest and completely off topic, a wise man once said:

Judo is like dancing, except there is no choreography, no music and the dancers try to knock each other down.


So there you have it.

Now I will conduct the orchestra...

Da da da da da da da daaa da da, boom tish, da da da da da da da daaa boom tish.....


----------



## col (9 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Out of interest and completely off topic, a wise man once said:
> 
> Judo is like dancing, except there is no choreography, no music and the dancers try to knock each other down.
> 
> ...




Its only like a dance in some clubs.
Da da da da da da da daaa da da, boom tish, da da da da da da da daaa boom tish


----------



## classic33 (9 Feb 2009)

Why oh why the slagging match.

Incident brought down to basics:
Cyclist has to follow a line on the road, so as to avoid injury that could be caused by hitting obstruction to his left.
Approaching a "pinch point" he has a vehicle pass him at a point on the road where to do so would be unsafe. 
Vehicle passed close enough for the cyclist to actually touch the vehicle passing him. 
Complaint made against the driver, to the local licensing department.

At this stage the complaint would have been the cyclist against the "professional driver". Normally the driver would have had the only say on the matter. 
This time however the cyclist was able to back up his complaint with video evidence.

This is still something new to many & I'd say the initial response reflects that fact. 
Cyclist not willing to accept the first answer given & pursues the matter.

Maybe if more pursued the matter beyond the first response something would be done.
As for driving in accordance with the regulations, basic regulations state that they obey the highway code at all times. Driver chose to overtake, his mistake. Possible that he'd done many times before, but now he he's been caught on camera.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Feb 2009)

You're missing the point, classic - it was all magnatom's fault, see? He deliberately provoked the driver by being on the road, wot is for cars, as any fule kno.


----------



## classic33 (10 Feb 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> You're missing the point, classic - it was all magnatom's fault, see? He deliberately provoked the driver by being on the road, wot is for cars, as any fule kno.



I thought it was Magnatom's fault soley because he uses a camera.


----------



## magnatom (13 Feb 2009)

I approached a zebra crosing today in our local sports centre car park. My son and I stopped and saw some cars approaching, so I pointed out to my son that we would have to wait until the cars stopped before we crossed. The first car didn't stop and kept on driving (plenty of time to stop). He stopped just in front of the building and I looked back with mild annoyance only to discover that it was a private taxi. However, what struck me the most was the taxi's plate number 2266. 

Most disturbingly as I pointed this out to my wife who was just behind me, the chap looked over at me and waved whilst smiling. Either he had heard me say it (I doubt it as his window was closed), he was waving because he knew I was annoyed at him (he didn't care), or he recognised me. 

I of course did the right thing and carried on into the sports centre.

Next time I will take this type of incident (when as serious as this) straight to the police. Obviously the licencing board made no difference to his attitude....


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (13 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I approached a zebra crosing today in our local sports centre car park. My son and I stopped and saw some cars approaching, so I pointed out to my son that we would have to wait until the cars stopped before we crossed.


Technically they're not obliged to stop until you set foot on the crossing (IIRC) but in this day and age it'd be madness to step out before they've stopped... most drivers will stop when they know you want to cross... of course there are some that don't, and we call these people c*cks.


----------



## Origamist (14 Feb 2009)

I often step out before cars stop on zebra crossings - it tends to make them stop.


----------



## HLaB (14 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> I often step out before cars stop on zebra crossings - it tends to make them stop.


I've personally not got that faith in Motons but Ive found in larger cities like Dublin folk just walk out in front of car regardless of what type of crossing it is.


----------



## col (14 Feb 2009)

You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for.


----------



## Origamist (14 Feb 2009)

col said:


> You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for.



I agree with Col and I can't quite believe it. I'm not a student of eschatology, but have the four cyclists of the apocalypse been sighted?


----------



## HLaB (14 Feb 2009)

I guess its all down to location (culture) I wouldn't fancy putting a foot out here but in Dublin I'd have no real qualms.


----------



## col (14 Feb 2009)

Yes I see cars swerving to hit pedestrians who have put one foot on the crossing all the time


----------



## purplepolly (14 Feb 2009)

Maybe not swerving but they'll certainly hit the accelerator if they're approaching from the other side of the road, even if that means going through the crossing when the ped's almost at the centre. I've even seen drivers do illegal left turns which takes them through crossings and shunt pedestrians out of the way.


----------



## col (14 Feb 2009)

So what are you saying? Never put a foot on the crossing to let them know you want to cross because its too dangerous?


----------



## purplepolly (15 Feb 2009)

No, just that "I see cars swerving to hit pedestrians who have put one foot on the crossing all the time " isn't too far from reality


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

purplepolly said:


> No, just that "I see cars swerving to hit pedestrians who have put one foot on the crossing all the time " isn't too far from reality




I suppose if you are unlucky, then yes


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

It seems that Col is an assertive pedestrian, but not an assertive cyclist. 


What happened to not wanting to unduly delay motorists?
What happened to keeping yourself safe?
What happened to not wanting to annoy drivers?
It appears that you and Magnatom have things in common after all...!


----------



## magnatom (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> It seems that Col is an assertive pedestrian, but not an assertive cyclist.
> 
> 
> What happened to not wanting to unduly delay motorists?
> ...




Your not rolling here are you Origamist?....


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

Far too much objectivity for proper 'rolling.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> It seems that Col is an assertive pedestrian, but not an assertive cyclist.
> 
> 
> What happened to not wanting to unduly delay motorists?
> ...




Nothing has happened

I try to all the time

I try not to


We dont, where do you get this idea?


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Nothing has happened
> 
> I try to all the time
> 
> ...



Why do you think I have this idea? Perhaps it because you have argued the case for exercising your right to cross the road when vehicles approach zebra crossings (which can delay/annoy drivers and be a bit risky), but you criticise cyclists who are similarly assertive, accusing them of annoying/delaying motorists etc.

Does this make it clear - I am accusing you of hypocrisy!


----------



## magnatom (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Why do you think I have this idea? Pehaps it because you have argued the case for exercising your right to cross the road when vehicles approach zebra crossings (which can delay/annoy drivers and be a bit risky), but you criticise cyclists who are similarly assertive.
> 
> Does this make it clear - I am accusing you of hypocrisy!




I fear you won't get a straight answer here!

I wonder if col would ever use a Pelican Crossing. I know that cars drivers often feel they get delayed by such unecessary road furniture...


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

Another haiku....

Col, timid on bike,
Boldly claims his right to walk,
On black and white paint.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I fear you won't get a straight answer here!
> 
> I wonder if col would ever use a Pelican Crossing. I know that cars drivers often feel they get delayed by such unecessary road furniture...



Mag, you are to blame for some of this but most of the blame is with your mother for birthing you in the first place, what was she thinking?


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> Mag, you are to blame for some of this but most of the blame is with your mother for birthing you in the first place, what was she thinking?



In magnatom's case, it probably wasn't England.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Why do you think I have this idea? Perhaps it because you have argued the case for exercising your right to cross the road when vehicles approach zebra crossings (which can delay/annoy drivers and be a bit risky), but you criticise cyclists who are similarly assertive, accusing them of annoying/delaying motorists etc.
> 
> Does this make it clear - I am accusing you of hypocrisy!




Oh i see. Because I would put a foot on a crossing to show my intentions, you say im being a hypocrit.
The point is they expect and understand when you cross a zebra crossing, they dont expect or understand ignorant and unnecessary choreography of a cyclist in the middle of a road, but then i didnt expect anything else from you and your club

Incredible


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I fear you won't get a straight answer here!
> 
> I wonder if col would ever use a Pelican Crossing. I know that cars drivers often feel they get delayed by such unecessary road furniture...




Fear no more my menace of the roads
Only you could come out with rubbish like this, so much for your safety campaign eh, i wonder what your real reasons are for pretending to be concerned for our safety when you think using a crossing properly is being hypocritical 

Is that straight enough for you


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> Another haiku....
> 
> Col, timid on bike,
> Boldly claims his right to walk,
> On black and white paint.




Standards are dropping


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

Either that or people ain't all that bothered.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Either that or people ain't all that bothered.



They are or they wouldnt keep instigating debate


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> but then i didnt expect anything else from you and your club
> 
> Incredible



If Origamist had a club, it would have a very tough entrance exam.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> If Origamist had a club, it would have a very tough entrance exam.




Not really, think of a safe and logical topic then go the opposite way and blame everyone else for everything


----------



## Lurker (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Oh i see. Because I would put a foot on a crossing to show my intentions, you say im being a hypocrit.
> The point is they expect and understand when you cross a zebra crossing, they dont expect or understand ignorant and unnecessary choreography of a cyclist in the middle of a road, but then i didnt expect anything else from you and your club
> 
> Incredible



I'd venture to suggest that the reason that motorists expect and understand that someone might wish to cross a road at a zebra crossing is because most motorists are pedestrians some of the time.

Unfortunately most motorists are not cyclists, and as a result they don't expect or understand assertive road positioning from a cyclist. This reflects their ignorance rather than that of the cyclist.


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Oh i see. Because I would put a foot on a crossing to show my intentions, you say im being a hypocrit.



No. I am accusing you of being a hypocrit because you constantly criticise people for delaying motorists, or for annoying them, or for taking risks - all of which you happily do when you step out in front of moving traffic on a zebra crossing! I have been beeped, sworn at, etc many times for asserting my right to cross the road. Quite a lot of motorists and cyclists don't give two hoots for pedestrians.

Can you not see the glaring inconsistency in your position, Col?


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> They are or they wouldnt keep instigating debate



Or writing Haiku, to which you were referring and which I replied to.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Lurker said:


> I'd venture to suggest that the reason that motorists expect and understand that someone might wish to cross a road at a zebra crossing is because most motorists are pedestrians some of the time.
> 
> Unfortunately most motorists are not cyclists, and as a result they don't expect or understand assertive road positioning from a cyclist. This reflects their ignorance rather than that of the cyclist.



In most cases i would agree, but i dont agree when a cyclist forces a situation just to prove a point or get a vid. They are more dangerous than a motorist who doesnt cycle, then come out with a load of tosh to try and excuse their reasons as to why they were so pig headed or stupid.
These menaces of the road dont want to know that a lot of motorists dont understand their actions, but they do it anyway then berate the poor sucker for dangerous driving when it neednt have happened.Safety in mind??? what a load of twaddle, there are other reasons on their minds, and its definitely not for the good of all us cyclists.


----------



## Crackle (15 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> If Origamist had a club, it would have a very tough entrance exam.




In fact he wouldn't get enough members and he'd have to fold.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> No. I am accusing you of being a hypocrit because you constantly criticise people for delaying motorists, or for annoying them, or for taking risks - all of which you happily do when you step out in front of moving traffic on a zebra crossing! I have been beeped, sworn at, etc many times for asserting my right to cross the road. Quite a lot of mototists and cyclists don't give two hoots for pedestrians.
> 
> Can you not see the glaring inconsistency in your position, Col?



You really must be a bit dim if you think i step out in front of moving traffic
Can you not see the holes in your so well thought out have a go at me


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Or writing Haiku, to which you were referring and which I replied to.



Your point?


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

What needn't have happened was the taxi's overtake, irrespective of Mag's riding.
This has been concurred time and again on this thread.
One could say that your one man crusade against Mag is just as unnecessary and narrow minded as you feel Mag's videos.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> No. I am accusing you of being a hypocrit because you constantly criticise people for delaying motorists, or for annoying them, or for taking risks - all of which you happily do when you step out in front of moving traffic on a zebra crossing! I have been beeped, sworn at, etc many times for asserting my right to cross the road. Quite a lot of motorists and cyclists don't give two hoots for pedestrians.
> 
> Can you not see the glaring inconsistency in your position, Col?



The only ones i criticise are the unneccesary menaces. And what gives you the impression that i take risks at crossings? Or are you just assuming and guessing again?


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> What needn't have happened was the taxi's overtake, irrespective of Mag's riding.
> This has been concurred time and again on this thread.
> One could say that your one man crusade against Mag is just as unnecessary and narrow minded as you feel Mag's videos.




Iv given my opinion, he didnt like it and started attacking in his childish and underhand way to which I responded and he hates that. As a friend of his you call me narrow minded and say i have a crusade, if i think someone is unsafe Ill say so, or is that not allowed ?


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> You really must be a bit dim if you think i step out in front of moving traffic
> Can you not see the holes in your so well thought out have a go at me




Col you wrote:



col said:


> You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, *and one step shows them what you want to do*, which most seem to stop for.



I assume you are referring to a moving vehicle that is approaching the crossing? 

Please feel free to keep wriggling though...


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Col you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You really are dim arent you, feel free to try and make it sound like something it isnt you mammery gland


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

It was a simple question. Were you referring to an approaching vehicle, or not?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> The only ones i criticise are the unneccesary menaces.



Remind us again who Magnatom was menacing?


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> In most cases i would agree, but i dont agree when a cyclist forces a situation just to prove a point or get a vid.



Damn you col, you've sussed me out good and proper. Y'see, I was feeling all left out - I'd not put a vid up in ages, despite being an unnecessary menace.

But then I had one - a seemingly random encounter with a rampaging canine on a busy main road. Phew! At last I could hold my head up at our secret club meetings. But was everything kosher and above-board? I confess that the answer is no, as I choreographed the incident by riding a bike made completely from sausages.


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

I thought you were driving an old banger!


----------



## Crackle (15 Feb 2009)

Proper linked suspension though.


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> Damn you col, you've sussed me out good and proper. Y'see, I was feeling all left out - I'd not put a vid up in ages, despite being an unnecessary menace.
> 
> But then I had one - a seemingly random encounter with a rampaging canine on a busy main road. Phew! At last I could hold my head up at our secret club meetings. But was everything kosher and above-board? I confess that the answer is no, as I choreographed the incident by riding a bike made completely from sausages.



That's not a real dog. It's a radio-controlled, canine cyborg thingy operated by Magnatom. The vehicles were driven by various members of his cycle cam cabal (Thomas, Rog etc), therefore the footage is entirely contrived - even the weather.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> It was a simple question. Were you referring to an approaching vehicle, or not?



You said i walked out in front of moving traffic, you sure your not mag ?
If you dont know how to use a crossing you only have to ask you know.


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

I thought all Mag's vids were test shots for the forthcoming Pixar film, Cyclists(Working Title; 'How to roll over for motorists and have your tummy tickled.'.


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> You said i walked out in front of moving traffic, you sure your not mag ?
> If you dont know how to use a crossing you only have to ask you know.



Remember Col, you've already written this:

*You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for.* 

You have an infinite capacity to make yourself look silly.


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> I thought you were driving an old banger!





Crackle said:


> Proper linked suspension though.


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

In fact, just to put one foot on a crossing and not cross would put the backs up of a lot of motorists round my way.


----------



## purplepolly (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Remember Col, you've already written this:
> 
> *You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for.*
> 
> You have an infinite capacity to make yourself look silly.



And he certainly would look silly standing with one foot on a zebra crossing for 5 minutes or so for a gap in the traffic, because it's a long time since I've seen a motorist stop for anyone who isn't actually walking across.


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> That's not a real dog. It's a radio-controlled, canine cyborg thingy operated by Magnatom. The vehicles were driven by various members of his cycle cam cabal (Thomas, Rog etc), therefore the footage is entirely contrived - even the weather.


What weather? It was all filmed indoors using blue screens. The dog is CGI.



Ooops!


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> What weather? It was all filmed indoors using blue screens. The dog is CGI.
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops!



Holy moley - I'm behind the times. I'm still hand tinting cellulose nitrate rolls of my cycling escapades...!


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Feb 2009)

I draw mine on the walls of my cave.


----------



## purplepolly (15 Feb 2009)

I think the whole thing's contrived, not just the videos, but also the 'opposition'. Col is clearly an alias of magnatom that's used to boost his profile and get more posts. If it wasn't for this alias, mags would drop into obscurity a few minutes after posting his videos. In order to keep up the charade he even argues with himself. 

Ha, see we've got you sussed now magnatom-col.


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Holy moley - I'm behind the times. I'm still hand tinting cellulose nitrate rolls of my cycling escapades...!



Before getting a cam, I did carry one of those courtroom illustrators in a pannier for a while. Never worked out though.

Where's col gone? You two were getting on like a house on fire.


----------



## Lurker (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> In most cases i would agree, but i dont agree when a cyclist forces a situation just to prove a point or get a vid. They are more dangerous than a motorist who doesnt cycle, then come out with a load of tosh to try and excuse their reasons as to why they were so pig headed or stupid.
> These menaces of the road dont want to know that a lot of motorists dont understand their actions, but they do it anyway then berate the poor sucker for dangerous driving when it neednt have happened.Safety in mind??? what a load of twaddle, there are other reasons on their minds, and its definitely not for the good of all us cyclists.



From the Recommendations of TRL Report 549, 'Drivers' perceptions of cyclists', L Basford et al., Department for Transport, 2002:

"Awareness raising

Education of drivers should focus not on helping them to predict cyclist behaviour but on understanding that circumstances will influence that behaviour. This would require an acknowledgement on the part of the driver that the surrounding environment affects cyclist behaviour and challenge one of the central elements of cyclists' status as an 'out group'...."


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I think the whole thing's contrived, not just the videos, but also the 'opposition'. Col is clearly an alias of magnatom that's used to boost his profile and get more posts. If it wasn't for this alias, mags would drop into obscurity a few minutes after posting his videos. In order to keep up the charade he even argues with himself.
> 
> Ha, see we've got you sussed now magnatom-col.



You're right! Maggers types his 'col' posts with his left hand to disguise his typing! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!


----------



## Origamist (15 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> Before getting a cam, I did carry one of those courtroom illustrators in a pannier for a while. Never worked out though.
> 
> Where's col gone? You two were getting on like a house on fire.



If he's like me I am sure he is watching "Dancing on Ice" whilst toiling with The Sunday Times Crossword.

Who'd of thought Magnatom was Col all along...

Polly is CC's Miss Marple.


----------



## magnatom (15 Feb 2009)

'Cinders and Ashes!' (I've been reading Thomas to the kids, can you tell!). My evil plan for world domination has been foiled again. 

_magnatom strokes next door neighbours tabby cat. None of the neighbours have white long haired cats and there is no way he would waste the money on a cat of his own, being Scottish. However, never let a tabby get in the way of world domination...._

I'll need to go to plan B. 

_Mouse! _(that's the name of the cat next door!) _Release the hordes of __evil mutant, gigantic,camera weilding cyclists onto the streets of every major town and city in the world. Soon I'll be rid of those pesky do-good kids taxi drivers. At last the magnatom collective will rule the world, I tell you, we __will rule __the __world....__bwah ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa_



Tune in next week to find out if the only person who could save the world (bentmikey) returns from his soul searching in an ice cave somewhere close to the north pole and defeats magnatom. Onle he ca save our planet now with his deft arguments against the use of hi-vis. Forum drama just doesn't get any better....


----------



## purplepolly (15 Feb 2009)

Oh dear, now Col's really cracked...


----------



## Crackle (15 Feb 2009)

purplepolly said:


> Oh dear, now Col's really cracked...



I think you're miaowing up the wrong tree here. Magnatom's plan is assimilation. Anyone with a camera has been assimilated.


----------



## purplepolly (15 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Magnatom's plan is assimilation. Anyone with a camera has been assimilated.



so that's why they look like borg...


----------



## magnatom (15 Feb 2009)




----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Remember Col, you've already written this:
> 
> *You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for.*
> 
> You have an infinite capacity to make yourself look silly.



I think you will find its you thats looking rather silly


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> In fact, just to put one foot on a crossing and not cross would put the backs up of a lot of motorists round my way.



Oh dear, it doesnt suit you coming out with stuff like this


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

purplepolly said:


> And he certainly would look silly standing with one foot on a zebra crossing for 5 minutes or so for a gap in the traffic, because it's a long time since I've seen a motorist stop for anyone who isn't actually walking across.




Keep looking, I see it a bit more than that



purplepolly said:


> I think the whole thing's contrived, not just the videos, but also the 'opposition'. Col is clearly an alias of magnatom that's used to boost his profile and get more posts. If it wasn't for this alias, mags would drop into obscurity a few minutes after posting his videos. In order to keep up the charade he even argues with himself.
> 
> Ha, see we've got you sussed now magnatom-col.



Now that really is below the belt 



purplepolly said:


> Oh dear, now Col's really cracked...



Its you lot that crack me up, seriously


----------



## col (15 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> 'Cinders and Ashes!' (I've been reading Thomas to the kids, can you tell!). My evil plan for world domination has been foiled again.
> 
> _magnatom strokes next door neighbours tabby cat. None of the neighbours have white long haired cats and there is no way he would waste the money on a cat of his own, being Scottish. However, never let a tabby get in the way of world domination...._
> 
> ...



Iv got to hand it to you ,you know how to cover up your annoyance that i sussed some of your shall we say productions


----------



## purplepolly (15 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Now that really is below the belt


----------



## Rhythm Thief (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I think you will find its you thats looking rather silly



School playground stuf ...


"You're silly!"

"No, _you_ are."


----------



## magnatom (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Iv got to hand it to you ,you know how to cover up your annoyance that i sussed some of your shall we say productions




Time to return to the official col response...


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I think you will find its you thats looking rather silly



It seems that you have reading comprehension problems. I'll ask again, have you ever walked onto a zebra crossing and forced a car to stop for you? I can't make the question any simpler.


----------



## Arch (16 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> But was everything kosher and above-board? I confess that the answer is no, as I choreographed the incident by riding a bike made completely from sausages.




LOL! Thank goodness I didn't have a mouthful of tea when I read that!


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> It seems that you have reading comprehension problems. I'll ask again, have you ever walked onto a zebra crossing and forced a car to stop for you? I can't make the question any simpler.



Your wriggling out of your origional accusation is admirable 
No Iv never forced a car to stop for me on a crossing.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Time to return to the official col response...




Nothing official, just a belief


----------



## classic33 (16 Feb 2009)

Quick question what has crossing the road got to do with cycling on the road. Other than the stated slowing of traffic causing annoyance to drivers.

col 
Suggested reading:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108
see 18 & then come back & say whether you follow the rules.


----------



## classic33 (16 Feb 2009)

Copying col here, gets the posts up. Why so many single posts one after the other??


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

classic33 said:


> Quick question what has crossing the road got to do with cycling on the road. Other than the stated slowing of traffic causing annoyance to drivers.
> 
> col
> Suggested reading:
> ...




See 19 C33


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

classic33 said:


> Copying col here, gets the posts up. Why so many single posts one after the other??



Just seeing a post that needs an answer.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> School playground stuf ...
> 
> 
> "You're silly!"
> ...




Ok point taken,Ill just leave him to say what he says.


----------



## classic33 (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> See 19 C33



Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross.

Yes but you have said that you don't bother with that part. 

Consecutive posts. You answer your own questions as well do you!!


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Your wriggling out of your origional accusation is admirable
> No Iv never forced a car to stop for me on a crossing.



My accusation is the same. It is your story that keeps changing...

Here you said this: 



col said:


> *Oh i see. Because I would put a foot on a crossing to show my intentions, you say im being a hypocrit.*



http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=590391&postcount=239

So when you put your foot on the crossing, not a single car has ever stopped for you?


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

classic33 said:


> Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross.
> 
> Yes but you have said that you don't bother with that part.
> 
> Consecutive posts. You answer your own questions as well do you!!




What are you on about? 



Origamist said:


> My accusation is the same. It is your story that keeps changing...
> 
> Here you said this:
> 
> ...




Your point being?


----------



## purplepolly (16 Feb 2009)

When are they going to start handing out the long service medals for posters on this thread?


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Your point being?



_The abject lack of consistency with your posts:_

*Col: "No Iv never forced a car to stop for me on a crossing."*

*Col: "You really must be a bit dim if you think i step out in front of moving traffic"*

_But then you say this:_

_*Col: Oh i see. Because I would put a foot on a crossing to show my intentions, you say im being a hypocrit.*_

_This brings me back to my original accusation - that you are prepared to delay and potentially annoy drivers when you are a pedestrian, but if someone has the temerity to do the same on a bike, you start frothing at the keyboard. _


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> _The abject lack of consistency with your posts:_
> 
> *Col: "No Iv never forced a car to stop for me on a crossing."*
> 
> ...




Blimey you really are trying here arnt you


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Blimey you really are trying here arnt you



Nah, it's really easy as you're a bundle of contradictions/nonsense!


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Nah, it's really easy as you're a bundle of contradictions/nonsense!




ok organist


----------



## Crackle (16 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Nah, it's really easy as you're a bundle of contradictions/nonsense!




Don't forget the gratuitous laughing smileys.

In Col's defence, outside of commuting, he does make some good posts


----------



## col (16 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Don't forget the gratuitous laughing smileys.
> 
> In Col's defence, outside of commuting, he does make some good posts



Ta C, jolly decent of you,I suppose I can be a bit argumentative sometimes

See what I did there ? 

Sorry couldnt resist.


----------



## Origamist (16 Feb 2009)

col said:


> ok organist



I'm more of an onanist.


----------



## classic33 (17 Feb 2009)

[QUOTE Quote:
Originally Posted by classic33 
Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross.

Yes but you have said that you don't bother with that part. 

Consecutive posts. You answer your own questions as well do you!! 


What are you on about?
QUOTE]

Iv'e been wondering the same with regards to you.

Piece of advice handed out in this neck o'woods, "When in hole & unable to get out, stop digging".

Can someone take the shovel of him!!


----------



## col (17 Feb 2009)

classic33 said:


> [QUOTE Quote:
> Originally Posted by classic33
> Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross.
> 
> ...




Would you show me where Iv said that I dont bother with that part ?


----------



## classic33 (19 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Would you show me where Iv said that I dont bother with that part ?



Posted by you 12:45 14th February
"_*You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for."*_

Therefore you are not waiting on them stopping to allow you to cross, but walking onto the crossing whilst traffic is still moving. Therby causing them to try & read your actions.


----------



## col (19 Feb 2009)

classic33 said:


> Posted by you 12:45 14th February
> "_*You only need to take one step onto it, you dont have to carry on walking, and one step shows them what you want to do, which most seem to stop for."*_
> 
> Therefore you are not waiting on them stopping to allow you to cross, but walking onto the crossing whilst traffic is still moving. Therby causing them to try & read your actions.




I think you ve missunderstood what I have written there
But then again I dont think you have, Nice try but even your effort at making it sound like something different is rediculous
Your a constant source of merryment and mirth


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I think you ve missunderstood what I have written there
> But then again I dont think you have, Nice try but even your effort at making it sound like something different is rediculous
> Your a constant source of merryment and mirth



Followed by this
_*"So what are you saying? Never put a foot on the crossing to let them know you want to cross because its too dangerous?"*_
23:45 14th February

As regards knowing what you meant to say, how can you expect anyone to know what you meant to say.

Your tripping over yourself now


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2009)

> I'll see your offering and raise you *195* -
> 
> *195*
> *Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing
> ...




See your offerring & raise you
*Crossings
18*
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has *stopped* before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing

Therefore the onus is on the person wishing to cross, to check that it is actually safe to do so, before starting to cross.


----------



## PBancroft (20 Feb 2009)

How about everyone just looks out for the more vulnerable party/parties on the road?

Dead is dead.


----------



## col (20 Feb 2009)

classic33 said:


> Followed by this
> _*"So what are you saying? Never put a foot on the crossing to let them know you want to cross because its too dangerous?"*_
> 23:45 14th February
> 
> ...



Like I said, merryment and mirth


----------

