# Bus driver jailed



## dhd.evans (16 Feb 2012)

This is truly horrific:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798

17 months for attempted murder is far too lenient. Look how the cyclist goes down like a sack of spuds.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

Blimey, that is unbelievable.
Could have easily resulted in the death of the cyclist.


----------



## girovago (16 Feb 2012)

Well he got a lot more than a driver would usually get for killing a cyclist.


----------



## kishan (16 Feb 2012)

should have got more atleast some sort of justice is done


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Feb 2012)

That's the second thread today where this sort of behaviour has been defended with the "moment of madness" excuse.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

dhd.evans said:


> This is truly horrific:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
> 
> 17 months for attempted murder is far too lenient. Look how the cyclist goes down like a sack of spuds.


17 months for attempted murder would be lenient, but as he was not sentenced for attempted murder, your comment is not relevant to the story. People are only sentenced for the offences they are convicted of

He was sentenced for dangerous driving and GBH. I personally feel any use of a vehicle as a weapon should attract a steeper sentence


----------



## Arjimlad (16 Feb 2012)

Original thread here, http://cyclechat.net/threads/bristol-bus-driver-hitting-bike-prison.92944/ a member kindly explains why attempted murder charge would be unlikely to succeed...


----------



## downfader (16 Feb 2012)

I think 17 months is a disgustingly low term for such a horrific attack. It is however sadly ironic that killer drivers get lesser terms.


----------



## fossyant (16 Feb 2012)

Crikey. Terrible.


----------



## jay clock (16 Feb 2012)

Extremely nasty and the CCTV seems to show a clear intent to do something very unpleasant


----------



## Dobby (16 Feb 2012)

Good grief. Absolutely terrifying. It's not just a case of driving like a careless/negligent/thoughtless/"sorry, didn't see you, mate" numpty. It's deliberate use of several tons of bus as a weapon. Moment of madness? What's that all about? I'm sure that if I had "a moment of madness" with a knife and attacked someone, I'd get more than 17 months.


----------



## Alembicbassman (16 Feb 2012)

Jailed for s.18 Wounding with Intent and Dangerous Driving and no job prospects when he gets out.


----------



## addictfreak (16 Feb 2012)

I have seen some bad videos since I first started visiting CC, but this one has to be the worst I have ever seen.


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Feb 2012)

Horrifying is an overused word, but that clip merits it.

17 months?


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

Alembicbassman said:


> Jailed for s.18 Wounding with Intent and Dangerous Driving and no job prospects when he gets out.


 was it s18? report I saw just said GBH so wasnt sure if it was s18/s20

if it was S18, then sentence is very low imho


----------



## jdrussell (16 Feb 2012)

just seen this, truly shocking !


----------



## Alembicbassman (16 Feb 2012)

I'm assuming s18 as it seems the best fit, he deliberately drove the bus at the cyclist intending to hit him. If it had been unintentional the charge would just be one of Dangerous Driving. I'm thinking first offence for the sentence.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

Alembicbassman said:


> I'm assuming s18 as it seems the best fit, he deliberately drove the bus at the cyclist intending to hit him. If it had been unintentional the charge would just be one of Dangerous Driving.


not sure I agree with your logic.

the difference between s18 and s20 assault is down to intent - the injuries are the same. I would have pursued a s18, but I suspect it may be a s20 as judge says he does not accept the incident was not deliberate. Defence wouldn't be able to suggest that in mitigation if it was a s18

I am a little surprised there were 2 charges as their appears to be just one action. The court could have imposed same prison sentence and ban for the assault charge alone


----------



## Aiden_23 (16 Feb 2012)

This video renders me speechless!!!!! What is s18 before I run my mouth off and look like a ->


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

s20 = Grevious bodily harm
s18 = grevious bodily harm with intent


----------



## Aiden_23 (16 Feb 2012)

Right well that was clearly attempted murder I would rather be attacked with a knife then attacked with a bus!!!! Thanks for clearing that up for me spen666


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden, where is the attempt to kill cyclist?

There is no evidence of an attempt to kill. If the prosecution had run that charge, bus driver would have been acquitted


----------



## CopperCyclist (16 Feb 2012)

Section 18 would be the right charge. It's not attempted murder because if he had been seeking the death of the cyclist he could have followed it up and acheived it.

I can see how a defence lawyer could argue it down to Section 20 with a pathetic but hard to argue 'moment of madness' defence, saying 'he didn't even think, there was no true intent to injure this severely, he just lashed out, he's devastated at the consequences' etc etc.

Regardless, 17 months is lenient considering how long he will actually serve... but our justice system has developed to the point of under sentencing for everything IMHO.


----------



## subaqua (16 Feb 2012)

only one cyclist cared enough to go over to the guy too. was good to see other road users attending to him too. Did the driver get a ban too. whats the bets if he did ,it runs at the same time he is in Prison and therefore a useless punishment.


----------



## growingvegetables (16 Feb 2012)

dhd.evans said:


> This is truly horrific


+1


----------



## mr_cellophane (16 Feb 2012)

Interesting. I hate to be "anti" the cyclist involved, but the clip appear to show him riding in the middle of the lane (nothing wrong with that unless it was to deliberately slow the bus down and antagonise the driver). The cyclist then moves more towards the centre of the road as the bus indicates to change lanes and pass him.
This shows how much of a bad idea it is to confront drivers and try to prove a point. BTW something I have done many times and will probably continue to do so when the adrenaline kicks in.


----------



## dawesome (16 Feb 2012)

Our legal system has decided the man is fit to drive again in two and a half years. Sorry Bristolians.


----------



## 172traindriver (16 Feb 2012)

Take a look at this madman! Doubt he'll be driving a bus again anytime soon. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> Our legal system has decided the man is fit to drive again in two and a half years. Sorry Bristolians.


 only after he passes an extended driving test


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

I'm going to merge this with the other thread on the subject.


----------



## krushavik (16 Feb 2012)

I just could not believe it, I had to play it twice this man should banned from driving. He is a complete nutter.


----------



## Aiden_23 (16 Feb 2012)

spen666 said:


> Aiden, where is the attempt to kill cyclist?
> 
> There is no evidence of an attempt to kill. If the prosecution had run that charge, bus driver would have been acquitted


Sorry Ill rephrase that, the fact that the driver drove a 10 tonne vehicle into the side of a cyclist tells me that he was trying to kill him. Its the same argument that happens when someone smashes a glass into someones neck or stabs them,IMO they are trying to kill someone but it will never enter a court in this manner because of our flawed justice system. The issue wasn't his driving it was his aggresive behaviour which doesnt get picked up in any driving test, so an extended driving test makes no difference.


----------



## dawesome (16 Feb 2012)

krushavik said:


> I just could not believe it, I had to play it twice this man should banned from driving. He is a complete nutter.


 

I wondered if the passengers gave evidence, it was a lurching ram:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-used-his-bus-as-weapon-to-knock-688424

and I wondered what would have happened if there was no cctv.


----------



## dawesome (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> Its the same argument that happens when someone smashes a glass into someones neck or stabs them


 

Or kick them in the head, like the horrible homophobic murder in Trafalgar Square.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> Sorry Ill rephrase that, the fact that the driver drove a 10 tonne vehicle into the side of a cyclist tells me that he was trying to kill him........


 
That is exactly the evidence that makes an attempted murder charge impossible to prove.

If he had driven straight over cyclist from behind, it MAY have been possible to succeed on an attempted murder charge.

The actions of the driver were to swerve out from behind the cyclist and side swipe him. That is not at all consistent with an attempt to kill someone.


You need to calm down, put your righteous anger to one side and look at the facts. Lynch mob thinking never produces good justice.

Demanding convictions for offence that are not made out only serves to make people take the views of cyclists as being irrelevant as they are ludicrous and out of touch

It was dangerous driving and GBH. What we need to do is campaign for proper sentences for these type of offences, not demand the whole of the English Legal System be changed to meet your knee jerk reaction to an horrific crime.


----------



## Aiden_23 (16 Feb 2012)

spen666 said:


> That is exactly the evidence that makes an attempted murder charge impossible to prove.
> 
> If he had driven straight over cyclist from behind, it MAY have been possible to succeed on an attempted murder charge.
> 
> ...


 
Whats the difference between smashing into him from behind and swerving into him? I didn't demand a conviction for anything "IMO" the driver was intent on his actions, this was no accident. If the cyclist fell the other way then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all as he would have been under the wheels. The injuries to victims seem to dictate the offence this is wrong. I will post no further replies as I am on this forum for advice not to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Legal system. However I am definetly with you that we need to campaign for proper sentences as this is the perfect case,attempted murder too much, probably, GBH not enough, definetly.

I would appreciate it if you would cease to make assumptions about me as you dont know me thank you.


----------



## benb (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> The injuries to victims seem to dictate the offence this is wrong.


 
Is it wrong? Are you saying that a person commits a knife attack but only manages to inflict a flesh wound should get the same charge brought as another person who opens up an artery and kills someone?


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

Some people use guns or knives, this guy just happened to have a seven tonne cosh handy. Should have been life. I didnt expect what I saw on the vid, horrifying to think how lucky the cyclist was to not have been killed there.


----------



## dawesome (16 Feb 2012)

The way things are going it won't be long before train drivers start aiming at cyclists.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> The way things are going it won't be long before train drivers start aiming at cyclists.


 They would have to be very very mad


----------



## CopperCyclist (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> Whats the difference between smashing into him from behind and swerving into him? I didn't demand a conviction for anything "IMO" the driver was intent on his actions, this was no accident. If the cyclist fell the other way then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all as he would have been under the wheels. The injuries to victims seem to dictate the offence this is wrong. I will post no further replies as I am on this forum for advice not to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Legal system. However I am definetly with you that we need to campaign for proper sentences as this is the perfect case,attempted murder too much, probably, GBH not enough, definetly.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would cease to make assumptions about me as you dont know me thank you.



It's quite simple. If the driver had been intending to kill the cyclist, he would have been able to do so after knocking him to the floor by driving at/over him again. He didn't, so Section 18 wounding is more appropriate than attempt murder.

If it makes you feel any better, despite this, if the cyclist had died, murder WOULD have been appropriate, as if you intend to wound someone but they die, this is murder.


----------



## Nortones2 (16 Feb 2012)

How many goes does one have before it's regarded as attempted murder? SFAIK, one knife thrust qualifies. one instance of backing a taxi to trap a police officer against a wall.....The CPS could still charge GBH as a fall-back: that doesn't pre-empt a more serious charge.


----------



## pshore (16 Feb 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> That's the second thread today where this sort of behaviour has been defended with the "moment of madness" excuse.


 
Somebody needs to stamp on that pathetic argument. If they are prone to a moment of madness that is dangerous to others then lets treat it like a medical condition, like say epilepsy.

http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/driving/stopping-driving



> Single seizure with no specific cause
> 
> If you hold a category A, B, B+E, F, G, H, L or P licence you will need to stop driving for a minimum of six months from the date of the seizure. If you are also qualified to drive vehicles in categories C, C1, D, or D1 *[includes BUS] *you will need to *stop driving for a minimum of five years* from the date of the seizure.


 
Rant rant.


----------



## summerdays (16 Feb 2012)

Whilst I had heard of the incident - even so seeing the footage of it was shocking! 

As for why the other cyclists didn't react - the junction they are coming out of doesn't have a very clear view that direction and is angled facing the other way (away from St James Barton roundabout). I suspect most of the later ones didn't even have a chance to see the cyclist.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Feb 2012)

Anyone got links to the other Bristol conviction?


----------



## Alembicbassman (16 Feb 2012)

Gavin Hill pleaded guilty at first instance hence the light sentence.


----------



## PK99 (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> as this is the perfect case,attempted murder too much, probably, GBH not enough, definetly.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would cease to make assumptions about me as you dont know me thank you.


 
If the cyclist had died it might have been deemed murder as intent to cause GBH resulting in death passes the test, but he did not die and without a clear intent to kill the charge cannot be murder:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#intent





> *Intent*
> 
> For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. _R v Woollin_ [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL).
> *Attempted Murder*
> ...


----------



## classic33 (16 Feb 2012)

pshore said:


> Somebody needs to stamp on that pathetic argument. If they are prone to a moment of madness that is dangerous to others then lets treat it like a medical condition, like say epilepsy.
> 
> http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/driving/stopping-driving
> 
> ...


 
Why epilepsy? Easy target or the first thing that sprang to mind for getting an automatic ban?
There are plenty of other things that could be used to get the driver to hand the licence back.

I ask as a person who suffers from/with the condition & has done all my life. Going off topic I know but I've done more damage to myself through it than I have to anyone else. Although I did put a qualified first aid instructor in a neck brace when he sat me up, partway through a fit. 
In theory I could be clear to start driving at the end of January 2013, providing there are no further fits.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Feb 2012)

benb said:


> Is it wrong? Are you saying that a person commits a knife attack but only manages to inflict a flesh wound should get the same charge brought as another person who opens up an artery and kills someone?


 

Nope, Attempted Murder versus Murder. The key being not the result but the intent. The problem is proving the intent.
Manslaugter was dumbed down to "Causing death by dangerous driving" due to Jury's unwillingness to put aside " there but for the grace of dog go I!" , this has now been watered down due to the problem of proving "intent" and so we end up back where we started. The reason the "moment of madness" was trotted out was to try and kill the "intent" idea. Of course if there was any real justice those who use "madness" as an excuse should be locked up in Broadmoor and asked to prove that they are not mad before being let out. If we can't do it under the RTA , surely we can do it under the Mental Health Act citeing a "Place of safety"?


----------



## Stephenite (17 Feb 2012)

Made the news in Norway this.

Hope the cyclist makes a full recovery physically and psychologically.

17 months isn't enough IMO.


----------



## Ste T. (17 Feb 2012)

Truely shocking.
But on a lighter note the usual comments on the Daily Mail didn't dissapoint.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102245/Bus-driver-used-vehicle-weapon-ram-cyclist-road.html


----------



## BSRU (17 Feb 2012)

It was on BBC Breakfast news this morning, it is disturbing to watch, the presenters seemed shocked by the footage.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (17 Feb 2012)

Ste T. said:


> Truely shocking.
> But on a lighter note the usual comments on the Daily Mail didn't dissapoint.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102245/Bus-driver-used-vehicle-weapon-ram-cyclist-road.html


 

Wow....the Daily Fail never disappointed does it.


----------



## Leodis (17 Feb 2012)

Just rewatched this video and it does seem the cyclist swurves into the bus forcing the bus drive over more into oncoming traffic. No excuse for this but this man should be locked up for attempted murder.

Just looked on the Sky (scum) website and its full of Clarkson wonnabes.


----------



## summerdays (17 Feb 2012)

There is no on-coming traffic - this road on its approach and exit of the RAB is two lanes wide each side separated by a 1 meter concrete raised bit between either side.


----------



## Leodis (17 Feb 2012)

From what I watched the cyclist did something daft trying to stop the bus overtaking in the other lane, he was obviously on one the same as the driver but there is no excuse for actions like that.


----------



## Manonabike (17 Feb 2012)

Ste T. said:


> Truely shocking.
> But on a lighter note the usual comments on the Daily Mail didn't dissapoint.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102245/Bus-driver-used-vehicle-weapon-ram-cyclist-road.html


 
Exactly, very worrying to think one has to share the roads with ignorant road users like that. Governments have failed to educate people that cyclists have the same rights on the road as that "bus driver". Lots of people are convinced that cyclists have limited rights on the road unless the road has a cycling lane.

I have seen very few really bad cyclists on the road and those should be stopped. Maybe there is a need for a number plate or any form of identifying a cyclist that goes round riding like lunatic and giving all cyclists a bad name. I think that is very important for us to continue demanding cyclists rights on the road be respected.


----------



## Leodis (17 Feb 2012)

I am shocked at the level of uneducated drivers on the roads who spout the highway code yet wouldnt pass a theory test now. Its one of the reasons I now use a dedicated cycle path on the way home, I feel safer and I avoid plonkers on the road.


----------



## Davidc (17 Feb 2012)

I certainly think the sentence is too low, but loss of his livelihood goes with it, so it's more than it looks.

Unfortunately in this case the bus driver's red mist came up following the cyclist's red mist, which had led to him having a go at the driver rather than reporting the original dangerously close pass. I wonder if the offence and sentencing would have been more severe if the bus driver's action had occcurred without the cyclist's reaction?

Unlike many road traffic incidents this one has at least led to a conviction and jail. Too often they don't, and that applies to incidents with pedestrians, cyclists, and other motor vehicles. We need a cultural change so that behaviour on the roads is judged by the same criteria as any other behaviour. At present it isn't. If that driver had hit the cyclist with a large blunt instrument without wheels attached I'm sure he'd be inside for much longer.


----------



## pshore (17 Feb 2012)

classic33 said:


> Why epilepsy? Easy target or the first thing that sprang to mind for getting an automatic ban?
> There are plenty of other things that could be used to get the driver to hand the licence back.
> 
> I ask as a person who suffers from/with the condition & has done all my life. Going off topic I know but I've done more damage to myself through it than I have to anyone else. Although I did put a qualified first aid instructor in a neck brace when he sat me up, partway through a fit.
> In theory I could be clear to start driving at the end of January 2013, providing there are no further fits.


 
It was the first thing that sprang to mind classic33. It wasn't intended to offend, and sorry if it did. It was an attempt to show how seriously we treat a single incidence of a condition (in this case epilepsy), but then outbursts of extreme rage, which can be equally as dangerous, when given as a defence is not treated in the same way with regards to suitability to drive. Driving bans are handed out, but I cannot remember ever seeing one that amounts to 5 years. There is a lot of leniency built in the justice system, as the CTC's Stop Smidsy campaign demonstrates.


----------



## Linford (17 Feb 2012)

Ultimately, the bigger the vehicle, the greater degree of care needs to be exercised by the driver. It is a shocking example, and if ithad happened 10 years ago, I doubt would have resulted in a jail sentence due tolack of video evidence.

I think the bus drivers sentence should be longer. I wouldn't consider it attempted murder from the vid, but at the very least GBH and should have had a sentence to match.


----------



## Mad at urage (17 Feb 2012)

Leodis said:


> Just rewatched this video and it does seem the cyclist swurves into the bus forcing the bus drive over more into oncoming traffic. No excuse for this but this man should be locked up for attempted murder.
> 
> Just looked on the Sky (scum) website and its full of Clarkson wonnabes.


No oncoming traffic, cyclist is where he should be in the middle of his lane. bus swerves out and the cab is alongside very close - cyclist probably glances to the right which causes him to wobble that way - quite understandably! The bus is then swung in so sharply that its rear end has never left the LH lane. No fault in the cyclists whatsoever.

I do understand the need to look for 'something the cyclist has done wrong' even (or especially) in a cycling forum - after all, we are looking for a way we could avoid the same fate; but condemnation for riding in primary and for flinching (remember that if your right hand pushes the bars sharply forward, you will go _right_) as the bus pulls alongside, is uncalled for.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (17 Feb 2012)

Another thing to consider (maybe obvious)...a bus driver would never consider purposely ramming a car even if he was put out by there erratic driving.

As for the cyclest swerving infront of the bus.. I dont know but maybe he was planing on changing lanes to turn right (should have indicated, but maybe the bus should not have been so close to him too)?


----------



## gaz (17 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1727249, member: 45"]On some sites you can see the cyclist's bike propped up against the front of the bus at the previous lights, and the cyclist tugging on the bus's wiper. The text to me makes it sound that this was a reaction to a previous incident, when in fact it was a continuation of the same conflict.

It does look from the clip as if the cyclist could have been being provocative by riding slowly and taking the whole lane, but you can also see the bus deliberately tailgating.

Regardless of the above, the driver was inexcusable and should have his license permanently removed. If this was an "uncontrollable" act of temper then he'll lose it again on the road some day.[/quote]
One of the articles did mention two previous incidences on that road between the bus driver and the cyclist. The first being the bus overtaking too close and the second being the cyclist remonstrating with the driver.


----------



## goo_mason (17 Feb 2012)

Manonabike said:


> Exactly, very worrying to think one has to share the roads with ignorant road users like that. Governments have failed to educate people that cyclists have the same rights on the road as that "bus driver". Lots of people are convinced that cyclists have limited rights on the road unless the road has a cycling lane.
> 
> I have seen very few really bad cyclists on the road and those should be stopped. Maybe there is a need for a number plate or any form of identifying a cyclist that goes round riding like lunatic and giving all cyclists a bad name. I think that is very important for us to continue demanding cyclists rights on the road be respected.


 
There are number-plates on all vehicles, and when one of them drives around like a lunatic no-one starts ranting about all drivers being the same. Neither does having a number-plate stop drivers breaking the law, yet people want plates on bikes as they think this will stop law-breaking cyclists.

What we need is proper enforcement of the law for every road user, regardless of their choice of transport. We already have the means to deal with those who transgress, and we still can't do so. Adding plates to bikes isn't going to make any difference.


----------



## machew (17 Feb 2012)

classic33 said:


> Why epilepsy? Easy target or the first thing that sprang to mind for getting an automatic ban?
> There are plenty of other things that could be used to get the driver to hand the licence back.
> 
> I ask as a person who suffers from/with the condition & has done all my life. Going off topic I know but I've done more damage to myself through it than I have to anyone else. Although I did put a qualified first aid instructor in a neck brace when he sat me up, partway through a fit.
> In theory I could be clear to start driving at the end of January 2013, providing there are no further fits.


 
I'll take your first aid instructor in a neck brace and raise you a paramedic with two black eyes and a broken nose, after he tried to look after the T&S when she had a seizure


----------



## benb (17 Feb 2012)

goo_mason said:


> There are number-plates on all vehicles, and when one of them drives around like a lunatic no-one starts ranting about all drivers being the same. Neither does having a number-plate stop drivers breaking the law, yet people want plates on bikes as they think this will stop law-breaking cyclists.
> 
> What we need is proper enforcement of the law for every road user, regardless of their choice of transport. We already have the means to deal with those who transgress, and we still can't do so. Adding plates to bikes isn't going to make any difference.


 
Plus, the number of cyclists who pose a real danger to others is tiny, so it's not exactly a priority, if we want to make the roads safer.


----------



## tyred (17 Feb 2012)

The comments on the Daily Mail site are interesting.

_"Terrible. That said, if you look at the video, the cyclist is cycling towards the outside of the lane. There has been an argument and he is intentionally obstructing the bus. When the bus driver tried to overtake, the cyclist swerved out to obstruct him from overtaking. I've seen this type of behaviour from cyclists myself. There are some cyclists who are arrogant and aggressive. Unfortunately, in this case the cyclist's action provoked the driver to react foolishly, in a moment of madness.* I hope the cyclist, Mr.Mead, is happy tonight that he has caused this man to lose his livelihood and get a criminal record not to mention the time in prison*. It's a pity the driver didn't call the police. If he had it would be Mead in the dock getting a ticking off for his arrogant behaviour. It's high time all road users were treated fairly. Cyclists should pass a test on the Highway Code and be issued with a license before being allowed on the road and then should pay road tax and have insurance._

_- Sleuth, East of Eden, 16/2/2012 22:35"_

Mr Mead didn't cause anything. The bus driver brought it on himself.


----------



## machew (17 Feb 2012)

_I was driving and got held up by a cyclist who wasn't cycling in the gutter, so I got out and hit him around the head with the jack. The judge said it was assault but you can see why I would get angry? I mean he was trying to hinder me by riding so close to the centre line, unless he was intending to make a right turn, he was provoking me in my opinion. _
_- Borance, London, 17/2/2012 12:4_


----------



## 400bhp (17 Feb 2012)

tyred said:


> The comments on the Daily Mail site are interesting.




No they are not. That and the Daily Whail are the usual drivel.

The internet - a platform for those of low intelligence to demonstrate that low intelligence to the rest of us .


----------



## benb (17 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> No they are not. That and the Daily Whail are the usual drivel.
> 
> The internet - a platform for those of low intelligence to demonstrate that low intelligence to the rest of us .


 
The irony!


----------



## 400bhp (17 Feb 2012)

Shhh - I don't think people will notice...


----------



## lulubel (17 Feb 2012)

Personally, I think the problem is with the law as it stands.

I have driven buses and coaches, and I know - as does everyone who drives these vehicles - that if you hit an unprotected person, such as a pedestrian or cyclist, with a vehicle weighing several tons, there's a good chance they'll die. So, I think a better law to cover these situations is that deliberately hitting a person with a vehicle over a certain weight should automatically carry an attempted murder charge (assuming they survive). Then the only intent that would need to be proved would be intent to hit them - intent to kill would be assumed once that was established.

Unfortunately, there are too many drivers of large vehicles out there who ... I'm struggling to find the right words here ... don't seem to realise the level of responsibility they have for the safety of other road users (regardless of what vehicle they're using, how idiotic they're being, or how much they're trying to wind you up).


----------



## BlackPanther (17 Feb 2012)

I think the lesson to be learned here is that it's just not worth getting worked up if someone p155e5 you off when cycling. Just stay calm, maybe get it on video and report it, but other than that it's not worth the agro. I had a taxi driver do a u-turn in front of me a few weeks ago. I overtook him (it was either that or brake hard, and in hindsight I should've braked hard) then he over took me (closely), I caught him at the lights, gave him some agro, he said he'd seen me and that I should've slowed down which wound me up even more. I told him to F off, and he wound his window up, and I was so angry that I actually gave him some racial abuse (I'm ashamed to say.) Yes he was a complete t055er, but I was so wound up I just wanted to p155 him off in return. It could have easily ended up in fisticuffs, or worse.

I wish I'd had a camera (I have now, this incident swung me) 'cos I would've reported him.

Lesson learned. No more confrontations in future. It just isn't worth getting sucked in.


----------



## MacB (17 Feb 2012)

The comments sections are clearly full of people on a wind up or, shock horror, DM employees making sure folks are properly riled up.

But I'm surprised on this, and other forums, how many people comment in a way that indicates they have either misinterperated the article/video or not really read/watched them properly.

Earlier incident, cyclist catches bus at bus stop and leans bike on front of bus while remonstrating with driver. Cyclist then heads off, no doubt with some form of parting shot, and some claim a twang of the windscreen wipers. Bus is then right behind him and menacing...now we have guesswork(as if the above isn't already full of that):-

was the cyclist moving out to be in the correct position and failed to realise the bus was that close
did the cyclist deliberately swerve out to try and antagonise the bus driver further
was the cyclist swerving and unsteady due to anger
did the cyclist swerve as he did a 'super' shoulder check in disbelief at how close the bus was
did the cyclist know the bus was there and get scared making him swerve

I could probably take some more guesses but none of them lead to the conclusion 'cyclist was asking for it', or 'bus driver was wrong but you can understand his frustration'.

Jeez, we all get wound up, frustrated, angry, etc, etc but it's certainly never crossed my mind that ramming someone, or something for that matter, with my vehicle is a good idea.


----------



## col (17 Feb 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Another thing to consider (maybe obvious)...a bus driver would never consider purposely ramming a car even if he was put out by there erratic driving.
> 
> As for the cyclest swerving infront of the bus.. I dont know but maybe he was planing on changing lanes to turn right (should have indicated, but maybe the bus should not have been so close to him too)?


 They do, Iv seen it. Again its a red mist time.


----------



## stowie (17 Feb 2012)

BlackPanther said:


> I think the lesson to be learned here is that it's just not worth getting worked up if someone p155e5 you off when cycling. Just stay calm, maybe get it on video and report it, but other than that it's not worth the agro. I had a taxi driver do a u-turn in front of me a few weeks ago. I overtook him (it was either that or brake hard, and in hindsight I should've braked hard) then he over took me (closely), I caught him at the lights, gave him some agro, he said he'd seen me and that I should've slowed down which wound me up even more. I told him to F off, and he wound his window up, and I was so angry that I actually gave him some racial abuse (I'm ashamed to say.) Yes he was a complete t055er, but I was so wound up I just wanted to p155 him off in return. It could have easily ended up in fisticuffs, or worse.
> 
> I wish I'd had a camera (I have now, this incident swung me) 'cos I would've reported him.
> 
> Lesson learned. No more confrontations in future. It just isn't worth getting sucked in.


 

I know people get on their high horse about cam cyclists "looking for trouble", but I think that it can invoke a zen like effect as well. Today, I got close passed as some considerable speed by a car undertaking traffic moving across a junction near Aldgate. The car had a long piece of wood sticking out of the rear window. On reflection, and watching the video, that piece of wood must have been reasonably close to my head. It undertook the car overtaking me sensibly and shot off down the road. I think passed this car sitting in a big traffic jam at Shoreditch. The car eventually caught up with me along the road to Aldgate East and performed a minor left hook on me whilst scattering a couple of pedestrians crossing the road a bit further down. None of this was deliberate - or because of an altercation, it was simply a really crap and aggressive driver.

I used to get angry at this crap. I now simply roadsafe it. There is enough on the video to at least merit the police having a word with the driver, if only to discuss carrying an unsecure and dangerous load.


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> Personally, I think the problem is with the law as it stands.
> 
> I have driven buses and coaches, and I know - as does everyone who drives these vehicles - that if you hit an unprotected person, such as a pedestrian or cyclist, with a vehicle weighing several tons, there's a good chance they'll die. So, I think a better law to cover these situations is that deliberately hitting a person with a vehicle over a certain weight should automatically carry an attempted murder charge (assuming they survive). Then the only intent that would need to be proved would be intent to hit them - intent to kill would be assumed once that was established.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are too many drivers of large vehicles out there who ... I'm struggling to find the right words here ... don't seem to realise the level of responsibility they have for the safety of other road users (regardless of what vehicle they're using, how idiotic they're being, or how much they're trying to wind you up).




You know... I really think this is an excellently thought out piece. I genuinely think this is worthy of being picked up on by a CPS prosecutor with some big cajhones (someone correct my spelling?) and having a go at it. Could make case law. I'm not positive it would require a change in the law, I think you could simply argue that the driver will know that 'if you hit an unprotected person, such as a pedestrian or cyclist, with a vehicle weighing several tons, there's a good chance they'll die' and let the intent therefore logically follow.


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Feb 2012)

Surely the law if changed in that way should encompass ANY motor vehicle if deliberately used?

"Your Honour, i set out to kill the plaintiff, but as my vehicle was a hothatch, it wasnt murder."


----------



## col (17 Feb 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> You know... I really think this is an excellently thought out piece. I genuinely think this is worthy of being picked up on by a CPS prosecutor with some big cajhones (someone correct my spelling?) and having a go at it. Could make case law. I'm not positive it would require a change in the law, I think you could simply argue that the driver will know that 'if you hit an unprotected person, such as a pedestrian or cyclist, with a vehicle weighing several tons, there's a good chance they'll die' and let the intent therefore logically follow.


 Cagone er Kaj er oh doesnt matter


----------



## col (17 Feb 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> You know... I really think this is an excellently thought out piece. I genuinely think this is worthy of being picked up on by a CPS prosecutor with some big cajhones (someone correct my spelling?) and having a go at it. Could make case law. I'm not positive it would require a change in the law, I think you could simply argue that the driver will know that 'if you hit an unprotected person, such as a pedestrian or cyclist, with a vehicle weighing several tons, there's a good chance they'll die' and let the intent therefore logically follow.


 Wouldnt this already follow, especially if the driver made a definite move to hit the person?


----------



## indeterminate (17 Feb 2012)

The judge is an utter moron, these vehicles are hugely powerful, to premeditately use it as an act to kill like this scum and recieve a paltry couple of months is an outrage
did the stupid judge not view the video?
a year ago one of these scum flew past me with about 2 feet to spare at a pinch in the road, any contact and i would have been killed but the law sides with the motorist every time
The UK is a horrific country to cycle in, i usually have a hammer with me for my own safety such is the hell it is to cycle nowadays


----------



## BentMikey (17 Feb 2012)

Nah, despite all the sh1t we read about, the UK is still near paradise to cycle in. The vast majority of drivers are lovely, and it's only a minority that misbehave.

Carrying a hammer with you is likely to get you jail time and serious trouble. That doesn't speak well to me about your intentions, and it leaves you on the moral low ground. Do you not think some cycle training would stand you in better stead to deal well with traffic, and to manage to avoid the mistakes you'll inevitably encounter on the roads?

There's nothing stopping you getting cameras and doing some campaigning against the drivers that do misbehave. That'll help everyone else those drivers encounter in future, and you to some degree as well.


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Feb 2012)

col said:


> Wouldnt this already follow, especially if the driver made a definite move to hit the person?



Yes, hence my point about I don't think it necessitates a law change if the CPS lawyer has the balls to try. However, I think having the driver in a large vehicle, such as this bus, or a HGV would make it much more likely to succeed as an argument as opposed to a smaller vehicle.

Let me word this carefully, I'm not saying 'cars don't kill', I'm not saying that there should be a defence of 'I was only in a car'. I'm saying that if a prosecutor decided to give lulubel's argument a go, the case would be much stronger with a large HGV type vehicle. The inherent risks are raised AND you require extended training to be able to drive, all of which should assist in proving the the driver must have known that death was a likely outcome, and hence intent to kill should follow from intent to use the bus in this manner.


----------



## BlackPanther (17 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> Personally, I think the problem is with the law as it stands.
> Unfortunately, there are too many drivers of large vehicles out there who ... I'm struggling to find the right words here ... don't seem to realise the level of responsibility they have for the safety of other road users


 
Agreed. As an LGV driver I'm fully aware of how much damage 28 ton could do if I made a mistake. BUT the amount of LGV drivers I see driving badly in the week is scray. Be it lane wandering, jumping red lights, going way too fast through narrow gaps, or being distracted by talking on their mobiles, I shudder to think of the consequences. I can't see the new CPC compulsory course making a shred of difference. More cops-in-cars and tougher punishments for aggressive/incompetent driving is the answer. And a big change in the law so judges can hand down appropriate sentences. This case highlights just what a fek'd up world we live in.


----------



## al78 (17 Feb 2012)

Some dreadful attitudes on the Yahoo comments section.


----------



## Norm (17 Feb 2012)

I wonder what the cyclist thought would come from his actions. I wonder whether he considered for one second what would be the best result and what would be the worst.

I wonder if the word "consequences" ever figured in any way, shape or form.

Not that it exonerates the bus driver in any way from what I think should be considered attempted murder or assault with deadly weapon but just what the heck was the cyclist thinking would come from acting like that?


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2012)

Is there any video of what happened before the bus driver swiped the poor cyclist.


----------



## Ste T. (17 Feb 2012)

al78 said:


> Some dreadful attitudes on the Yahoo comments section.


 

Go on any forum tonight and you will see today is not a good day to be a cyclist. Any doubt that we are vilified by a large slice of the the driving public has been blown out of the water big time. It could have been Jesus christ himself on that bike and you would still have had the cycle hating public slagging him off.
You've got to ask yourself why. Why are we so hated?
If any good is to come out of this, perhaps we could get a definitive reason why we are viewed the way we are. Like most of us on here, I have experienced plenty of cut ups, left hooks and being squeezed out into the gutter, but I dont lump all drivers together the way these people lump all cyclists together.
Yet everytime somebody is hurt or killed, even if they were totaly blameless, it only takes half a dozen posts for the subject of RLJs, tax, insurance, pavement riding to raise its head and a general cyclist kicking fest ensues.
I'm not suggesting any navel gazing on our part, especially as over3/4 of accidents involving cyclists are the other parties fault, but why do they react this way?


----------



## Mugshot (17 Feb 2012)

Norm said:


> I wonder what the cyclist thought would come from his actions. I wonder whether he considered for one second what would be the best result and what would be the worst.
> 
> I wonder if the word "consequences" ever figured in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Not that it exonerates the bus driver in any way from what I think should be considered attempted murder or assault with deadly weapon but just what the heck was the cyclist thinking would come from acting like that?


+1
The first thing I thought when I watched the video was "GET OUT OF THE WAY!!"
There's a bus who's driver you know you probably seriously hacked off right on your back wheel, get off the road and let the idiot take himself, his bus and his red mist as far away as possible.
The actions of the bus driver are absolutely mind boggling and inexcusable, but it does demonstrate what can happen when we confront drivers. I'm all for assertive riding and I'm not suggesting in any way that cyclists should be a bunch of shrinking violets, but the mental image of the cyclist with his bike leant up against the front of the bus whilst he berates the driver isn't a pretty one for me.
Just to make myself clear, I am NOT excusing the bus driver, he deserved everything he got and a whole lot more.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Feb 2012)

You know you'll get stick on here for that Mugshot.

When the red mist descends, normal thought process disappears. A really horrible altercation and I hope both have learnt a very valuable lesson.


----------



## Mugshot (17 Feb 2012)

I may well 400bhp, we'll see where we end up, I've got broad shoulders


----------



## Norm (17 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I may well 400bhp, we'll see where we end up, I've got broad shoulders


And I've got Big Ears - but I'm hoping that Noddy will pay the ransom at some stage.


----------



## MacB (17 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I may well 400bhp, we'll see where we end up, I've got broad shoulders


 
Hmmm, when it comes down to it we're talking a risk assessment, most people wouldn't really factor in that a driver may use their vehicle against them. I'm sure the cyclist is darn sorry now and wishes he'd let it all slide, no-one I know would swap a missed opportunity of a rant for a couple of broken bones.

The problem with your point is that we're then effectively saying, don't get too irate with a motorist as they may deliberately drive into you. As if that level of violent response is reasonable to factor in to your thought processes. I know you said you're not excusing the bus driver but I'm afraid that is exactly what that sort of thinking does do, regardless of your intent.


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Feb 2012)

al78 said:


> Some dreadful attitudes on the Yahoo comments section.


I think that demonstrates the gulf between cyclists and other road users. As someone who is forced to ride a bike by mere poverty I can only wonder if anyone else here ever drives a car and realises just how much of a nuisance cyclists can be. Not as much of a nuisance as buses of course, not even close, but as soft targets go we're up there with coke cans and pensioners. There is also the simple jealousy provoked by all that red light jumping (what do you mean you don't?? lol) and the occasionally overbearing air of smugness which Lycra will always generate.


----------



## Norm (17 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> Hmmm, when it comes down to it we're talking a risk assessment, most people wouldn't really factor in that a driver may use their vehicle against them.
> <<snip>>
> The problem with your point is that we're then effectively saying, don't get too irate with a motorist as they may deliberately drive into you.


 Nope, we're wondering what the cyclist thought was going to happen from his actions.

At the very best, he'd have had a bus filled with hacked off passengers and another bus driver who hates cyclists, which wouldn't have been a good thing anyway.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> Hmmm, when it comes down to it we're talking a risk assessment, most people wouldn't really factor in that a driver may use their vehicle against them. I'm sure the cyclist is darn sorry now and wishes he'd let it all slide, no-one I know would swap a missed opportunity of a rant for a couple of broken bones.
> 
> The problem with your point is that we're then effectively saying, don't get too irate with a motorist as they may deliberately drive into you. As if that level of violent response is reasonable to factor in to your thought processes. I know you said you're not excusing the bus driver but I'm afraid that is exactly what that sort of thinking does do, regardless of your intent.


 
Interesting point. Now, some would say (and many do here) that a vehicle is a loaded gun. I don't personally buy that but perhaps those people think it's a reasonable factor to have in a thought process.


----------



## Mugshot (17 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> The problem with your point is that we're then effectively saying, don't get too irate with a motorist as they may deliberately drive into you. *As if that level of violent response is reasonable to factor in to your thought processes.* I know you said you're not excusing the bus driver but I'm afraid that is exactly what that sort of thinking does do, regardless of your intent.


If I understand that highlighted section correctly then what this video demonstrates perfectly is that it is reasonable to factor in that very possibility.
My point is exactly don't get too irate with anybody. I understand how difficult it is to keep your cool in all manner of situations but the moment you lose it then you're at as much risk of acting in a "moment of madness" as the bus driver. I've seen posts on here to the effect of "I'd have punched him straight in the face.", "I'd have got him on the floor and kept on kicking" or "I'd have D-locked him" What happens when our friend with the hammer gets irate? The bus driver lost it and he used the weapon he had at his disposal, I said it was inexcusable, it was, if I D-locked someone over a road incident that would be inexcusable too.
That sort of thinking does not excuse the bus driver, I'm a little confused how you come to that conclusion when my concern was for the safety of the cyclist and for cyclists in general.


----------



## MacB (17 Feb 2012)

Maybe you're right and we need to think like that but the point is most of us don't and I'm not convinced it should be encouraged.

Put another way - we all know what the 'red mist' is but how red is it? how many people would get all in the face of someone massively bigger than them, or holding a big knife, or a gun? But people will get irate with a driver even though the 'weapon' in their possession is potentially far more lethal. Because we have a reasonable expectation that it wouldn't be used as a weapon, in fact it wouldn't generally cross someones mind....and to me that is normal.

If you are right and we start to normalise the concept that a vehicle really is a weapon and could be used that way, will we effectively create a reality of the monster of our imagination?


----------



## 400bhp (17 Feb 2012)

Agree with your synopsis Mac. Guns don't kill people, rappers do.


----------



## col (17 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> If I understand that highlighted section correctly then what this video demonstrates perfectly is that it is reasonable to factor in that very possibility.
> My point is exactly don't get too irate with anybody. I understand how difficult it is to keep your cool in all manner of situations but the moment you lose it then you're at as much risk of acting in a "moment of madness" as the bus driver. I've seen posts on here to the effect of "I'd have punched him straight in the face.", "I'd have got him on the floor and kept on kicking" or "I'd have D-locked him" What happens when our friend with the hammer gets irate? The bus driver lost it and he used the weapon he had at his disposal, I said it was inexcusable, it was, if I D-locked someone over a road incident that would be inexcusable too.
> That sort of thinking does not excuse the bus driver, I'm a little confused how you come to that conclusion when my concern was for the safety of the cyclist and for cyclists in general.


 I have mentioned this in the passed, but you get called a moton ect for trying to point out how badly someone will get hurt eventually. This vid shows all too well what a possible outcome could be. But you/we are still wrong in being carefull about what we say or do to others on the road.


----------



## Mugshot (17 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> Maybe you're right and we need to think like that but the point is most of us don't and I'm not convinced it should be encouraged.
> 
> Put another way - we all know what the 'red mist' is but how red is it? how many people would get all in the face of someone massively bigger than them, or holding a big knife, or a gun? But people will get irate with a driver even though the 'weapon' in their possession is potentially far more lethal. Because we have a reasonable expectation that it wouldn't be used as a weapon, in fact it wouldn't generally cross someones mind....and to me that is normal.
> 
> If you are right and we start to normalise the concept that a vehicle really is a weapon and could be used that way, will we effectively create a reality of the monster of our imagination?


I'm not suggesting that the concept should be normalised, that would be a sad day if that were ever true. I am however suggesting that if you shove your face into someone elses then they may not react in what people in polite society would consider a reasonable manner. As Norm said, it's a case of considering the consequences. My take on it is that the more extreme my reaction to a situation may be, the more extreme the consequences of my reactions may be. 
As I said previously, that doesn't mean I believe that we do nothing, I don't believe we lie down and accept close passes or abuse or what ever else is thrown at us (sometimes literally) but I do think that if you get to the stage where you've leant your bike against the front of a bus to have a go at the driver then maybe you've gone a little far, and you may be well advised to stand on the pavement for a couple of minutes to cool down.


----------



## Manonabike (17 Feb 2012)

goo_mason said:


> There are number-plates on all vehicles, and when one of them drives around like a lunatic no-one starts ranting about all drivers being the same. Neither does having a number-plate stop drivers breaking the law, yet people want plates on bikes as they think this will stop law-breaking cyclists.
> 
> What we need is proper enforcement of the law for every road user, regardless of their choice of transport. We already have the means to deal with those who transgress, and we still can't do so. Adding plates to bikes isn't going to make any difference.


 

I don't understand your argument at all. I don't think that number plates would stop bad cyclist but I do think it would give a chance for people to report dangerous cyclist. Twice I have reported dangerous drivers to the police and both times I got a call back to ask for further details.

Well, I sure like to know how to report a bad cyclist. Last summer I saw a cyclist riding dangerously around people and all people could do was to turn round and shout - I thought, if he had a number plate I could try to catch up to him to read it. I reported the incident to the first policeman I saw but it was a very difficult task to give details of the bike and the rider...... it was obvious that from the look on the policeman face, my description could fit 10 cyclists.

I can't say that having a number plate stops people driving dangerously, I never occurred to me that people would see the purpose of a number plate as something to make us drive safely..... my point is that when somebody does commit an dangerous offence one has a chance to report the incident and the number plate is the very thing that will identify the vehicle in question.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Feb 2012)

The vehicle, not the driver.


----------



## Francesca (17 Feb 2012)

Cannot believe that the bus driver did this ! absolutely disgusting!!should be banned from driving for life the f++++g retard.


----------



## classic33 (17 Feb 2012)

What would be the response on here if someone on a bike, using a shared cyclepath(pedestrians & cyclist with equal right to be there) decided after an argument with a pedestrian, ran him/her down. Bike is then used as a weapon.

Part of the problem with the clip is that we only saw the end result, not what led up to that result. Someone must have alerted the police. They had a car on scene whilst the cyclist was still rolling on the ground after being hit. Have read some of the comments on various sites & they put it down to an altercation between the driver & cyclist the day before & on the day. Which is correct?

There's a layby to the left of the cyclist, was he expecting it to go there, stop & have the driver come after him. Both may just explain his move to the right. Doesn't explain his cycling upto that point though.

I'll not make excuses for either driver or cyclist, both will have to accept blame for what happenned. However what would have been the outcome if the cyclist had aimed his bike at the bus?

Bus driver got off lightly in my opinion.


----------



## vernon (17 Feb 2012)

It's being actively discussed over in the commuting forum


----------



## Francesca (18 Feb 2012)

okies


----------



## al78 (18 Feb 2012)

DresdenDoom said:


> I think that demonstrates the gulf between cyclists and other road users. As someone who is forced to ride a bike by mere poverty I can only wonder if anyone else here ever drives a car and realises just how much of a nuisance cyclists can be. Not as much of a nuisance as buses of course, not even close, but as soft targets go we're up there with coke cans and *pensioners*. There is also the simple jealousy provoked by all that red light jumping (what do you mean you don't?? lol) and the occasionally overbearing air of smugness which Lycra will always generate.


 
Er no, I'd have to disagree that pensioners are viewed anywhere near as negatively as cyclists are, quite the opposite in fact. I can guarantee that if someone assaulted an OAP after a previous altercation virtually everyone (excluding obvious trolls) would be condemning the attacker.


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I'm not suggesting that the concept should be normalised, that would be a sad day if that were ever true. I am however suggesting that if you shove your face into someone elses then they may not react in what people in polite society would consider a reasonable manner. As Norm said, it's a case of considering the consequences. My take on it is that the more extreme my reaction to a situation may be, the more extreme the consequences of my reactions may be.
> As I said previously, that doesn't mean I believe that we do nothing, I don't believe we lie down and accept close passes or abuse or what ever else is thrown at us (sometimes literally) but I do think that if you get to the stage where you've leant your bike against the front of a bus to have a go at the driver then maybe you've gone a little far, and you may be well advised to stand on the pavement for a couple of minutes to cool down.


 
I don't think we're in disagreement but I think I'm maybe building a bigger mental picture around this than I need to. I'm just seeing a trend, across lots of areas, for normalisation of excessive, or previously unacceptable, behaviours. Think of things like the adoption of the term 'road rage' and how it's just become another term for a regular occurrence. The same can be extrapolated out across business, policing, military action...in fact all walks of life. Things that may once have 'shocked the nation' now don't get beyond regional newspapers, or don't get seriously reported at all.

I could run a long way with this idea but I don't think this is the thread for it.


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

While I totally accept the bus driver was in the wrong, and I think he should be in prison for a lot longer, and for attempted murder, I also think the cyclist has himself to blame for what happened in the sense that he could have avoided it by not winding up the bus driver in the first place. (I can use the same argument to say I have myself to blame for my accident last Sunday because I didn't assume the driver was going to pull out in front of me at the roundabout. I could have avoided it happening by being more cautious, and I'm going to make sure I am more cautious in future.)

Regardless of who is right or wrong, we are the ones who are vulnerable on the roads, not bus or even car drivers. Just because drivers shouldn't use their vehicles as weapons against us doesn't mean they never do. It's up to each of us as individuals to assess the level of risk and decide what consequences we're willing to accept. For me, that means I want to conclude my ride by walking in through my front door, not being carried into the hospital - or the morgue - on a stretcher, and I will do everything within my power to accomplish that, including letting an aggressive driver "get away" with his behaviour if it means he leaves me alone.

That doesn't mean I won't report dangerous driving to the police, or I won't speak to a driver about a close pass if I get the opportunity, but I'd handle it a lot differently. I wouldn't go beyond going up to the passenger door when the bus is next at a stop and saying something like, "You got a bit close to me back there, mate." If his response was aggressive, I'd back away and wait until he was gone before I carried on with my journey, then report him to the police or his employer. For me, anything more than that wouldn't be worth the risk.

That isn't letting the cycling community down, or letting drivers know that bad behaviour is acceptable. It's simple self-preservation.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> While I totally accept the bus driver was in the wrong, and I think he should be in prison for a lot longer, and for attempted murder, I also think the cyclist has himself to blame for what happened in the sense that he could have avoided it by not winding up the bus driver in the first place. (I can use the same argument to say I have myself to blame for my accident last Sunday because I didn't assume the driver was going to pull out in front of me at the roundabout. I could have avoided it happening by being more cautious, and I'm going to make sure I am more cautious in future.)


 
You have to be careful when using reasoning like that, as it is risk removal rather than risk mitigation. What I mean by that is the only safe outcome is not to cycle.

I agree with the rest of your post and at the end of the day you are right-on paper-in the real world with a human element there will be altercations with motorists.


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> You have to be careful when using reasoning like that, as it is risk removal rather than risk mitigation. What I mean by that is the only safe outcome is not to cycle.


 
One of the first things I was asked to do on my advanced driving course was to look at some accidents and think about what the "non-fault" driver could have done to avoid them. It was a real eye-opener, and when I did the same to my crash, I concluded that entering the roundabout just 3-4mph slower might have given me the extra time I needed to read the driver's behaviour better and predict his actions. Since I was out for a pleasant Sunday ride, not a race, I don't think that would have been much of a hardship.

I rode horses until my mid-20s (when I had to start renting my own place and couldn't afford to any more) and falling off and getting hurt is a given, so I'm not into trying to eliminate risk, but I've found that small changes in behaviour can mean big reductions in risk.


----------



## Chuffy (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> While I totally accept the bus driver was in the wrong, and I think he should be in prison for a lot longer, and for attempted murder, *I also think the cyclist has himself to blame for what happened* in the sense that he could have avoided it by not winding up the bus driver in the first place. (I can use the same argument to say I have myself to blame for my accident last Sunday because I didn't assume the driver was going to pull out in front of me at the roundabout. I could have avoided it happening by being more cautious, and I'm going to make sure I am more cautious in future.)


fark. RIGHT. OFF.

Will translate this into something easier to understand if necessary.


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

Chuffy said:


> ****. RIGHT. OFF.
> 
> Will translate this into something easier to understand if necessary.


 
Don't be such an idiot.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

Chuffy said:


> ****. RIGHT. OFF.
> 
> Will translate this into something easier to understand if necessary.


I'd love to see a translation if you don't mind


----------



## BigonaBianchi (18 Feb 2012)

This doesnt surprise me in th eleast, I see bus drivers fuming in a blood red haze all th etime jus tbecause they dont like cyclists..the guy cleary deliberatly tried to kill the cyclist with his bus..that is attempted murder...arsewipe of the lowest order.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (18 Feb 2012)

it even got a mention on a recording forum in the states...a cyber mate of mine posted about it over there...good to see this low life being spread across the globe, even if not literally.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

Your views are strange and deplorable lulubell, you're using the same argument crusty old judges use when they say a girl deserved to be raped for wearing make up.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> Your views are strange and deplorable lulubell, you're using the same argument crusty old judges use when they say a girl deserved to be raped for wearing make up.


You know, I was tootling to work yesterday and I was having a think about this thread, and I wondered how long it would be before somebody threw this into the mix, thank you for not disappointing me dawsome


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

It was pretty much a shoo-in after a Daily Mailesque post about "It was the cyclist's fault".























Also, anyone who disagrees with me is worse than seven Hitlers.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

Rape and now Hitler, you're certainly racking up your internet points dawesome


----------



## BentMikey (18 Feb 2012)

I'm certainly rather disgusted by the several of posters here going off on a victim blaming spree. Shame on you.


----------



## Norm (18 Feb 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I'm certainly rather disgusted by the several of posters here going off on a victim blaming spree. Shame on you.


Do you have anyone particular in mind, Mikey?


----------



## al78 (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> Your views are strange and deplorable lulubell, you're using the same argument crusty old judges use when they say a girl deserved to be raped for wearing make up.


 
Has she actually said the cyclist deserved to be run down, or is she saying it is advisable not to antagonize other people because you just don't know who you are dealing with?


----------



## slowmotion (18 Feb 2012)

I would rather be a safe wimp than a dead hero/idealist. I'm delighted that the driver is in jail, even for a paltry period. It was an outrageous piece of driving. Even so, just on a pragmatic level, if the cyclist had been less keen on jumping in with both feet, would this have happened? I'm not saying it was his "fault", just suggesting a way of not getting hurt.

Yes, I know I'm going to get some stick...


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Yes, I know I'm going to get some stick...


You may have some support too, you just never know.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Feb 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I would rather be a safe wimp than a dead hero/idealist. I'm delighted that the driver is in jail, even for a paltry period. It was an outrageous piece of driving. Even so, just on a pragmatic level, if the cyclist had been less keen on jumping in with both feet, would this have happened? I'm not saying it was his "fault", just suggesting a way of not getting hurt.
> 
> Yes, I know I'm going to get some stick...


 

Nope, no stick. In fact SloMo I fully agree with what you are saying.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

al78 said:


> Has she actually said the cyclist deserved to be run down, or is she saying it is advisable not to antagonize other people because you just don't know who you are dealing with?


 

She seems to have lost sight of the indisputable fact that the only person responsible for the bus smashing into the cyclist was the driver.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> She seems to have lost sight of the indisputable fact that the only person responsible for the bus smashing into the cyclist was the driver.


Have you read the whole thread?


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

Yep. Why? What's your point?


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

Was wondering why you had targeted lulubels post when there are others here saying practically the same thing.


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

It's fascinating to read some of the comments that have been made in this thread since my earlier post. It really demonstrates how cautious you need to be when you're out on the road because you never know how irrational and aggressive people are going to be if they feel you've offended them in some way.


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

As an over view cyclists are vulnerable road users, so naturally other road users should look out for cyclists because of the brevity of potential injuries should a collision occur. However that should not stop cyclists looking out those who don’t look out for us and as such maintain a certain sense of self preservation – despite what grievances you may have with drivers that have driven or acted in a certain way as to cause you conflict. 

Reasoning with a driver in such circumstances can be difficult, you’re annoyed and want to hit out in such a way, verbally or even physically perhaps. But ultimately unless the driver wants to listen and act, this will usually be an apology of some sort and I don’t really don’t think any other course of action is needed or necessary. After all what is a driver going to do at the side of the road apart from apologise?

If the above does not come about, then it is always best not to bother engaging with the driver at all, as no outcome that is any good will ever comes about. Far better to get the details of the company/driver rather then attempt to remonstrate as they will only lead to anger which is not a required emotion (or needed or wanted) when riding a bike.

Whilst the driver in the OP is guilty of a crime and has been punished I don’t think this should stop such situations bring analysed and what better to do. As such is the point being put forward by Mugshot. 

There is a distinct difference between victim blaming and looking at a situation and educating what to do in the future should anyone else come into such conflict. After all no one wants to get hurt out in the roads and cycling is forever a learning process.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Was wondering why you had targeted lulubels post when there are others here saying practically the same thing.


 
She's the only one to make the ridiculous suggestion that this was the cyclist's fault.


----------



## summerdays (18 Feb 2012)

I didn't read lulubel's post as saying that, rather that the cyclist was not completely innocent in the run up to the event - which doesn't give the bus driver the right to use his bus as a weapon.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> While I totally accept the bus driver was in the wrong, and I think he should be in prison for a lot longer, and for attempted murder, I also think the cyclist has himself to blame for what happened in the sense that he could have avoided it by not winding up the bus driver in the first place.


----------



## Norm (18 Feb 2012)

Which shows, as summerdays said, that lulubel didn't suggest that it was carte blanche the cyclist's fault, but that the cyclist's provocation was a factor in the lead up to the assault.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

Norm said:


> Which shows, as summerdays said, that lulubel didn't suggest that it was carte blanche the cyclist's fault, but that the cyclist's provocation was a factor in the lead up to the assault.


 
According to who? It wasn't offered as mitigation, because of course it would be laughed out of court.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome, I don't think it matters about who is to blame. I think the point that lulubel is making (and one with which I completely agree) is that, on a practical level, it's not a good idea to be combative unless you are some kind of Dirty Harry with the needful "tools". A bike isn't one of them.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> According to who? It wasn't offered as mitigation, because of course it would be laughed out of court.


Serious question, in general terms is provocation considered by a court an acceptable reason to assault someone?


----------



## col (18 Feb 2012)

Its similar to what I would term as stirrers.Known a few over the years, they say certain things to get people riled, then stand back as it all erupts. When asked why they did it, the normal reply was nothing to do with me, not my fault. Which brings me to my point, if you say or do something to someone to upset,annoy, or ridicule, then you are responsible in some way if they react in a way you didnt expect.After finding yourself being helped up off the floor, then saying you didnt do anything, doesnt really wash. If you want to be clever with someone, then at least be ready for comebacks. If you cant take the come backs, dont spout off. Now Im not saying this is what happened here, but its a possibility by the looks of it.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Feb 2012)

I doubt it would be seen as "an acceptable reason", but it might be considered in mitigation....just my totally ignorant two pennies... Bring on the Legal Eagles...


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Serious question, in general terms is provocation considered by a court an acceptable reason to assault someone?


 
Depends on what you mean by provocation? As I think it's quite broad and is actually the *ACT* that provocates that needs to be looked at.

Calling someone a rude name designed to cause offence can be seen as provocation but as such may not really be seen as grounds for retaliation ending in some sort of assault.

Having someone in your face though screaming and shouting I think this would be reasonable grounds, as you could argue that such was the abuse and aggression used that you would be defending yourself.


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

Norm said:


> Which shows, as summerdays said, that lulubel didn't suggest that it was carte blanche the cyclist's fault, but that the cyclist's provocation was a factor in the lead up to the assault.


 
Exactly that. If the cyclist had put a bit more thought into his own self-preservation and not provoked the lunatic with the big metal box on wheels, he wouldn't have ended up injured. So, not his fault, but he could have avoided getting injured by not getting into a confrontational situation in the first place.


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2012)

But then that leaves the 'lunatic in the big metal box' free and roaming as a sort of ticking bomb. Does his stability degrade over time, could it eventually be triggered by the wrong look?

I'm also not sure any self defence, or self preservation, type excuse is ever going to wash from someone in a mahoosive vehicle v cyclist.

The problem here is that we should all be able to have a reasonable expectation that a vehicle will not be used as a weapon. If we can't then they need to be licenced and controlled as such.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> Exactly that. If the cyclist had put a bit more thought into his own self-preservation and not provoked the lunatic with the big metal box on wheels, he wouldn't have ended up injured. So, not his fault, but he could have avoided getting injured by not getting into a confrontational situation in the first place.


 
You have absolutely no way of knowing this.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> She's the only one to make the ridiculous suggestion that this was the cyclist's fault.



Nope, there are a few other victim blamers here, sadly.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Feb 2012)

Victim blaming is looking at trigger points. These are notoriously unpredictable things, sometimes drivers will go off like a bomb with the cyclist having done nothing at all, the other with a wave of thanks, or perhaps more.

All this totally ignores the root cause and the real problem - that we have the occasional angry madman who is prepared to use a vehicle as a lethal weapon. This is a much more difficult problem to deal with, so I suppose it's not too surprising that some have taken the lazy option to suggesting solutions.


----------



## col (18 Feb 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Nope, there are a few other victim blamers here, sadly.


 I think you have to accept the fact that some people can enflame a situation, then suffer because of it. Sometimes what they say is the catalyst to the events that followed .


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> *But then that leaves the 'lunatic in the big metal box' free and roaming as a sort of ticking bomb. Does his stability degrade over time, could it eventually be triggered by the wrong look?*
> 
> I'm also not sure any self defence, or self preservation, type excuse is ever going to wash from someone in a mahoosive vehicle v cyclist.
> 
> The problem here is that we should all be able to have a reasonable expectation that a vehicle will not be used as a weapon. If we can't then they need to be licenced and controlled as such.


 
Not necessarily, in those types of situations where the driver can simply not be reasoned with, it is far better to take down the number/reg and report them. I don’t think that parking a bike in front of the bus will ever be beneficial to anyone, and was not in that situation and will never be in any other. As for the ‘’triggered by the wrong look’’ scenario. This a hyperbole surely? And is difficult to debate, such is the complexities involved in such situations and the different dynamics. We all act in different ways when in confrontations and as such never know what may happen. Which is where self preservation comes into play?


----------



## slowmotion (18 Feb 2012)

BentMikey said:


> This is a much more difficult problem to deal with, so I suppose it's not too surprising that some have taken the lazy option to suggesting solutions.


 
OK, you get carved up by a bus like the unfortunate cyclist who ended up in hospital for two weeks. A number of peeps here suggest that self preservation looms large in their minds. You say we are lazy. What do you do in such an event?


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Victim blaming is looking at trigger points. These are notoriously unpredictable things, sometimes drivers will go off like a bomb with the cyclist having done nothing at all, the other with a wave of thanks, or perhaps more.
> 
> *All this totally ignores the root cause and the real problem - that we have the occasional angry madman who is prepared to use a vehicle as a lethal weapon. This is a much more difficult problem to deal with, so I suppose it's not too surprising that some have taken the lazy option to suggesting solutions*.


 

...who has been imprisoned. Whilst I agree that the occasional madman is a threat, surely you recognise that there are different (and sometimes more productive) ways of dealing with such a threat?


----------



## Norm (18 Feb 2012)

BentMikey said:


> All this totally ignores the root cause and the real problem - that we have the occasional angry madman who is prepared to use a vehicle as a lethal weapon.


Whilst I completely agree with the issue that you raise, I don't think that it's either ignoring the problem or a lazy solution. Some people are lunatics, it's a good idea not to lose it at people you don't know, in any situation, in case that person is one of them. Whether that's someone who drops litter, someone who jumps a red light or someone who (you perceive) doesn't give enough room, then getting all up in their face is going to provoke some sort of reaction. If you choose to take on every person who passes you closely, you are more likely to end up the wrong side of the occasional madman who is prepared to use their vehicle as a lethal weapon.

No-one has yet attempted to suggest what the cyclist thought would have been a good outcome from his provocation, possibly because all agree that it is indefensible for the cyclist to have reacted like that.


----------



## summerdays (18 Feb 2012)

In looking at this video - I'm also baring in mind my experiences. There have been occasions when after a situation has occurred when I have felt wronged that I'm aware that my reaction to the incident has played a part in what happened next. I'm not saying that my reaction wasn't justified just that I can see how an incident can escalate (you don't know if it is the local madman you are crossing swords with). Unfortunately hindsight is very useful but a bit too late!


----------



## summerdays (18 Feb 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> ...who has been imprisoned. Whilst I agree that the occasional madman is a threat, surely you recognise that there are different (and sometimes more productive) ways of dealing with such a threat?


 
My best ever reaction to an incident was when I pulled up next to a lorry and pointed out extremely calmly that he had nearly killed me. I was proud of how I dealt with it and his reaction was apologetic (that he just hadn't seen me) rather than denying any problem, that took all the potential heat out of the situation.


----------



## col (18 Feb 2012)

summerdays said:


> My best ever reaction to an incident was when I pulled up next to a lorry and pointed out extremely calmly that he had nearly killed me. I was proud of how I dealt with it and his reaction was apologetic (that he just hadn't seen me) rather than denying any problem, that took all the potential heat out of the situation.


 I would have said "obviously, if I had you wouldnt be telling me now would you?"


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Feb 2012)

The kinda neat and slippery slope in this thread into a portion of the "blame" being on the cyclist, the cyclist's "provocation" being contributory ....... sorry, but I much prefer my non-cyclist friends' utter and total revulsion. No ifs, buts, or anything else.

I have no problem at all in thinking "There but for the grace of God ......."; aye, and I remember a few of my own incidents, think I might want to handle them differently another time, because I surely don't want to end up the way this few seconds ended up. But that's me thinking, analysing, and learning (I hope).

"Blame" the cyclist? No. Think of the cyclist as responsible for "provoking" a momentary incidence of psychopathic driving? No.


----------



## al78 (18 Feb 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> The kinda neat and slippery slope in this thread into a portion of the "blame" being on the cyclist, the cyclist's "provocation" being contributory ....... sorry, but I much prefer my non-cyclist friends' utter and total revulsion. No ifs, buts, or anything else.
> 
> I have no problem at all in thinking "There but for the grace of God ......."; aye, and I remember a few of my own incidents, think I might want to handle them differently another time, because I surely don't want to end up the way this few seconds ended up. But that's me thinking, analysing, and learning (I hope).
> 
> "Blame" the cyclist? No. Think of the cyclist as responsible for "provoking" a momentary incidence of psychopathic driving? No.


 
Do you think the momentary incidence of psychopathic driving would have happened if the cyclist had just let it go and not parked his bike in front of the bus and got involved in an altercation with the driver?


----------



## semislickstick (18 Feb 2012)

Norm said:


> Whilst I completely agree with the issue that you raise, I don't think that it's either ignoring the problem or a lazy solution. Some people are lunatics, it's a good idea not to lose it at people you don't know, in any situation, in case that person is one of them. Whether that's someone who drops litter, someone who jumps a red light or someone who (you perceive) doesn't give enough room, then getting all up in their face is going to provoke some sort of reaction. If you choose to take on every person who passes you closely, you are more likely to end up the wrong side of the occasional madman who is prepared to use their vehicle as a lethal weapon.
> 
> No-one has yet attempted to suggest what the cyclist thought would have been a good outcome from his provocation, possibly because all agree that it is indefensible for the cyclist to have reacted like that.


What? He got cut up/close overtake on the roundabout and after a discussion went on a a bit of a arsey go slow. His mistake was assuming he was talking/arguing to a rational professional driver, and all he was having was some cross words, like with like. Provocation? When did Philip take a swing at the driver or make him fearful of his life? If the driver had just sworn abuse at philip, or even got out and shouted, I'm sure the police would have told them both to get over it. It kind of makes me think the cut up/close overtake on the roundabout as deliberate. Who hasn't come across a psychopath bus driver?


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

al78 said:


> Do you think the momentary incidence of psychopathic driving would have happened if the cyclist had just let it go and not parked his bike in front of the bus and got involved in an altercation with the driver?


 

It would not have happened. However one might argue that this is not the issue here. It's the fact that the driver did lose it and drive in the manner of which he drove.

Having said that, I think the majority of drivers (ime) both professional and non are capable of 'losing it' given a certain amount of provocation. And this is such a complex issue to analyse it is far better to self preserve then attempt to engage and possibly aggrevate, and then discuss the ptifalls and perils on a cycling forum! and read to much into victim blaming. When all that is really being said is that the cyclist in this and other situations as well that no doubt some of us have experienced would better to tae down the number and report.

And I do agree with your point.


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Feb 2012)

al78 said:


> Do you think the momentary incidence of psychopathic driving would have happened if the cyclist had just let it go and not parked his bike in front of the bus and got involved in an altercation with the driver?


 
Neither you nor I are in any position to give a serious answer to that question - my supposition would be as wild and unfounded as yours.

All I can honestly say is, as I have already, that I might want to handle some of my own incidents rather differently another time.

And even then, there's no guarantees. The van driver who quite deliberately walloped me with his mirror on Wednesday did so AFTER I had entirely ignored his close pass and verbal abuse.


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> What? He got cut up/close overtake on the roundabout and after a discussion went on a a bit of a arsey go slow. His mistake was assuming he was talking/arguing to a rational professional driver, and all he was having was some cross words, like with like. Provocation? When did Philip take a swing at the driver or make him fearful of his life? If the driver had just sworn abuse at philip, or even got out and shouted, I'm sure the police would have told them both to get over it. It kind of makes me think the cut up/close overtake on the roundabout as deliberate. Who hasn't come across a psychopath bus driver?


 

Sorry, but what you describe above is omitting certain details? The cyclist parked his bike in front of the bus, started to grab a windscreen wiper yelling at the driver and the rode out from the kerb keeping a parrellel line with the bus driver when the driver tried to overtake? All what I've seen and read of course.


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> It would not have happened.


 
Once again, you have no way of knowing whether this is true.


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> Once again, you have no way of knowing whether this is true.


 
But surely if the cyclist did not set off a the same time as the driver then the collision would not have happened?


----------



## dawesome (18 Feb 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> But surely if the cyclist did not set off a the same time as the driver then the collision would not have happened?


 
I set off at the same time as lots of drivers and they don't deliberately swerve into me.


----------



## semislickstick (18 Feb 2012)

I really shouldn't be amazed at the amount of cyclists on here who are happy to bend over and spread their cheeks.


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> I set off at the same time as lots of drivers and they don't deliberately swerve into me.


 
As do I, but from the OP and a hypothetical point of view I tend not to engage any further then I need to, that would potentially bring me into furthur conflict after the fact has been asertained that the driver will not listen to reason. 

In such a situation the other party is usually a long way down the road before I set off. This is after making a note of the reg/company of course.


----------



## Crackedheadset (18 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> I really shouldn't be amazed at the amount of cyclists on here who are happy to bend over and spread their cheeks.


 
It's not about being submissive, merely self preservation.


----------



## Norm (18 Feb 2012)

And I really shouldn't be amazed at the number who are willing to put their heads into the mouth of a lion.


----------



## semislickstick (18 Feb 2012)

Right oh, but this is accepting road rage as one of those things, just cos you have an argument/discussion with your other half doesn't mean you are inviting violence. Is there a parallel?


----------



## dawesome (19 Feb 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> As do I, but from the OP and a hypothetical point of view I tend not to engage any further then I need to, that would potentially bring me into furthur conflict after the fact has been asertained that the driver will not listen to reason.
> 
> In such a situation the other party is usually a long way down the road before I set off. This is after making a note of the reg/company of course.


 

Yes, none of that has anything to do with your claim that the driver's actions were caused by the cyclist.


----------



## Crackedheadset (19 Feb 2012)

dawesome said:


> Yes, none of that has anything to do with your claim that the driver's actions were caused by the cyclist.


 
I never said it was, just that if I was in the that sitution I would have let the driver go on down the road.


----------



## Crackedheadset (19 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> Right oh, but this is accepting road rage as one of those things, just cos you have an argument/discussion with your other half doesn't mean you are inviting violence. Is there a parallel?


 
You cannot compare the above with altercations that you have out on the road for the simple reason that you don't know other road users like you know your ''other half''.


----------



## dawesome (19 Feb 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> I never said it was,


 
You said the assault wouldn't have happened if the cyclist had behaved differently. You have no possible way of knowing this.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Feb 2012)

Never mind fault, righteousness or high-minded principles for the greater good of the cycling community. I quite like being alive. Here is something that was drummed into me at an early age...

_"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day_
_Who died Preserving His Right of Way._

_He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along_
_But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong" _

_quoted by Eric Hiscock in "Cruising Under Sail", Oxford University Press, 1st edn, 1950._


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Feb 2012)

I agree with Norm, although I'd reduce it to something like 'don't piss people off unless you can make it stick'. Anger might be righteous, but it's not always sensible.

But that comes under the heading of 'good advice'. It doesn't come under the heading of 'code to be followed on pain of being run over'. The bus driver had no business hitting the cyclist with his bus. And, lest any of you are in any doubt, it's the kind of 'good advice' I've never heeded.

Here's the bit you really won't like. I cannot for the life of me see the point in sending him to prison. I wouldn't want him behind the wheel of a bus, or even a car, anytime soon (twenty years should just about do it) but sending him to prison won't make him a better person, and won't make the world a safer place in the long run. It will probably punish his family more than him and will cost us all a fortune.

My point in a general way is this - we, all of us, tend to feel more strongly about crime that seems to be heading in our direction. I confess that I get a bit Judge Jeffries when it comes to bike theft. And, as our expectations of retribution increase, so does the prison population, and so, spookily, does crime, as those emerging from prison find themselves in posession of fewer good habits than when they went in. The sensible thing in this case would be to ban him from driving for ever and give the man's weekends to the community for the next five years.


----------



## Nebulous (19 Feb 2012)

In professional life I'm used to analysing behaviour in terms of an interaction between two (or more) people, and not in terms of right and wrong.

That is deeply unsettling for most people though, who want to understand things in terms of blame.

I also work in a field where there are a lot of nice, caring people, and surprisingly enough to me aggressive people often do well. They may not have a lot of friends, but they often get promoted, and they win far more than their fair share of arguments, because people are afraid to cross them because they worry about the consequences. If we tackled aggression better and more effectively at a younger age, and it ceased to bring the rewards it does, then we wouldn't have so many people who go around with fizzling fuses.


----------



## subaqua (19 Feb 2012)

benb said:


> Is it wrong? Are you saying that a person commits a knife attack but only manages to inflict a flesh wound should get the same charge brought as another person who opens up an artery and kills someone?


 
if it acts as a deterrent then yes. what sane rational person goes out with a knife on them and willing to use it ? of course in liberal hand wringing britain we all have to feel sorry as the attacker probaly didn't have a fluffy dressing gown as a kid or his hamster died when he was 7 and it "affected him" .
we hear about "human rights" , what about our right to safety from idiots who think its cool to carry a knife.

as for the uestion is it attempted murder - probably , but the CPS took the right decision in this case to go for something that was likely to end up in a conviction.


----------



## Mugshot (19 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> I really shouldn't be amazed at the amount of cyclists on here who are happy to bend over and spread their cheeks.


Do you believe that the cyclist did the right thing? Do you believe that whilst he was lying in his hospital bed he was thinking "At least I didn't spread my cheeks."? Are you suggesting that we should get in the face of anybody that we decide has wronged us?


----------



## Norm (19 Feb 2012)

1729839 said:


> Which, unfortunately, we don't appear to have a facility for in law. Better still would be to have mechanisms in place to stop people from driving in the first place, if there is any significant liability that they might ever exhibit such behavior. I appreciate that this could mean surrendering my licence but there you go.


US spelling aside, I find myself in agreement with all of this including, worryingly, the last sentence.



Nebulous said:


> I also work in a field where there are a lot of nice, caring people, and surprisingly enough to me aggressive people often do well. They may not have a lot of friends, but they often get promoted, and they win far more than their fair share of arguments, because people are afraid to cross them because they worry about the consequences. If we tackled aggression better and more effectively at a younger age, and it ceased to bring the rewards it does, then we wouldn't have so many people who go around with fizzling fuses.


I'm not sure if you consider the aggressive person to be the cyclist, who ranted for quite a while, or the bus driver who calmly tried to kill him.


----------



## Nebulous (19 Feb 2012)

Norm said:


> I'm not sure if you consider the aggressive person to be the cyclist, who ranted for quite a while, or the bus driver who calmly tried to kill him.


 
I was trying to move away from this incident to look at more general aspects of human behaviour- I wasn't actually referring to either of them. We get people dividing into two camps - Be nice to people and they wont hurt you or stand up for yourself always or someone will take advantage. I was trying to frame the discussion in different terms. 

Regard aggression as a tool . People use it because it works - and we learn that very early in life. Children often go through a phase of having a tantrum in supermarkets. Parents may respond by giving something to the child to keep it quiet. That doesn't always lead 30 years later to hitting someone with a bus - but it does start a recognition that there are returns for being aggressive.


----------



## al78 (19 Feb 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Neither you nor I are in any position to give a serious answer to that question - my supposition would be as wild and unfounded as yours.
> 
> All I can honestly say is, as I have already, that I might want to handle some of my own incidents rather differently another time.
> 
> And even then, there's no guarantees. The van driver who quite deliberately walloped me with his mirror on Wednesday did so AFTER I had entirely ignored his close pass and verbal abuse.


 
Well perhaps you should be confronting people who claim the bus driver should be charged for attempted murder, after all, there is no way you or anyone else is in a position to know that he intended to kill the cyclist.

When analyzing a situation, balance of probability does come into it. It is known from a lot of people's experience that confronting drivers in an aggressive manner tends to inflame an already heated situation. Absolute proof doesn't exist in real life, and is not the standard required to come to a conclusion about a particular situation. Therefore in this case I will claim that confronting the driver in the way the cyclist did is extremely likely to have had an influence on the drivers actions. That is not the same as saying the cyclist was at fault or he deserved what he got, but that it was likely a contributing factor.

I once started a thread on here about whether I should have confronted a driver in a very similar situation to this when I had the opportunity. The overwhelming advice was that it is a bad idea and it is best to avoid confrontation.

Anyway, I'm not going to post any more in this thread given it just seems to be going round in circles so it probably best to let it die gracefully.


----------



## Norm (19 Feb 2012)

Nebulous said:


> I was trying to move away from this incident to look at more general aspects of human behaviour- I wasn't actually referring to either of them.


Excellent post, IMO.


----------



## Baggy (19 Feb 2012)

Having seen the footage of what happened on the roundabout, I can see why the cyclist might have been feeling confrontational (at 28 seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235


----------



## PK99 (19 Feb 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> *There is a distinct difference between victim blaming and looking at a situation and educating what to do in the future should anyone else come into such conflict*. After all no one wants to get hurt out in the roads and cycling is forever a learning process.


 
Exactly the approach we we encouraged to adopt in Victim Support training: It is the criminals crime but sometimes the victim's behaviour has put them in danger - which is why I collect my daughters from the station late or night or pay for a taxi home.

If the stories of an ongoing argument between driver and cyclist are correct, I doubt anyone would suggest he would be wise to engage in a similar argument in future.


----------



## DresdenDoom (19 Feb 2012)

al78 said:


> Er no, I'd have to disagree that pensioners are viewed anywhere near as negatively as cyclists are, quite the opposite in fact. I can guarantee that if someone assaulted an OAP after a previous altercation virtually everyone (excluding obvious trolls) would be condemning the attacker.


There's always a problem where a genuine difference of opinion looks like trolling, but it can't be helped. I find I've been forced thru circumstances to join a club of which I'm not a natural member. Perhaps I should call myself Groucho?! Whatever, I share the same road space and encounter the same hazards as everyone else, although I perceive them slightly differently I think. I had my lifetime first SMIDSY only 2 days ago. I braked and steered behind her. Nothing to see here, move along folks it's just life and doesn't need posting on youtube.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Feb 2012)

Mugshot said:


> You know, I was tootling to work yesterday and I was having a think about this thread, and I wondered how long it would be before somebody threw this into the mix, thank you for not disappointing me dawsome


 
The ignore button is great.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Feb 2012)

Baggy said:


> Having seen the footage of what happened o n the roundabout, I can see why the cyclist might have been feeling confrontational (at 28 seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235


 
I get a few of those now and then. In fact I had on on Friday and one on Saturday. It's really agressive, impatient and selfish driving. These days I do try to let it go.


----------



## semislickstick (19 Feb 2012)

From the MIRROR

"Hill was disqualified from driving for two-and-a-half years and ordered to pass an extended driving test"

Usually run concurrent with prison sentences don't they.


----------



## PK99 (19 Feb 2012)

Baggy said:


> Having seen the footage of what happened on the roundabout, I can see why the cyclist might have been feeling confrontational (at 28 seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235


 
At 33 seconds ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235 ) the bus is moving from its bus lane onto the roundabout (check out the Google map satellite image of the junction), is indicating right, and is in the process of changing lane.

The cyclist at that point is in primary position, behind the bus on lane to the right,with a clear view of the direction of travel of the bus and of the rear right indicator.

The cyclist had a choice: Keep line and speed and end up along side the bus sharing the lane OR slow slightly and slot in behind the bus. He chose the first option.

Look at that portion of the video without knowledge of the subsequent events.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Feb 2012)

PK99 said:


> At 33 seconds ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235 ) the bus is moving from its bus lane onto the roundabout (check out the Google map satellite image of the junction), is indicating right, and is in the process of changing lane.
> 
> The cyclist at that point is in primary position, behind the bus on lane to the right,with a clear view of the direction of travel of the bus and of the rear right indicator.
> 
> ...


 
Is it this junction?

If so, then there is no bus lane and it appears the bus went through on red.


----------



## spen666 (19 Feb 2012)

this is worth looking athttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102578/Cyclist-Phillip-Mead-forgives-road-rage-bus-driver-Gavin-Hill-mowed-down.html'] I feel sorry for driver[/URL]


----------



## col (19 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is it this junction?
> 
> If so, then there is no bus lane and it appears the bus went through on red.


 Looks like the lights are for the road on the right. They are facing the road they are for.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Feb 2012)

col said:


> Looks like the lights are for the road on the right. They are facing the road they are for.


 
Additionally, if you look back away from the junction, the road the bus driver comes from is left turn only.

Now, this assumes I have picked up the correct roundabout of course.


----------



## col (19 Feb 2012)

I think its one of those spaghetti junctions where you just need to go to the lane you need, bad design.


----------



## MacB (19 Feb 2012)

PK99 said:


> At 33 seconds ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235 ) the bus is moving from its bus lane onto the roundabout (check out the Google map satellite image of the junction), is indicating right, and is in the process of changing lane.
> 
> The cyclist at that point is in primary position, behind the bus on lane to the right,with a clear view of the direction of travel of the bus and of the rear right indicator.
> 
> ...


 
I have to agree, regardless of lane discipline or not by the bus, it looked clear what he was going to do and the bike really wasn't going to be inconvenienced by slowing slightly. If I made a fuss over everything like that I'd probably never complete a journey. I'll take primary and all that but I still ride defensively, ie ready to give way if need be and I wouldn't be arsed making a big thing about it.

It's a weird one as I'm really not a fan of 'militant' style cycling but I also abhor even the merest hint of victim blaming. The bus driver's a psycho and should never be behind the wheel of a vehicle again. There is no behaviour, reasonably imaginable, that in any way mitigates the bus drivers insane response. Yet I still think the cyclist was a bit of a cock.


----------



## ferret fur (19 Feb 2012)

DresdenDoom said:


> There's always a problem where a genuine difference of opinion looks like trolling, but it can't be helped. I find I've been forced thru circumstances to join a club of which I'm not a natural member. Perhaps I should call myself Groucho?! Whatever, I share the same road space and encounter the same hazards as everyone else, although I perceive them slightly differently I think. I had my lifetime first SMIDSY only 2 days ago. I braked and steered behind her. Nothing to see here, move along folks it's just life and doesn't need posting on youtube.


But if it meant that little to you, how much impact did it have on the driver. If she even noticed I expect she forgot all about it by the time she got home. The point about making a fuss is to raise the driver's awareness of what they have done... so they pay more attention to the possiblilty that there might be a cyclist present on the road next time they are driving. Even if this heightened awareness only lasts a week it might prevent soemone else's SMIDSY being rather more painful.


----------



## MacB (19 Feb 2012)

ferret fur said:


> But if it meant that little to you, how much impact did it have on the driver. If she even noticed I expect she forgot all about it by the time she got home. The point about making a fuss is to raise the driver's awareness of what they have done... so they pay more attention to the possiblilty that there might be a cyclist present on the road next time they are driving. Even if this heightened awareness only lasts a week it might prevent soemone else's SMIDSY being rather more painful.


 
Perfectly valid but there are ways of making a point, I wouldn't beat on a car or ping windscreen wipers as a matter of course. But then nor would I try to kill somebody for doing it to my car.


----------



## baydreamer (19 Feb 2012)

I'm a bus driver 1st, cyclist 2nd.
Bus drivers are supposed to be professional drivers! Gives us 'good' bus drivers a bad image!
There are bad drivers on the road,as well as bad cyclists. This gives NO EXCUSE for the actions of this bus driver! Hope he NEVER gets his driving license back!!!!!!


----------



## Maz (19 Feb 2012)

*


PK99 said:



The cyclist had a choice: Keep line and speed and end up along side the bus sharing the lane OR slow slightly and slot in behind the bus. He chose the first option.

Click to expand...

*I agree. A quick squeeze on the brakes and slot in behind the bus - job done. All this bother would've been avoided. No broken bones, no driver in prison.


----------



## Cubist (19 Feb 2012)

That latest BBC link amuses me. It shows Magnatom's tanker incident which, apparently _he filmed to illustrate this sort of incident_. I hadn't realised it was a setup..............


----------



## PK99 (19 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is it this junction?
> 
> If so, then there is no bus lane and it appears the bus went through on red.


 
no this one




and the still from the bbc video:


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is it this junction?
> 
> If so, then there is no bus lane and it appears the bus went through on red.


 
I think it is, and yup there's no bus lane - and if your turn the photo view round 180, it looks like the bus was in the wrong lane (one of the two for taking the first exit), and cut across on the roundabout.


----------



## subaqua (20 Feb 2012)

Cubist said:


> That latest BBC link amuses me. It shows Magnatom's tanker incident which, apparently _he filmed to illustrate this sort of incident_. I hadn't realised it was a setup..............


 
apparrently strathclyde polis thought the same too.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Feb 2012)

PK99 said:


> no this one
> View attachment 7183
> 
> 
> and the still from the bbc video:


 
That's the roundabout I posted.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Feb 2012)

Such incidents not isolated to cyclists:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...to-car-of-couple-taking-sick-baby-to-hospital


----------



## col (20 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> Right oh, but this is accepting road rage as one of those things, just cos you have an argument/discussion with your other half doesn't mean you are inviting violence. Is there a parallel?


 Road rage, what this was, needs a reason. If thats one person doing or saying something to annoy or wind up the other because they didnt like what the other did, then that is the spark for a possible road rage incident. Some people are expert on getting others angry on purpose, as they seem to think its a good retaliation. Then these same wind up experts complain when it all goes wrong on them. Most of these so called clever people, who have this ability and use it when they want to upset someone, will never admit to it. They are inherintly cowards, and are unable to be direct, as they fear a face to face confrontation. But what these people are actually doing, is possibly causing a more dangerous confrontation, not as clever as they thought eh?


----------



## jonsidneyb (20 Feb 2012)

OMG


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> I think it is, and yup there's no bus lane - and if your turn the photo view round 180, it looks like the bus was in the wrong lane (one of the two for taking the first exit), and cut across on the roundabout.


 
Buses sometimes have to approach junctions in the wrong lane because they either aren't given the room they need to move over (which buses need a lot of) or there's a badly placed bus stop just before the junction. It happened to me quite often.


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> I have to agree, regardless of lane discipline or not by the bus, it looked clear what he was going to do and the bike really wasn't going to be inconvenienced by slowing slightly.


 
The video wouldn't load for me for some reason, but I did look at the still PK99 posted of the bus and cyclist joining the roundabout. I don't know about anyone else, but there's NO WAY I'd do anything but get behind the bus from that position. I'd be much too concerned about getting trapped between the bus and the vehicles in the next lane over.


----------



## summerdays (20 Feb 2012)

Now that I've seen the longer report I can understand a bit more how the first incident occurred - I don't use St James Barton from that direction ... the view shown slightly earlier up the thread is my normal approach to the roundabout. In this incident the bus and the cyclist look like the entered from the next junction around.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=stokes croft &hl=en&ll=51.45932,-2.58955&spn=0.001113,0.002709&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=14.097003,39.506836&hnear=Stokes Croft, Bristol, Avon BS1, United Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=51.45932,-2.58955&panoid=0e1ikkNxfYqM5ugg3gaWpg&cbp=12,259.85,,1,1.36&z=19
At that junction there is a lane to the left of the lights for buses only that isn't controlled by lights but does have a give way. So normally when I'm approaching it from on the roundabout they will stop if you have the green light on the RAB.

In this situation I don't think the bus should have attempted to join the RAB at the same time as the traffic from the same junction since there could potentially be a reasonable amount of traffic that would be taking the next exit and therefore crossing paths. It looks like potentially bad design I think of the RAB approach for the bus and I (not a bus driver) would have been tempted to enter the RAB using the normal lanes to at least put myself in the correct lane that I wanted to be in (unless the stop immediately prior to that was one that this bus uses).


----------



## Paul J (22 Feb 2012)

Not pleasant to watch but why was the cyclist in the middle of the road? Looks like he swerved to stop/ slow the bus. No matter what the actions of the cyclist where the bus driver was way out of order and such a light sentence.


----------



## col (22 Feb 2012)

Cubist said:


> That latest BBC link amuses me. It shows Magnatom's tanker incident which, apparently _he filmed to illustrate this sort of incident_. I hadn't realised it was a setup..............


 Seems for the par.


----------

