# I really don't know what to say...



## magnatom (17 Mar 2010)

What the &*&*^ is going on at the moment! Honestly I am really, really .

One really serious and one fairly serious incident with large vehicles in the month is plenty thanks. Then this @^%&^% happens.

Traffic queue up ahead, no oncoming traffic to avoid and I'm crusing along at about 20mph. 

I know a bus is approaching and whilst I understand itmight be stupid and overtake, I didn't realise it would do this. 

It was only when I saw the bendy bit in the middle that I realised that there was more to come. That is why my pitch rose. Probably only justover a metre between the bus and the kerb at the end and I was in between.

Now I challenge, seriously I challange anyone to suggest this was my fault, my road position was blah, blah, blah. Can you tell I am really angry about this. And yes, her contempt was rounded off with two fingers at the end.

Don't worry, I have had dealings with First in the past, and they know me and worked with me. I'll deal with the complaint.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Mar 2010)

Blimey!! That's pretty p1$$ poor driving.


----------



## Crankarm (17 Mar 2010)

The clip wouldn't play past 12 secs for me. So will have to take your word that it was bad. You do seem to be having a rather bad time of cycling recently Mags. Why do you think this is?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 Mar 2010)

now i'll agree, that was bad!! bendy buses are a nightmare. i'm sure boris has already banned them or is going to ban them from the capital. nice customer relations. customers on board and he's flicking the v's.


----------



## Cubist (17 Mar 2010)

Jeeeeeeeezus!

What an arrogant bitch! Empty bus, no witnesses...... she can do exactly as she pleases and f*ck the consequences. Go for it Mags, she wants off the road.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Mar 2010)

More interestingly, Crankarm, why do you think he's having a tough time of it at the moment?


----------



## Crankarm (17 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> More interestingly, Crankarm, why do you think he's having a tough time of it at the moment?



Dunno BM that's why I asked him ? Do you?


----------



## HJ (17 Mar 2010)

See, I said they are out to get you...


----------



## Svendo (17 Mar 2010)

Just read your other recent Bus related thread, and whilst people seemed to have found some debatable points regarding that incident , this is unequivocal unprompted and patently unneccesary shite and dangerous driving .
Flicking the Vs is just the icing on the cake.
Good luck with the compaint.


----------



## swee'pea99 (17 Mar 2010)

What a scumbag. I'd involve the police. If that's not dangerous driving, I don't know what is.


----------



## Fly (17 Mar 2010)

I had one of them pulling into me at a red light while ago .

he's a bit close ....closer.....closer Bendy bit! mount pavement!

think he forgot we were there...


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Mar 2010)

I had three first buses today...(all non-bendy, that particular menace has left Sheffield's streets)

One passed me on a 2-lane road, by pulling right out into the other lane, as if I were a car.

Second pulled well enough over to be a safe overtake.

Third just drove in a straight line, despite approaching a traffic queue and, since the Olive Grove bus depot was left at the next lights, would need to turn left.

He got a Paddington Bear stare as I pulled my bike perpendicular to the kerb in the gap between him and the next bus driven by one of his safer colleagues, to ensure that when we set off, I would be in primary and not in left-hook zone.

Unexcusable in a normal single-deck bus.

With bendy buses, I wonder about the training that is given to drivers before unleashing them upon us in those articulated monstrosities. Perhaps not forgetting that anyone else is there, but forgetting that the extra length behind the bendy bit is there....

A wave of apology would be more apt then, however. I sometimes get some right idiots at work, and the more idiotic, the more indignant they are, but if I swore at or abused them, it would not go down well.


----------



## levad (18 Mar 2010)

Calm down dear ..... it's only an advert.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
for how not to drive a bus.

I hope the complaint gives the desired result. I am so glad I don't have to commute in towns and cities.


----------



## betty swollocks (18 Mar 2010)

That was a terribly dangerous overtake and you are understandably angry, BUT, do you not think you took a risk going up the inside to remonstrate with the driver?


----------



## just jim (18 Mar 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Dunno BM that's why I asked him ? Do you?



Oh but do you?


----------



## Origamist (18 Mar 2010)

I promised myself I was only going to watch one piece of cycle-cam footage per week, but the inner voyeur in me must be obeyed.

Bendy bus drivers do receive additional training and instruction, but it appears that this driver should not even hold a licence.

The overtake starts off close and just gets closer as she moves towards the kerb and forgets that her vehicle is 18m long.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Mar 2010)

18m? i didn't realize they were THAT long. we must look like distant specks of dust in the mirrors?


----------



## 2Loose (18 Mar 2010)

Sorry to see this Mags, I am starting to think that the bus drivers have a score sheet with your name on it. 

Terrible and unnecessary overtaking like that when the oncoming lane was clear...for a car, let alone something that long. The V's is just the icing on the cake. I hope you report this to the police and get a decent result with the bus company. She needs retraining (after a psych assessment), both in driving and customer service!


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

betty swollocks said:


> That was a terribly dangerous overtake and you are understandably angry, BUT, do you not think you took a risk going up the inside to remonstrate with the driver?




Not on this occasion, as the bus was turning right. All the First Buses turn right at this roundabout and this one was positioned to turn right. I was taking my normal lane for proceeding straight on.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

As I said in the OP. I originally assumed it was a normal single decker. You can hear I was a bit annoyed at first. But that was when I thought the bus was about to end. It didn't. It kept coming and it got closer.

Origamist, we were talking about moving left in the other thread. I certainly did in this one. I went from a strong primary position to being on the two yellow lines. I was bullied over to the left. Thank goodness there weren't any sunken drains or such like there!


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 Mar 2010)

That happens on my 25 Bendy Bus route as well.


----------



## Origamist (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> As I said in the OP. I originally assumed it was a normal single decker. You can hear I was a bit annoyed at first. But that was when I thought the bus was about to end. It didn't. It kept coming and it got closer.
> 
> Origamist, we were talking about moving left in the other thread. I certainly did in this one. I went from a strong primary position to being on the two yellow lines. I was bullied over to the left. Thank goodness there weren't any sunken drains or such like there!



You were never really in primary in this vid (you were always biased to the left) and the lane width when you had your incident with the coach was wider and you had more available space to your left. But no, deferring is not an exact science - if you do it too early it appears that you are making space (i.e "inviting them") to pass - ideally, you need to move as they start to come along side - that way, they have committed to a wider line. That said, when faced with a moronic bus driver like that primary is your best bet, but it may well also have meant a close overtake (and it's being wise after the event). There is not a right answer here as there was no reason whatsoever for her not to use the opposing lane and pass you safely - instead you received a poorly judged pass and tail swipe. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - but you know that already.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Origamist said:


> You were never really in primary in this vid (you were always biased to the left) and the lane width when you had your incident with the coach was wider and you had more available space to your left. But no, deferring is not an exact science - if you do it too early it appears that you are making space (i.e "inviting them") to pass, you need to move as they start to come along side - that way, they have committed themslef to a wider line. That said, when faced with a moronic bus driver like that primary is your best bet, but it may well also have meant a close overtake (and it's being wise after the event) - there is not a right answer here as there was no reason whatsoever for her not to use the opposing lane and pass you safely. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.




Aye, I've always pondered the best road position down this section. It was also part of my original commute so I've been cycling this road for over 4 years and I've had a few incidents.

I think in general a strong secondary is best, but there is nothing you can do when a driver like this decides to pass. 

As you say there was no reason for the close pass, no oncoming traffic. More frustratingly there was absolutely no reason for overtaking me. The roundabout up ahead always has cars waiting at it (and did on this occasion as well), and it is always busy, so a bendy is always going to have to stop and wait for a gap. 

I'll be looking out my old e-mails from First's management and I'll be contacting them.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (18 Mar 2010)

Contact First Bus to let them know you're taking this to the Police. Tell them you'll be requesting the CCTV from on-board the bus as it was clearly driving without due care/dangerously, and offer them the chance to dismiss the stupid b*tch first before she (hopefully) gets charged and prosecuted.

Downright dangerous - it'd be worth getting the Press involved too if she loses her job over it, might make other "professional" drivers think about heir actions in future. !

No excuses for that kind of driving.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

I won't be taking this to the police. I felt guilty enough after the last one and that really did come close to taking my life. 

However, I certainly will be taking it to First.


----------



## lit (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> I won't be taking this to the police. I felt guilty enough after the last one and that really did come close to taking my life.
> 
> However, I certainly will be taking it to First.



Just out of interest why not? The driver had acres of space the other side of the road (from what I could see there was nothing coming the other way).

It's your call at the end of the day but to me it looks like very lazy driving with little consideration for your safety.


----------



## ttcycle (18 Mar 2010)

Jesus Mag..another one.

It's almost as if that driver has not had any training for the size of their vehicle.
Glad you're alright but there are an increasing number of incidents for you of late.


----------



## Bollo (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> I won't be taking this to the police. I felt guilty enough after the last one and that really did come close to taking my life.
> 
> However, I certainly will be taking it to First.



Hayzeuz, Dr M! Are you sure you're not in a 'Death Note' film?

Absolute toss driving. End of.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

lit said:


> Just out of interest why not? The driver had acres of space the other side of the road (from what I could see there was nothing coming the other way).
> 
> It's your call at the end of the day but to me it looks like very lazy driving with little consideration for your safety.




If you look back at the other thread, you'll see I felt pretty guilty shopping the driver to the police. It wasn't a nice feeling. One case running with the police is enough for me at the moment. I think her company will deal with it anyway. Yes I know there is a chance she would loose her job, but any sympathy with her went out the door when I say he reaction. She knew exactly what she was doing.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Bollo said:


> Hayzeuz, Dr M! Are you sure you're not in a 'Death Note' film?
> 
> Absolute toss driving. End of.




It's been a mad few weeks, with some nasty incidents. It happens I suppose. Looking back at my videos before that, yes there were some minor incidents, but nothing major for quite a while. My last 'bad' incident, the get out out of my way one, was about 6 months ago.

It really is a shame, I'm really enjoying my commuting at the moment apart from these moments of madness. I really wish there was something that could be done to prevent this type of driving. It just isn't acceptable. There needs to be a big change on our roads. If only there was something that could make a difference...


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

betty swollocks said:


> That was a terribly dangerous overtake and you are understandably angry, BUT, do you not think you took a risk going up the inside to remonstrate with the driver?



I thought that was chancing it a little too. I reckon I would have been very tempted to do exactly the same as Dave though.


----------



## lit (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> If you look back at the other thread, you'll see I felt pretty guilty shopping the driver to the police. It wasn't a nice feeling. One case running with the police is enough for me at the moment. I think her company will deal with it anyway. Yes I know there is a chance she would loose her job, but any sympathy with her went out the door when I say he reaction. She knew exactly what she was doing.



Fair enough, to be honest I wouldn't feel guilty about the oil tanker one.

Hope you have some more safer rides from now on.


----------



## RRCC (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> She knew exactly what she was doing.



Then it is assault, not dangerous, careless or bad driving, and needs to be reported to the police.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

RRCC said:


> Then it is assault, not dangerous, careless or bad driving, and needs to be reported to the police.



The problem is I know how difficult it was at first to get the police to take me seriously with the tanker (I can't say any more on that, I'm afraid), and that is a much more obvious situation. I know for a fact that the best that would happen with this would be a chat from the police. To First, I know they will take this seriously, so I think that is the best route to take.


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Mar 2010)

I didn't understand your 'guilt' in relation to the earlier incident, and I understand it no better now. 

TBH, at the risk of adding to your stress, I think you have a positive *duty* to report this kind of driving and cause the person responsible _as much grief as possible_. To me it looks really simple: the more people like that get the idea they can do this stuff with impunity, the more it's likely to happen. The more word gets round 'bully people with your big vehicle and you'll lose your license/job', the less it's likely to happen. 

Why in the world should you feel 'guilty'? These people damn near killed you, and easily _could_ have killed someone who lacked your nerve and control. Shopping them is no grounds for guilt. It's your duty to the rest of the community.

(And if the police need persuading to 'take seriously' a homicidal psycopathic bully, then _they_ need 'persuading' into line. That's their bleedin' job! And if they fail to do it, I'd see if my MP can persuade them to.)


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

I do think Origamist is right - you were only in secondary and left the door open for that overtake. Of course that has no relevance to the bus driver's appalling attitude and driving, but it might have prevented the overtake. At least it was a strongish secondary and left room for you to duck left.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> It really is a shame, I'm really enjoying my commuting at the moment apart from these moments of madness. I really wish there was something that could be done to prevent this type of driving. It just isn't acceptable. There needs to be a big change on our roads. If only there was something that could make a difference...



Mate, you and every other youtubing and complaining cyclist is doing a huge amount. That sort of thing will have a massive effect on driving, helmet cameras are an incredible force for change for us cyclists. People are seeing that there are consequences to their own bad and careless driving, and that vulnerable road users need protection. 10 years of this will see a sea change in drivers attitudes, IMO.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

swee said:


> as much grief as possible[/I]. To me it looks really simple: the more people like that get the idea they can do this stuff with impunity, the more it's likely to happen. The more word gets round 'bully people with your big vehicle and you'll lose your license/job', the less it's likely to happen.
> 
> Why in the world should you feel 'guilty'? These people damn near killed you, and easily _could_ have killed someone who lacked your nerve and control. Shopping them is no grounds for guilt. It's your duty to the rest of the community.
> 
> (And if the police need persuading to 'take seriously' a homicidal psycopathic bully, then _they_ need 'persuading' into line. That's their bleedin' job! And if they fail to do it, I'd see if my MP can persuade them to.)




That all sounds good on paper, and in theory I agree with this. However, the guilt springs from the knowledge that your actions can have profound effects on someone else life. Yes, I know their driving can have a profound effect on my life and others, however, it still doesn't make it easy to make that decision to change theirs. 

Add to this the fact that I am not anonymous. I have to take into account the effect of pursuing drivers like this, whilst taking into account how the less scrupulous people who, are anti me and cyclists in general, might react towards me and my family. 

Anyway, having dealt with First Glasgow before, I trust them to take appropriate action, whatever that may be. At the very least, I'd be surprised if she was allowed to drive a bendy bus again....


----------



## Debian (18 Mar 2010)

swee said:


> as much grief as possible[/I]. To me it looks really simple: the more people like that get the idea they can do this stuff with impunity, the more it's likely to happen. The more word gets round 'bully people with your big vehicle and you'll lose your license/job', the less it's likely to happen.
> 
> Why in the world should you feel 'guilty'? These people damn near killed you, and easily _could_ have killed someone who lacked your nerve and control. Shopping them is no grounds for guilt. It's your duty to the rest of the community.
> 
> (And if the police need persuading to 'take seriously' a homicidal psycopathic bully, then _they_ need 'persuading' into line. That's their bleedin' job! And if they fail to do it, I'd see if my MP can persuade them to.)



+1, in theory, but.....



magnatom said:


> That all sounds good on paper, and in theory I agree with this. However, the guilt springs from the knowledge that your actions can have profound effects on someone else life. Yes, I know their driving can have a profound effect on my life and others, however, it still doesn't make it easy to make that decision to change theirs.
> 
> *Add to this the fact that I am not anonymous. I have to take into account the effect of pursuing drivers like this, whilst taking into account how the less scrupulous people who, are anti me and cyclists in general, might react towards me and my family.*
> 
> Anyway, having dealt with First Glasgow before, I trust them to take appropriate action, whatever that may be. At the very least, I'd be surprised if she was allowed to drive a bendy bus again....



I also agree with this, especially the boldened bit.

I had an incident recently, not cycling related but a road rage incident that resulted in me being assaulted and my car damaged. This has gone to the police and the case is proceeding but I was and am aware that I too am not anonymous and that it's easy for someone to get hold of my address.


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Mar 2010)

Fair enough. I do take your point. In the same vein, I'm less 'assertive' than I might be sometimes, simply on account of commuting the same route every day. Theory, as you say, is all well and good - but it's no defense against a scumbag with a grudge in control of one and a half tons of metal...


----------



## Amanda P (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> the guilt springs from the knowledge that your actions can have profound effects on someone else life. Yes, I know their driving can have a profound effect on my life and others, however, it still doesn't make it easy to make that decision to change theirs.



With respect Mags, it's not your decision. The driver already made that decision on each occasion when they decided not to bother driving sensibly. 

We could argue that if you don't shop them, it's a matter of time until someone does, they get caught or they kill someone. Either way, their life is going to change, and probably needs to.

Having said all of that, you of course are the best judge of your own course of action. At the very least, we have all learned something from your experience.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Uncle Phil said:


> With respect Mags, it's not your decision. The driver already made that decision on each occasion when they decided not to bother driving sensibly.
> 
> We could argue that if you don't shop them, it's a matter of time until someone does, they get caught or they kill someone. Either way, their life is going to change, and probably needs to.
> 
> Having said all of that, you of course are the best judge of your own course of action. At the very least, we have all learned something from your experience.




I honestly think First bus will deal with this vigorously. It is entirely possible (although I'm not necessarily saying I want this) that the driver could loose her job. She might not, but I'm pretty sure at the very least she will get retraining. Whatever she gets, I'm sure it will make her rethink her attitude.


----------



## Happiness Stan (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> I won't be taking this to the police. I felt guilty enough after the last one and that really did come close to taking my life.
> 
> However, I certainly will be taking it to First.




Then why film it then?


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Happiness Stan said:


> Then why film it then?




I think I have covered this numerous times in the past why I film my rides. It's probably somewhere in my blog as well (which I need to update!). 

However, for this particular incident the reasoning is simple. I take the film to First, they look at it, and deal with the behaviour. Simple.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> More interestingly, Crankarm, why do *you* think he's having a tough time of it at the moment?



Not wanting to answer this one, Crankarm?


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

An e-mail has been sent to the MD of First Glasgow. I'll keep you informed of any progress.


----------



## Origamist (18 Mar 2010)

I wonder if someone has beaten you to it again?!


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Origamist said:


> I wonder if someone has beaten you to it again?!




I know who complained before (it was a well meaning youtuber). He has suggested that he will leave the complaint up to me for this one!


----------



## Coco (18 Mar 2010)

You were lucky not to hit the pothole near the manhole cover as she overtook you. That could have been nasty.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Coco said:


> You were lucky not to hit the pothole near the manhole cover as she overtook you. That could have been nasty.




Aye. I knew it was there though as I know this road well. However, if the bus had been a bit closer, I might not have had a choice!


----------



## MacB (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> The problem is I know how difficult it was at first to get the police to take me seriously with the tanker (I can't say any more on that, I'm afraid),



Bit harsh there Mags, police are human as well you know. Think how much it would cost, to provide the level of training necessary, to stop them falling about laughing at the squeaky voice?


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Mate, you and every other youtubing and complaining cyclist is doing a huge amount. That sort of thing will have a massive effect on driving, helmet cameras are an incredible force for change for us cyclists. People are seeing that there are consequences to their own bad and careless driving, and that vulnerable road users need protection. 10 years of this will see a sea change in drivers attitudes, IMO.



Ten years is a long time to wait, what we really need to do is campaign for a law of Strict Liability, as this would be more effective at changing drivers attitudes. The YouTube videos give useful evidence in support of the need for the change in this law.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> Ten years is a long time to wait, what we really need to do is campaign for a law of Strict Liability, as this would be more effective at changing drivers attitudes. The YouTube videos give useful evidence in support of the need for the change in this law.



Well I certainly agree with that too.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> Ten years is a long time to wait, what we really need to do is campaign for a law of Strict Liability, as this would be more effective at changing drivers attitudes. The YouTube videos give useful evidence in support of the need for the change in this law.




Mmm. I'm on the fence with that one. I'm concerned that if a law like that was brought in, in the UK there would be a strong motoring lobby backlash. The anger and hostility that would/could result might offset the benefits that the liability scheme could offer. 

I can to some extent understand the (anti) motorists point of view on this, due to the amount of muppet cyclists there are.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Oops. Sorry. I really should read the link and not make assumptions. This isn't the assumption of liability that I thought it was...


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

In fact, reading that further, if a cyclist hits a ped, then the cyclist has liability. Would this mean compulsory insurance for cyclists. No bad thing, but difficult to police...


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

I've just received this confirmation from the MD's PA.



> I am writing to confirm having received your email with youtube video attached. I have passed on this very serious incident for thorough investigation prior to you receiving a substantive response.
> 
> Many thanks.



The wording has a very appropriate tone. So all good so far.


----------



## Crankarm (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> I've just received this confirmation from the MD's PA.
> 
> 
> 
> The wording has a very appropriate tone. So all good so far.



Might it better to maintain silence over the airwaves until you reach a conclusion of the matter Mags? I don't think it right that you broadcast on going correspondence between you and the other party and vice versa. How would they feel about it if they knew, or if the roles were reversed, yourself? By all means update us generally when you have their full response. Generally when parties correspond when in dispute it is in confidence.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Mar 2010)

Leaving the response at the roundabout out of it, do you think the close overtake was intentional or did she just forget you were there as soon as she was past you?

Every now and again I get this sort of thing from (non-bendy, thankfully) busses and if I give them benefit of the doubt perhaps they (in their mind) are thinking as if driving a car rather than a bloomin' long vehicle?

I did have one particular altercation with a bus who cut me off to go into a bus stop, and I did report him to his company as there was _no way_ he could not have seen me, but yet decided to cut in front (so diagonally 'through' me - if I hadn't braked I'd have hit him on the left hand side of his bus - and I'm not a fast cyclist at the best of times).


----------



## Glow worm (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> If you look back at the other thread, you'll see I felt pretty guilty shopping the driver to the police. It wasn't a nice feeling.



I can sort of understand your sentiments there. However I wouldn't feel any sympathy with someone who is clearly prepared to kill you through stupidity. The driver should be off the road permanently. Hopefully First will get shot of her. Keep up the good work with the vids- I think they help make the roads safer for all of us. Hopefully as more of us get cams, it might make the idiot drivers out there think twice before doing something stupid. Here's to hoping anyway!


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2010)

The bitch who was driving that bus deserves the book to be thrown at her. That was an insane piece of driving.


----------



## Downward (18 Mar 2010)

What's the point of these bendy buses ?
It was empty and after the incident in Brum last year I was hoping they would have been taken out of service.
Still next time down that road move across a bit, Dictate to the bus what you want it to do.


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> I've just received this confirmation from the MD's PA.
> 
> 
> 
> The wording has a very appropriate tone. So all good so far.


If was just a bad OT I suspect it would have been swept under the carpet but the gesture does not present a good company image, they'll be more concerned by that


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Might it better to maintain silence over the airwaves until you reach a conclusion of the matter Mags? I don't think it right that you broadcast on going correspondence between you and the other party and vice versa. How would they feel about it if they knew, or if the roles were reversed, yourself? By all means update us generally when you have their full response. Generally when parties correspond when in dispute it is in confidence.




Oh come on Cranks, I don't and never have posted all correspondance! I posted this to highlight the fact that it was a good initial response! It paints First in a good light! 

I've just been reading Cranky to the kids tonight (Thomas books) he's a bit grumpy too...


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Leaving the response at the roundabout out of it, do you think the close overtake was intentional or did she just forget you were there as soon as she was past you?
> 
> Every now and again I get this sort of thing from (non-bendy, thankfully) busses and if I give them benefit of the doubt perhaps they (in their mind) are thinking as if driving a car rather than a bloomin' long vehicle?
> 
> I did have one particular altercation with a bus who cut me off to go into a bus stop, and I did report him to his company as there was _no way_ he could not have seen me, but yet decided to cut in front (so diagonally 'through' me - if I hadn't braked I'd have hit him on the left hand side of his bus - and I'm not a fast cyclist at the best of times).



I honestly don't know. I don't think we can ever really know from individual events what the reasons behind it were. All we can do is look at the response afterwards and infer from that, although that could just be bravado.


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> In fact, reading that further, if a cyclist hits a ped, then the cyclist has liability. Would this mean compulsory insurance for cyclists. No bad thing, but difficult to police...



I am not sure that it would mean compulsory insurance for cyclists, it is a case of need, people so seldom stop to think why we have these laws. There is a odd assumption that because a law applies to drivers there must be a need to apply it to every other form of transport, without think the scale of the problem. In the mean time the UK is one of only five countries in the Europe which doesn't have a Strict Liability, the others being, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania, but then again the UK is steadily being turned into a Banana Republic...


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

HLaB said:


> If was just a bad OT I suspect it would have been swept under the carpet but the gesture does not present a good company image, they'll be more concerned by that




I suspect it wouldn't have been ignored. Remember I am well know to First as I took part in the Give Cyclists Room campaign with them in the past. I made sure I linked to this in the complaint to get their attention!


----------



## potsy (18 Mar 2010)

You really need to take that target off your back mags,another shocker


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> I am not sure that it would mean compulsory insurance for cyclists, it is a case of need, people so seldom stop to think why we have these laws. There is a odd assumption that because a law applies to drivers there must be a need to apply it to every other form of transport, without think the scale of the problem. In the mean time the UK is one of only five countries in the Europe which doesn't have a Strict Liability, the others being, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania, but then again the UK is steadily being turned into a Banana Republic...



Is there a requirement for 3rd party insurance for cyclists where Strict liability does apply?

I must admit, before reading the article you linked to, I didn't understand it properly.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

potsy said:


> You really need to take that target off your back mags,another shocker




Give me 30 mins and I will provide tonights, 'Let's take out Magnatom' episode!


----------



## potsy (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> Give me 30 mins and I will provide tonights, 'Let's take out Magnatom' episode!


Oh no not again


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

No seriously, Dave? Not again!!! Poor you.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Don't worry folks, it's not in the same league, and it wasn't me who came off worst. Give me a few minutes....


----------



## Telemark (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> Don't worry folks, it's not in the same league, and it wasn't me who came off worst. Give me a few minutes....



glad to hear that. 
cliff hanger ....

T


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Telemark said:


> glad to hear that.
> cliff hanger ....
> 
> T




The thread is up.


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> *Is there a requirement for 3rd party insurance for cyclists where Strict liability does apply?*
> 
> I must admit, before reading the article you linked to, I didn't understand it properly.



Not as far as I know. As I say above you have to think about why we have 3rd party insurance drivers in the first place, laws don't just spring into existence out of nowhere. The reason drivers required to have insurance is because of the scale of damage they do, think about 7 people die on the roads every day, hundreds more are seriously injured, then there are the minor injuries and the damage to property. It is so common we don't even think about it, it has just become a fact of life, but in the nearly 200 years the bicycle has existed no one has suggested that cyclist are the cause of thousands of deaths a year, that they cause millions (billions?) of pounds of damage a year. So there has _never_ been the _need_ to require cyclist to have insurance by law, it is all about scale, *cyclist simply don't cause enough damage for it to be needed*! 

If you cause damage to a 3rd party at present, the liability is with you, but how many of us consider that we have to go out and buy special insurance? The risk is so low, many insurance companies give away free general 3rd party cover with household insurance. When I am out cycling for leisure or transport (sporting activity is excluded) I am covered against 3rd party claims by my household insurance. If cycling posed a serious risk to others, you can be damned sure the insurance companies would be charging extra for it, they aren't going to take the risk of making a loss!!


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> Not as far as I know. As I say above you have to think about why we have 3rd party insurance drivers in the first place, laws don't just spring into existence out of nowhere. The reason drivers required to have insurance is because of the scale of damage they do, think about 7 people die on the roads every day, hundreds more are seriously injured, then there are the minor injuries and the damage to property. It is so common we don't even think about it, it has just become a fact of life, but in the nearly 200 years the bicycle has existed no one has suggested that cyclist are the cause of thousands of deaths a year, that they cause millions (billions?) of pounds of damage a year. So there has _never_ been the _need_ to require cyclist to have insurance by law, it is all about scale, *cyclist simply don't cause enough damage for it to be needed*!
> 
> If you cause damage to a 3rd party at present, the liability is with you, but how many of us consider that we have to go out and buy special insurance? The risk is so low, many insurance companies give away free general 3rd party cover with household insurance. When I am out cycling for leisure or transport (sporting activity is excluded) I am covered against 3rd party claims by my household insurance. If cycling posed a serious risk to others, you can be damned sure the insurance companies would be charging extra for it, they aren't going to take the risk of making a loss!!



Aye, but I'm wondering about the situation where a student (who living in student accom) might not have insurance. What do they do if they strike a pedestrian down, of they don't have insurance? As Tynan's recent experience suggests a cyclist can still do some hefty damage. How would the student pay for any damages without insurance?

Situations like that are certainly rarer, but they do happen.

I'm not arguing against it, I can just see the argument for insurance being a requirement.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

I think it's unlikely that cyclists would be required to have insurance, as at present. That's for two reasons - cyclists tend not to cause serious injury and damage to others' property, and they have *extreme* motivation to avoid collisions. Both quite unlike the same issues with motor vehicles.


----------



## J4CKO (18 Mar 2010)

Ill give you that one 

Terrible bit of driving, pointless overtake that left you nowhere to go, Buses are a nightmare but ones that bend in the middle are a bigger liability.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I think it's unlikely that cyclists would be required to have insurance, as at present. That's for two reasons - cyclists tend not to cause serious injury and damage to others' property, and they have *extreme* motivation to avoid collisions. Both quite unlike the same issues with motor vehicles.



I think in general that is true. I'm just wondering what would actually happen to that student? What would happen on the rare occasion where you send someone to hospital with serious injuries?

As you will be aware it's not cyclists you have to convince with this, so if that system comes in, I can to some extent understand the attitude, 'we'll give you that if you do this'.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

Not having insurance doesn't prevent the other party from sueing for recompense.


----------



## postman (18 Mar 2010)

The driving was bad enough . 

But hell when she asked you to buy a ticket .cos you were nearly on her bus .That takes the bisquit .


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Not having insurance doesn't prevent the other party from sueing for recompense.



Now this is where my understanding ends. What actually happens if you are sued but you don't have the money or insurance to cover it?


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

postman said:


> The driving was bad enough .
> 
> But hell when she asked you to buy a ticket .cos you were nearly on her bus .That takes the bisquit .



Aye, I suppose I was almost a passenger!


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

MIB? Bankruptcy? I don't even know if the MIB covers collisions where a cyclist was uninsured.


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> MIB? Bankruptcy? I don't even know if the MIB covers collisions where a cyclist was uninsured.




You see that's what concerns me. If a cyclist is uninsured and can't pay then there might be no compensation. Thus if Strict Liabilty does come in, I can understand calls for insurance.

The problem isn't the cost, it would be small (most of us are insured anyway) it would be the policing and running any system to check that cyclists were insured.


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:



> Aye, but I'm wondering about the situation where a student (who living in student accom) might not have insurance. What do they do if they strike a pedestrian down, of they don't have insurance? As Tynan's recent experience suggests a cyclist can still do some hefty damage. How would the student pay for any damages without insurance?
> 
> Situations like that are certainly rarer, but they do happen.
> 
> I'm not arguing against it, I can just see the argument for insurance being a requirement.



Mag, think about it, where is the need? OK so there maybe a knee jerk reaction from Clarkson Tendency but not an argument that would stand up to any questioning. Just look how long the policy on compulsory 3rd party insurance for dogs lasted...


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> Mag, think about it, where is the need? OK so there maybe a knee jerk reaction from Clarkson Tendency but not an argument that would stand up to any questioning. Just look how long the policy on compulsory 3rd party insurance for dogs lasted...




Aye, but my question is valid. What would actually happen in the students case?


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> I think in general that is true. I'm just wondering what would actually happen to that student? What would happen on the rare occasion where you send someone to hospital with serious injuries?
> 
> As you will be aware it's not cyclists you have to convince with this, so if that system comes in, I can to some extent understand the attitude, 'we'll give you that if you do this'.



Under the current law you are liable to pay damages if you are negligent and you send someone to hospital with serious injuries. Unless of course you are driving, in which case you can kill someone and it is brushed off as just an accident...


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> Under the current law you are liable to pay damages if you are negligent and you send someone to hospital with serious injuries. Unless of course you are driving, in which case you can kill someone and it is brushed off as just an accident...




Aye, so if Strict Liabilty was introduced, more would be liable and as a result more might not be able to pay if not insured?

I'm not trying to be funny here, just trying to play devils advocate and to get it straight in my head (which now has a couple of very nice Weihenstephan in it!


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> Aye, but my question is valid. What would actually happen in the students case?



The same as happens now... 

the real change is that drivers would loose the sense of immunity they feel they have now, and the reason they have that is because all to often, drivers _do_ get away with it...


----------



## mangaman (18 Mar 2010)

FWIW - I don't think you riding in primary would have been necessary or appropriate on that video.

The road surface (as everywhere) was crap and I think your road positioning was fine.

I also think you can't refer everything to the plod. The world we inhabit is small and we meet the same idiots daily.

I think your tanker driver thing was hopefully a great improvement in road safety.

Also your previous dialogue with bus companies (eminently reasonable on your part) seems to have helped

I think this overtakke and the driver's gestures were clearly unacceptable for a professional driver. As I say, you're de man when it comes to getting justice for cyclists in Glasgow.

I can see that the more people you report, the more of of a rep you'll get, but undoubtedly you did nothing wrong. The driver did. Anything she gets she deserves.

Good luck to you Magna. - I'm sure you're making the "mean streets" of Glasgow a bit safer (and I mean that seriously)


----------



## magnatom (24 Mar 2010)

I have received the following response from First Glasgow



> Dear x
> 
> Thank you for your email dated 18 March regarding the actions of a driver
> on our 9 service the previous evening as you were cycling along Dumbarton
> ...


----------



## HLaB (24 Mar 2010)

You,ve changed your name to 'x' ;-)

Seriously though about the best you could of hope for and a result if they actually do what they are saying.


----------



## magnatom (24 Mar 2010)

HLaB said:


> You,ve changed your name to 'x' ;-)
> 
> Seriously though about the best you could of hope for and a result if they actually do what they are saying.




Aye, I'm quite pleased with it, and I do trust First to do what they say. I'm just wondering if I should take the offer to talk further and just push them a wee bit further.....(i.e. to something positive)


----------



## HJ (24 Mar 2010)

You're just wanting to get on TV again...


----------



## magnatom (24 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> You're just wanting to get on TV again...



Definitely not! Too much other stuff going on at the moment for that!

No, I just wonder if we can somehow get some input into their training, or maybe supply some videos that they can show their drivers, good and bad. I need to mull it over.


----------



## swee'pea99 (24 Mar 2010)

'service deficiency'. Classic!

Well done Mags. The driver got a bollocking and they've put up notices saying give cyclists room. It's all about shifting the mindset, and it looks like you've done that. Result.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (24 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> Definitely not! Too much other stuff going on at the moment for that!
> 
> *No, I just wonder if we can somehow get some input into their training, or maybe supply some videos that they can show their drivers, good and bad*. I need to mull it over.


Good idea. Also, and I'm being serious about this, try suggesting that they get their staff to try having a bus overtake them (closed road, slow speed, not too close etc.) to see exactly what it feels like under tame conditions.... might make them appreciate how it feels when done at speed, on crap road surfaces etc.


----------



## HobbesChoice (25 Mar 2010)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Good idea. Also, and I'm being serious about this, try suggesting that they get their staff to try having a bus overtake them (closed road, slow speed, not too close etc.) to see exactly what it feels like under tame conditions.... might make them appreciate how it feels when done at speed, on crap road surfaces etc.



Excellent idea! I've always felt that cyclists would get a better deal if drivers were aware of how vulnerable it can feel. Something I think you can only understand fully after experiencing it for yourself.


----------



## swee'pea99 (25 Mar 2010)

They'd never get it past elf & safety. What if one o' the poor dears wobbled & went under a wheel....?


----------



## nethalus (7 Apr 2010)

4F said:


> The bitch who was driving that bus deserves the book to be thrown at her. That was an insane piece of driving.



Can I ask why you say she is a bitch?? That's not very nice lanuage. I thought all cyclists were sweet and innocent.


----------



## 4F (7 Apr 2010)

nethalus said:


> Can I ask why you say she is a bitch?? That's not very nice lanuage. I thought all cyclists were sweet and innocent.



Is Cow better ?


----------



## nethalus (7 Apr 2010)

4F said:


> Is Cow better ?


NO it's not!


----------



## potsy (7 Apr 2010)

Not a bad result that mags,at least it's not just been ignored.
So who are you going after next?


----------



## magnatom (7 Apr 2010)

nethalus said:


> NO it's not!




Hi Nethalus,

It's a long time since you've posted on here! 

To be fair to 4F, the driver did act in a very poor manner. She endangered my life, and then when I tried to point this out to her she gave me two fingers. I think alling her a bitch is being let off pretty lightly. 

Also keep in mind that this incident followed on from a very very serious incident that occured to me a week or so before, and has now resulted in a tanker driver being charged with dangerous driving. I've removed the video until the case progresses, but if you look at this thread, you'll get the idea.


It's because of incidents like that, that we sometimes react strongly to bad driving.


----------



## magnatom (7 Apr 2010)

potsy said:


> Not a bad result that mags,at least it's not just been ignored.
> So who are you going after next?



I don't have to go after anyone, they go after me!


----------



## nethalus (7 Apr 2010)

magnatom said:


> Hi Nethalus,
> 
> It's a long time since you've posted on here!
> 
> ...




Ah skip, tipper and tanker lorry drivers a law on to themselves. I'm sure some of them watched that early Spilberg film Dual too much when they were younger! 
Had a few problems with them myself, including a few where the old life flashed before the eyes. Mind you I remember a colleague of mine down in colchester ended up with their bus in a ditch and a broken arm because of a tanker driver. The lorry was on their side of the road, it was either take a chance with the ditch or deffinately die in a head on!!


----------



## BentMikey (8 Apr 2010)

Hiya Nethalus, how's things with you?

p.s. I take it you can honestly say you've been just as keen to tell off your fellow forum bus drivers about threatening to run over Magnatom?


----------



## nethalus (8 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Hiya Nethalus, how's things with you?
> 
> p.s. I take it you can honestly say you've been just as keen to tell off your fellow forum bus drivers about threatening to run over Magnatom?




Can't say I've seen anyone saying that lately. Some did say that he should be careful in provoking people.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2010)

Hmm, that's not what I just saw a day or two ago on the bus forum. Let's be frank though, just existing as a cyclist is enough to provoke a poor driver.


----------



## nethalus (9 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Hmm, that's not what I just saw a day or two ago on the bus forum. Let's be frank though, just existing as a cyclist is enough to provoke a poor driver.



Well I suppose if you look at older posts there might be some. But not been any I've noticed.


----------



## lit (11 Apr 2010)

nethalus said:


> Can't say I've seen anyone saying that lately. Some did say that he should be careful in provoking people.



I'd love to know what they mean by that.


----------



## nethalus (11 Apr 2010)

lit said:


> I'd love to know what they mean by that.



Well I let's invent a hypothetical situation. Magnatom is riding to work with his camera filming away, minding his own business. Some moron driving a van nearly has him off his bike. Magnatom catches said moron up and gives him a piece of his mind. Said moron turns out to be Dangerous O'Brien, the king of road rage, who takes serious exception to being told off by a cyclist. Dangerous sees red and aims his vehicle at Magnatom, knocking him off his bike and into a crumpled heap on the road.
That's what is meant by he should be careful. There are some unpredictable and dangerous nutters out there. Best to mutter some obscenities under your breath, get the vehicle's details and then carry on safe and sound.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2010)

That's the kindest possible interpretation of that sort of comment IMO. Mostly it means that the cager making the comment is threatening Magnatom in case he dares to film their bad driving.

Very few people at all have any courage when faced with a video camera.


----------



## lit (11 Apr 2010)

> Best to mutter some obscenities under your breath, get the vehicle's details and then carry on safe and sound.



That's what I tend to do, I was being slight tongue in cheek with that comment but your explanation is appreciated all the same.


----------



## classic33 (11 Apr 2010)

nethalus said:



> Well I let's invent a hypothetical situation. Magnatom is riding to work with his camera filming away, minding his own business. Some moron driving a van nearly has him off his bike. Magnatom catches said moron up and gives him a piece of his mind. Said moron turns out to be Dangerous O'Brien, the king of road rage, who takes serious exception to being told off by a cyclist. Dangerous sees red and aims his vehicle at Magnatom, knocking him off his bike and into a crumpled heap on the road.
> That's what is meant by he should be careful. *There are some unpredictable and dangerous nutters out there.* Best to mutter some obscenities under your breath, get the vehicle's details and then carry on safe and sound.



Hasn't that already been dubbed road rage. 
Intentionally using your vehicle as a weapon outright, with the sole intention of causing injury or death to someone else, should be classed as attempted murder.

As far as the "unpredictable nutters" goes, I'm finding that more & more they seem to be driving buses. Normally younger drivers at that. Those that have been with the company a while seem to appreciate what others have to do to avoid them.

Wonder what the bus driver in Leeds city centre last week was thinking off when he pulled passed a stationary Cyclist, opening the doors & making it clear what he thought of cyclists. Before he realised why the traffic had stopped, an Ambulance on "Blues & Twos" going straight accross the Headrow & down the street where you say traffic isn't allowed.


*Magnatom*, The line from Knight Rider. 
"One man can make a difference".


----------



## nethalus (11 Apr 2010)

classic33 said:


> Hasn't that already been dubbed road rage.
> Intentionally using your vehicle as a weapon outright, with the sole intention of causing injury or death to someone else, should be classed as attempted murder.
> 
> As far as the "unpredictable nutters" goes, I'm finding that more & more they seem to be driving buses. Normally younger drivers at that. Those that have been with the company a while seem to appreciate what others have to do to avoid them.
> ...



You should have taken note of the bus fleet or reg number and reported him for doing that. I know I would have done. I reported a First Yorkshire driver not long ago for driving whilst using his mobile phone. I must say I think the driving standards of that company have slipped dramatically recently. And before anyone asks, I haven't worked for them in nearly a year now.


----------



## goo_mason (12 Apr 2010)

classic33 said:


> Hasn't that already been dubbed road rage.
> Intentionally using your vehicle as a weapon outright, with the sole intention of causing injury or death to someone else, should be classed as attempted murder.
> 
> As far as the "unpredictable nutters" goes, I'm finding that more & more they seem to be driving buses. Normally younger drivers at that. Those that have been with the company a while seem to appreciate what others have to do to avoid them.
> ...



Completely different experience up here - Lothian Buses drivers are excellent around cyclists. I've experienced this both whilst a passenger watching them passing cyclists or slowing to a crawl to sit behind them when it's unsafe to overtake and as a cyclist seeing how they behave around me.

The nutters up here are company van drivers, BMW/Audi/Merc look-at-me drivers, doddery OAPs and boy racers.


----------



## Matthames (12 Apr 2010)

Using a vehicle as a weapon comes under the offences against the person act. Unfortunately it is only classed as a misdemeanor. 

The law is thus:



Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 said:


> 35. Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ....


----------

