# Cyclists Blamed for Bus Crash



## toffee (21 Jun 2017)

Bus hits wall, driver says he was avoiding cyclists 

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/people-injured-after-bus-leaves-13219382

See part way down


----------



## Slick (21 Jun 2017)

Are they blaming the cyclists?


----------



## Drago (21 Jun 2017)

Every driver knows that other road users can do the damndest things. This is why it is drummed into us to drive at a speed that allows us to stop in the distance we can see to be clear. Unless you're a bus driver.


----------



## toffee (21 Jun 2017)

Slick said:


> Are they blaming the cyclists?



No you are right, they don't use those words but it is hinted


----------



## Drago (21 Jun 2017)

Why aren't they blaming the driver for driving to fast, thus forcing such a desperate maneuver to avoid running someone over?


----------



## Slick (21 Jun 2017)

Looks like an unusual one, but I've no experience with those guided buses.


----------



## winjim (21 Jun 2017)

Drago said:


> Why aren't they blaming the driver for driving to fast, thus forcing such a desperate maneuver to avoid running someone over?


His employer appears to be praising him for putting the cyclists' safety above his own. But obviously not that of any passengers he may have been carrying.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Jun 2017)

winjim said:


> His employer appears to be praising him for putting the cyclists' safety above his own. But obviously not that of any passengers he may have been carrying.



What a strange binary choice: crash or kill cyclists. He could try in such a manner that he can avoid hitting cyclists without destroying his bus.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQgtJF2byqI


----------



## NorthernDave (21 Jun 2017)

Quote: "It looks like the bus has come off its rails near Clifton Way" - off its rails?

Be interesting to find out what speed the bus was travelling at immediately prior to the incident.
We've got misguided busways up here too and if the drivers hit the entrance kerbs a bit quickly you certainly know about it.


----------



## KnackeredBike (21 Jun 2017)

Drago said:


> Every driver knows that other road users can do the damndest things. This is why it is drummed into us to drive at a speed that allows us to stop in the distance we can see to be clear. Unless you're a bus driver.


If cyclists suddenly entered the guided busway then perhaps not, surely the point of a guided busway is that you can crack along a bit because it is entirely segregated like a railway. Trains certainly can't usually stop in the distance they can see.

It was disappointing in the video to see a cyclist cycling along the bus way track rather than pushing their bike around.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

Maybe the drivers could slow down to the 15mph they're supposed to be travelling at when they join and leave the guided busway, because I've never seen one of them do that in all the time it's been open. I go past that particular part of the tracks twice a day and they way they drive is terrifying at times.


----------



## Lonestar (21 Jun 2017)

This is the trouble.I see many vehicles driving too fast up the back streets which have schoos and green areas.My road even has speed bumps like most backstreets round here..Why..can't motorists be trusted.Stupid question.

Also in a pedestrian area near my bike rack at work with the 5mph sign this is ignored virtually every time.I don't mind slightly over but some take the p155.Then they moan when they get fined for speeding and the GATSO money makers.

Whippet drivers like that,plenty of those round here.


----------



## subaqua (21 Jun 2017)

If you've read the article you can see it's not on the actual guided bit . It's about 50m before the start of the busway. So a normal road , where you should be driving to the normal rules of being able to stop in distance you can see to be safe. 

The bus drivers however don't on that bit as they think it's all GBW


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> It was disappointing in the video to see a cyclist cycling along the bus way track rather than pushing their bike around.



That's exactly what I did when I had to go round the scene of the accident tonight. Why should I push when there is a smooth piece of concrete to cycle on?


----------



## screenman (21 Jun 2017)

I think many motorists can be trusted, after all most of us ride and drive. I had two cyclist pull a stupid stunt today, riding no handed down the wrong side of the street towards oncoming vehicles who fortunately all stopped. Why don't cyclist consider other road users.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

The bus was definitely at the side of the busway when I went past it tonight. The pictures show the tracks quite clearly.

Maybe the driver was going a bit too fast when he joined the tracks? It wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## Lonestar (21 Jun 2017)

screenman said:


> I think many motorists can be trusted, after all most of us ride and drive. I had two cyclist pull a stupid stunt today, riding no handed down the wrong side of the street towards oncoming vehicles who fortunately all stopped. Why don't cyclist consider other road users.



Sorry but I can't trust them.A lot of the time I see drivers faffing about with mobile phones.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jun 2017)

I suppose it's possible there were two cyclists to be avoided but I am sceptical; of the various eye-witnesses quoted, none mentions the presence of cyclists, only the bus driver does.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

Anyone know if Whippet have onboard CCTV?


----------



## KnackeredBike (21 Jun 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> That's exactly what I did when I had to go round the scene of the accident tonight. Why should I push when there is a smooth piece of concrete to cycle on?


If there is an accident on a normal road is it acceptable for cars to drive on the pavement to get around it? Normal rules still apply, if anything you should be more cautious.


----------



## NorthernDave (21 Jun 2017)

Given the number of cameras fitted to buses nowadays, it shouldn't take long to establish what happened, should it?


----------



## Lonestar (21 Jun 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> Given the number of cameras fitted to buses nowadays, it shouldn't take long to establish what happened, should it?



How about a data recorder?


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> If there is an accident on a normal road is it acceptable for cars to drive on the pavement to get around it? Normal rules still apply, if anything you should be more cautious.



Were you there? Did you speak to the Police or anyone else at the scene dealing with the incident?

Have a guess what they told me to do when I asked how to proceed.

FWIW, I am very, very cautious when it's anything to do with the busway because I know how bad the bus drivers are.


----------



## NorthernDave (21 Jun 2017)

Lonestar said:


> How about a data recorder?



Quite possibly - I don't know what the legal requirement is on buses, but it's seems likely they'll have something on board.


----------



## KnackeredBike (21 Jun 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> Were you there? Did you speak to the Police or anyone else at the scene dealing with the incident?
> 
> Have a guess what they told me to do when I asked how to proceed.
> 
> FWIW, I am very, very cautious when it's anything to do with the busway because I know how bad the bus drivers are.


So you negated to mention the key part of your story, that you were directed to do so by a police officer.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> So you negated to mention the key part of your story, that you were directed to do so by a police officer.



Nope. I was told to go round the scene of the accident using the busway and using my judgement I cycled rather than pushing my bike in order to get past quicker.


----------



## Dave 123 (21 Jun 2017)

The guided busway is a crock of sh1te. Not a week goes by without some incident or other, be it cars on the tracks, busses leaving the tracks or pedestrians being run over.

Although I use it (and did tonight) if you're going to have busses thundering along it then it should be exclusively for busses. No peds, no cyclists, no horses as it doesn't seem to mix harmoniously.


----------



## screenman (21 Jun 2017)

Lonestar said:


> Sorry but I can't trust them.A lot of the time I see drivers faffing about with mobile phones.



Do you drive?


----------



## Ian193 (21 Jun 2017)

I thought the cycle path was separate from the GBW


----------



## winjim (21 Jun 2017)

jefmcg said:


> What a strange binary choice: crash or kill cyclists. He could try in such a manner that he can avoid hitting cyclists without destroying his bus.
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQgtJF2byqI



It's an interesting tactic. Avoid hitting cyclists by crashing your bus over a cycle path.


----------



## subaqua (21 Jun 2017)

Ian193 said:


> I thought the cycle path was separate from the GBW


It is. But at the point of impact it's a normal road not GBW


----------



## Lonestar (21 Jun 2017)

screenman said:


> Do you drive?



What has that got to do with it? I reserve my right to trust no one when I'm cycling out there.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (21 Jun 2017)

Ian193 said:


> I thought the cycle path was separate from the GBW



The cycle path, sorry, maintenance road runs alongside the busway tracks. According to the article the bus came off the tracks somehow.


----------



## screenman (22 Jun 2017)

Lonestar said:


> What has that got to do with it? I reserve my right to trust no one when I'm cycling out there.



I just wanted to know if you were trustworthy or not.


----------



## robjh (22 Jun 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> The cycle path, sorry, maintenance road runs alongside the busway tracks. According to the article the bus came off the tracks somehow.


In the picture, the bus is definitely beside the GBW, but just after the start of it. It looks like it must have veered across both lanes of the busway before crossing the cycle path and hitting the building. That is some serious swerving off the route. It is just about conceivable that some cyclist(s) may have got seriously confused and found themselves riding on the busway tracks, but previous comments about the high speed of the bus at this point still apply.


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

Drago said:


> This is why it is drummed into us to drive at a speed that allows us to stop in the distance we can see to be clear.


As I've mentioned before, it's really not any more and you'll fail your driving test for "not making progress" if you err on the side of caution. You might well even fail the hazard perception test for over-identifying hazards. Just keep your foot down and if you crash avoiding someone, blame them!


----------



## Lonestar (22 Jun 2017)

screenman said:


> I just wanted to know if you were trustworthy or not.



Ok....no problem.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2017)

On the front page of the CEN today. "Close call on busway "Coach company hails driver who 'swerved to avoid cyclist'"


----------



## Drago (22 Jun 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> If cyclists suddenly entered the guided busway then perhaps not, surely the point of a guided busway is that you can crack along a bit because it is entirely segregated like a railway. Trains certainly can't usually stop in the distance they can see.
> 
> It was disappointing in the video to see a cyclist cycling along the bus way track rather than pushing their bike around.



The driver has eyes, and should be using them. If there's anyone close the the bus way he should be prepared for them to do something stupid, and moderate his speed accordingly. If you or I are driving along and see a car waiting at a side junction, or children walking on the footpath, or other such hazards, we adjust our peed and vehicle positioning to account for the first rule of nature and motoring - other people do the bizarrest things.

Even on the guided section, which this was seemingly not, it isn't a railway with people physically segregated from the tracks, and he should moderate his speed when he sees people about, because they may obey the first rule of motoring and do something bizarre. He is driving a road vehiclenin a public environment, and live everyone else is supposed to he should benbehaving as such. Blithely keeping his right foot planted leaves him no option but to do something stupid and dangerous himself when it all goes wrong, which was demonstrated beautifully in this case.

People do not simply materialise out of thin air. They can appear suddenly, but the mechanism that hides then from view, the parked car, the gap in the hedge indicating a drive way etc, are all indicative of danger. The only person anyone should swerve to avoid, and thus endanger everykne else aeound, is the one that teleports in front of your vehicle.

He was a combination of TFF, and not maintaining his visual drills.

He's not a hero. He's a chump.


----------



## Globalti (22 Jun 2017)

Most of the posters on here seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of idiots on bicycles; we see them every day and night swerving across the road, dressed in black, no lights. seeming almost to dare drivers to take issue with their behaviour. They are not people I would consider as "cyclists", they are simply idiots riding bikes.


----------



## Drago (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> Most of the posters on here seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of idiots on bicycles; we see them every day and night swerving across the road, dressed in black, no lights. seeming almost to dare drivers to take issue with their behaviour. They are not people I would consider as "cyclists", they are simply idiots riding bikes.



I forgot no such thing - first rule of using a public road is " people do the bizzarest things", and I said as much. All of us, most particularly professional drivers with the lives of paying customers in their care, should remember the first rule and be ready for it. Idiot kids on bikes, mopeds chancing their arm when no one is looking, or mentally Ill people wanting to top themselves under a bus are all covered by the first rule.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2017)

Why are people still claiming this wasn't on the busway?


----------



## mangid (22 Jun 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> If cyclists suddenly entered the guided busway then perhaps not, surely the point of a guided busway is that you can crack along a bit because it is entirely segregated like a railway. Trains certainly can't usually stop in the distance they can see.
> 
> It was disappointing in the video to see a cyclist cycling along the bus way track rather than pushing their bike around.



Why ?

I cycled along the busway there yesterday after I was told to do so by an official looking person in a green fluorescent jacket, maybe that cyclist was as well ?


----------



## Drago (22 Jun 2017)

Cycling is indeed permitted on most such bus ways. They are not physically or lawfully segregated form the rest of the world.


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

Drago said:


> Cycling is indeed permitted on most such bus ways. They are not physically or lawfully segregated form the rest of the world.


The Cambridge ones are segregated by law (non-bus use of the bus tracks is prohibited and signed as such - I suspect by traffic order, which often allow police to direct traffic to ignore it as mentioned above) and as former railways, they are mostly physically segregated from the surrounding area. They also have car traps to discourage non-bus use of the bus tracks, but they are ineffective against two-wheelers.

Although the old railway-style fences have gone, there aren't many accesses to/from the tracks which weren't railway crossings and of course people can walk, cycle or ride horses on the track alongside, which is also used by maintenance vehicles.

So, you have a great combination of a high-speed low-visibility-at-crossings road (because it was designed for a railway with different rules and laws) with bus drivers with a very foot-to-the-floor "get orf moi track" attitude whizzing past with only a low kerb between them and non-motorised users  And despite that, it's still one of the best cycle tracks in this country 



ABikeCam said:


> Why are people still claiming this wasn't on the busway?


Because it was on the edge of a bus-tracked section.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Jun 2017)

User13710 said:


> The usual chorus, except you missed out the bit that goes "and they get what they deserve".



That's true. But it's also true that there is some presupposition of fault on the part of the vehicle driver by some posting here. We should either be happy with all wild speculation or none regarding what happened


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

nickyboy said:


> That's true. But it's also true that there is some presupposition of fault on the part of the vehicle driver by some posting here. We should either be happy with all wild speculation or none regarding what happened


It would be nice if any of the wild speculation exonerating the driver fitted in with where the bus came to rest, though:



robjh said:


> In the picture, the bus is definitely beside the GBW, but just after the start of it. It looks like it must have veered across both lanes of the busway before crossing the cycle path and hitting the building. That is some serious swerving off the route. It is just about conceivable that some cyclist(s) may have got seriously confused and found themselves riding on the busway tracks, but previous comments about the high speed of the bus at this point still apply.
> View attachment 358358



I think the photo is taken from Hills Road bridge - as you can see from the following streetview without buses in the way, the track is fairly straight with good visibility at that point. http://www.instantstreetview.com/@52.190804,0.134932,205.11h,-3.26p,3.55z

Also, it's signed as 15mph through the curve under that bridge: http://www.instantstreetview.com/@52.192342,0.135562,195.28h,-4.69p,1z
so I doubt the bus could have been travelling so fast that the driver was unable to stop for a cyclist illegally riding contraflow on the track without exceeding the speed limit on the pre-track section and/or not looking. Maybe it was an MTBer bunnyhopping out of the shrubs between the busway and railway? Seems rather unlikely, though.

The behaviour of buses on the southern section and especially how they barge through the junction with the Addenbrookes branch is a large part of the reason why I rode between the station and Addenbrookes along Hills Road yesterday, despite the still-ongoing roadworks at the Long Road crossroads.


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

http://cycle.st/p83576 complaining about buses routinely speeding under that bridge, last August.

Links to 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Xe6uidDCY


http://cycle.st/p90792 is a view of the crashed bus from the south.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (22 Jun 2017)

User said:


> It's the Cambridge News - one of the most anti-cyclist local papers going.
> 
> I also know that bit if the guided busway quite well and the bus driver's story doesn't seem to quite add up.


We did some ground work for this project as we are doing for the Bristol version - metrobus. I suspect that they still want to try and build one of these down the Bristol Railway Path as was mooted in 2008. Go help us if they do with this kind of thing happening.

I should add that the Cambridge News is as bad as the Bristol Post. Websites are practically identical. I think they are of the same publishing group that ran websites entitled 'thisis (fill in with relevant town/city)'. Probably owned by the Daily Mail.


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

captain nemo1701 said:


> I should add that the Cambridge News is as bad as the Bristol Post. Websites are practically identical. I think they are of the same publishing group that ran websites entitled 'thisis (fill in with relevant town/city)'. Probably owned by the Daily Mail.


Actually the Daily Mirror's owner, Trinity Mirror, who bought them from the Daily Mail a few years ago.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (22 Jun 2017)

mjr said:


> Actually the Daily Mirror's owner, Trinity Mirror, who bought them from the Daily Mail a few years ago.


Interesting. A left wing(ish) paper buying sh**e right wing websites.


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> Most of the posters on here seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of idiots on bicycles; we see them every day and night swerving across the road, dressed in black, no lights. seeming almost to dare drivers to take issue with their behaviour. They are not people I would consider as "cyclists", they are simply idiots riding bikes.


It's always sad to see cyclists willing to disown other cyclists and do the motoring lobby's work for them. Also, there's nothing wrong with being dressed in black and having no lights in the day, or even swerving across the road if it's clear.

Finally, you seem to be forgetting that there are some idiots driving buses, sadly. Randomly-selected example: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ester-news/bus-driver-who-injured-two-8463413


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2017)

mjr said:


> It's always sad to see cyclists willing to disown other cyclists and do the motoring lobby's work for them. Also, there's nothing wrong with being dressed in black and having no lights in the day, or even swerving across the road if it's clear.
> 
> Finally, you seem to be forgetting that there are some idiots driving buses, sadly. Randomly-selected example: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ester-news/bus-driver-who-injured-two-8463413



Here's one NOT selected at random.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37061373


----------



## mjr (22 Jun 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> Here's one NOT selected at random.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37061373


 And it links to another similar one where the driver tried to enter the bus tracks at over 53mph (maximum on any in Cambridge is 30mph, while I linked above to the 15mph limit at the recent crash site) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35841300 and I do love the comment that once the driver had fallen into the footwell, it was "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control"


----------



## jefmcg (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> Most of the posters on here seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of idiots on bicycles; we see them every day and night swerving across the road, dressed in black, no lights. seeming almost to dare drivers to take issue with their behaviour. They are not people I would consider as "cyclists", they are simply idiots riding bikes.


I'd have the same attitude if a bus driver crossed a lane of traffic and crashed into a wall and blamed it on a dog.

as in :yeah, maybe, but I'd be pretty skeptical.


----------



## Globalti (22 Jun 2017)

mjr said:


> It's always sad to see cyclists willing to disown other cyclists and do the motoring lobby's work for them. Also, there's nothing wrong with being dressed in black and having no lights in the day, or even swerving across the road if it's clear.



You've obviously never enjoyed the experience of driving through an average city like Preston on an average evening when the muppet show is in full swing. I strongly disown idiots dressed in black hoodies, with no lights, riding crap BSOs who swerve across the road in front of me knowing that as a responsible driver I will have no choice but to slam on the brakes risking being rear-ended by some other texting dickhead in a car behind me. They have nothing to do with cycling; they are merely city rats who ride bicycles.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I'd have the same attitude if a bus driver crossed a lane of traffic and crashed into a wall and blamed it on a dog.
> 
> as in :yeah, maybe, but I'd be pretty skeptical.



Don't forget, he came off the tracks. So that's going over two kerbs, a lane, and another kerb then crashing into the wall


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> You've obviously never enjoyed the experience of driving through an average city like Preston on an average evening when the muppet show is in full swing. I strongly disown idiots dressed in black hoodies, with no lights, riding crap BSOs who swerve across the road in front of me knowing that as a responsible driver I will have no choice but to slam on the brakes risking being rear-ended by some other texting dickhead in a car behind me. They have nothing to do with cycling; they are merely city rats who ride bicycles.



You need to attend a speed awareness course. If you have to slam on the brakes, you're going too fast in the first place.


----------



## Globalti (22 Jun 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> You need to attend a speed awareness course. If you have to slam on the brakes, you're going too fast in the first place.



I feel grossly insulted by your suggestion that I speed.

I am a prominent member (since 13 years) of a resident's group campaigning for traffic calming and a 20 mph limit in our street, which is used as a rat-run by commuters wanting to avoid traffic lights. After 30 years, Lancashire CC is at last installing 20 mph signage and table tops in the street this week, which is a moment of success for our campaign. As a prominent member, It would be pretty hypocritical to speed in other people's streets so I obey the limit and often drive well below the limit as conditions allow, even if it annoys the driver behind me. I also witnessed the effect on my father when he killed a cyclist who came straight out of a side road and went through his windscreen (Coroner's verdict: no blame on my Dad) and I don't want to have an injury or worse on my conscience. So don't make assumptions please.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> You've obviously never enjoyed the experience of driving through an average city like Preston on an average evening when the muppet show is in full swing. I strongly disown idiots dressed in black hoodies, with no lights, riding crap BSOs who swerve across the road in front of me knowing that as a responsible driver I will have no choice but to slam on the brakes risking being rear-ended by some other texting dickhead in a car behind me. They have nothing to do with cycling; they are merely city rats who ride bicycles.


Have cyclists ever caused you to jump 3 kerbs and a lane of traffic and crash into a wall? It seems quite possible that the cyclists were there, even they were behaving badly. That still doesn't justify the collision.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> I feel grossly insulted by your suggestion that I speed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So don't make assumptions please.



I mean no offence and I'm not suggesting you speed/break the speed limit but you seem to have to slam your brakes on quite frequently by the sound of it. I believe a speed awareness course would help you with this.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> and table tops in the street this week.



I hope it mproves the environment of your street.

Living beside a rat run is unpleasant in several ways, as I know from my time in London.

A word of caution, table tops/ramps can add to noise as the drivers engine brake, the suspension 'crashes' over the hump, and they accelerate towards the next one, where the process is repeated.

I'm aware of one street where the residents campaigned for humps, got them, but then became split 50/50 over whether they should be removed due to excessive noise.


----------



## NorthernDave (22 Jun 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I'd have the same attitude if a bus driver crossed a lane of traffic and crashed into a wall and blamed it on a dog.
> 
> as in :yeah, maybe, but I'd be pretty skeptical.



Maybe it was a dog riding a bike..?



Because, to be fair, that would put me off too.


----------



## Tin Pot (22 Jun 2017)

toffee said:


> Bus hits wall, driver says he was avoiding cyclists
> 
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/people-injured-after-bus-leaves-13219382
> 
> See part way down



I feel for bus drivers.

If it isnt cyclists making them crash, it's those infernal low bridge builders.


----------



## Globalti (23 Jun 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> I hope it mproves the environment of your street.
> 
> Living beside a rat run is unpleasant in several ways, as I know from my time in London.
> 
> ...



Agreed; at a place called Tockholes near Darwen a massive amount of money was spent installing the full panoply of traffic calming devices and it's almost a three-mile linear museum of devices to slow down racing cars and motorbikes, but within weeks half the residents were campaigning to have them removed. What's worse is that the changes in surface and the joints allow water to penetrate and Tockholes being high in altitude, frost has done massive damage and after 15 or so years the road is a terrible mess; in fact now it's the unintended potholes that slow the traffic. The modern table top is installed much more carefully and sealed around the edges. It can be straddled so that you don't even feel it so I reckon the effect is more psychological than anything. In our street, LCC rebuilt an old stone bridge and reinstated the roadway with a one-way working system. That alone dissuaded drivers from cutting through and there was a 24% reduction in traffic. It's a simple question of where drivers think they are less likely to be delayed so that if you offer them a choice between the main A road with one set of lights and a straight B road, which bypasses the lights, they will of course take the B option. Now that we've got a 20 mph limit and the table tops I'm hoping we might get another 25% reduction and fewer souped-up Audis and BMWs racing through with their over-tuned engines popping on the overrun. It also requires residents to park strategically so that short-cutters are forced to drive over the humps and can't straddle them.


----------



## robjh (23 Jun 2017)

Cambridge News are now saying that the 'cause may not be revealed for weeks', but the article casts no more light than the headline.
I had a look at the site today. The tyre marks are still visible on the busway edges and the cycle path, and make it quite clear that the bus had entered the guided busway for a few yards before veering out of its tracks and crossing the oncoming busway track and cycle path at about 45 degrees from the original direction of travel. Now the raised edges of the busway are several inches high and it would take quite some force to make a bus climb over them and leave the tracks, as well as for the sideways motion to override the resistance of the horizontal guide wheels that hold it to the route. A normally-driven bus should just not be able to do that. My guess is that something went wrong as the bus entered the guided tracks, linked to the speed and/or angle of approach. As for the allegation of cyclists in the way, they would surely have had to be on the busway track itself, and therefore _seriously_ off-course.
As others have said, on-board CCTV may help to explain the circumstances.


----------



## winjim (23 Jun 2017)

I see they've confirmed that there were passengers on board. I was wondering.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Jun 2017)

winjim said:


> I see they've confirmed that there were passengers on board. I was wondering.



That's good to hear. 
I wonder if any of them will be able to corroborate the driver's account?


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jun 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's good to hear.
> I wonder if any of them will be able to corroborate the driver's account?



On a bus in Southampton when someone puled out of a junction into the front nearside quarter of the bus.

The driver stopped and asked if everyone was alright, and did anyone see anything. Apart from myself not a single person had, so it may be a "keep your head down" mentality in the current case as well


----------



## jefmcg (24 Jun 2017)

robjh said:


> Cambridge News are now saying that the 'cause may not be revealed for weeks', but the article casts no more light than the headline.


"A spokesman for Whippet Coaches said it would not be "appropriate" to comment further while the accident was being investigated."

... but it was totally appropriate to comment when you thought you could pin the blame on cyclists?


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (24 Jun 2017)

After they put up the 10mph sign by the site of the accident, I could see what a bus going 10mph looks like. 

If they were doing 15mph before, I'll be a monkey's bare-arsed uncle.


----------



## robjh (24 Jun 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> After they put up the 10mph sign by the site of the accident, I could see what a bus going 10mph looks like.
> 
> If they were doing 15mph before, I'll be a monkey's bare-arsed uncle.


Where exactly is that sign? I was looking for speed limit signs there yesterday lunchtime and couldn't see any.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Jun 2017)

Globalti said:


> Agreed; at a place called Tockholes near Darwen a massive amount of money was spent installing the full panoply of traffic calming devices and it's almost a three-mile linear museum of devices to slow down racing cars and motorbikes, but within weeks half the residents were campaigning to have them removed. What's worse is that the changes in surface and the joints allow water to penetrate and Tockholes being high in altitude, frost has done massive damage and after 15 or so years the road is a terrible mess; in fact now it's the unintended potholes that slow the traffic. The modern table top is installed much more carefully and sealed around the edges. It can be straddled so that you don't even feel it so I reckon the effect is more psychological than anything. In our street, LCC rebuilt an old stone bridge and reinstated the roadway with a one-way working system. That alone dissuaded drivers from cutting through and there was a 24% reduction in traffic. It's a simple question of where drivers think they are less likely to be delayed so that if you offer them a choice between the main A road with one set of lights and a straight B road, which bypasses the lights, they will of course take the B option. Now that we've got a 20 mph limit and the table tops I'm hoping we might get another 25% reduction and fewer souped-up Audis and BMWs racing through with their over-tuned engines popping on the overrun. It also requires residents to park strategically so that short-cutters are forced to drive over the humps and can't straddle them.



There's certainly a bit more to making drivers slow than humps.

A few roads around Seven Dials in Covent Garden, central London, were levelled, as in the road surface and the two pavements were made all on one level.

Spaced wooden posts were used to mark the boundary, rather than continuous railings.

This had the effect of making drivers slow, even though the speed limit at the time remained 30mph.

I drove there before and after.

The after gave me the impression of driving in a pedestrian precinct, rather than on a clearly defined road.

No doubt I went more slowly, which also had the effect of making the cars behind me go at the same speed even if their drivers wanted to go faster.


----------



## winjim (24 Jun 2017)

jefmcg said:


> "A spokesman for Whippet Coaches said it would not be "appropriate" to comment further while the accident was being investigated."
> 
> ... but it was totally appropriate to comment when you thought you could pin the blame on cyclists?


I think the matter has probably been escalated and the person in charge of their social media accounts told to STFU.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (24 Jun 2017)

robjh said:


> Where exactly is that sign? I was looking for speed limit signs there yesterday lunchtime and couldn't see any.



There's a couple of temporary signs as you come off the end of the busway path at the station end, going towards the station from the direction of Addenbrookes They are on the cycle path near the wall the bus crashed into.


----------



## winjim (25 Jun 2017)

winjim said:


> I think the matter has probably been escalated and the person in charge of their social media accounts told to STFU.


In fact I see that they've now hidden all the replies to their tweets about the alleged cyclists. I wonder why...


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2017)

winjim said:


> In fact I see that they've now hidden all the replies to their tweets about the alleged cyclists. I wonder why...


They've never heard of the Streisand effect?


----------



## User16625 (25 Jun 2017)

mjr said:


> They've never heard of the Streisand effect?



Well I haven't.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jun 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Well I haven't.



Someone sings a song about it?


----------



## winjim (25 Jun 2017)

I'd be very impressed if a Cambridgeshire bus company hiding a few tweets could generate the same amount of publicity as a Streisand lawsuit.


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2017)

winjim said:


> I'd be very impressed if a Cambridgeshire bus company hiding a few tweets could generate the same amount of publicity as a Streisand lawsuit.


 The Streisand effect only means that far more people will read that they hid tweets than would have ever read the original messages.


----------



## mjr (30 Jun 2017)

User said:


> If there had been cyclists on the left hand lane of the GBW, the driver would have been able to see them and stop - no need to swerve.
> If there had been cyclists on the right hand lane of the GBW, the driver could have continued without making contact with the cyclists - no need to swerve.
> If cyclists had been coming off the cycle path onto the road, they'd have been coming onto the right hand side of the road - not the left where the driver was... so no need to swerve - and no need to swerve _towards_ the side the cyclists would be on.


I've been rereading this and the above is missing one possibility: what if the cyclists were heading along the left hand side of the road towards the cycle path? Is "swerved to avoid cyclists" code for failing to overtake them properly in time to line the bus up for the entrance to the tracks?


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (30 Jun 2017)

Quite possibly. I wouldn't trust the bus drivers not to try it if they think they can get away with it. Personally I stay well to the right hand side of the left lane coming up to that part and get there as early as I can.


----------



## jefmcg (30 Jun 2017)

mjr said:


> I've been rereading this and the above is missing one possibility: what if the cyclists were heading along the left hand side of the road towards the cycle path? Is "swerved to avoid cyclists" code for failing to overtake them properly in time to line the bus up for the entrance to the tracks?


Honestly, I don't think there were any cyclists. I think the driver was going too fast and lost control. He got out of the bus and said "bloody cyclists"

Notes:

I used to have a book of excuses - a work of humour. One I remember was that after a car crash, the advice was to get out of the car and say "bloody dog", then check the bumper for dog hairs.
This obviously rules me out of serving on a jury in relation to this case.


----------



## Alien8 (1 Jul 2017)

Councillor buys speed gun to monitor Cambridge guided busway

_A councillor bought her own speed gun after being concerned that buses on Cambridge's guided busway were going too fast.

City councillor Zoe O'Connell, Liberal Democrat, said she found a large percentage of buses were going faster than the 15mph limit near Cambridge Railway Station.

There have been a number of crashes on the guided busway in recent months, at least one of which was caused by excessive speed.

Stagecoach said the speed gun was "not a credible source of data"._


----------



## mjr (2 Jul 2017)

Don't they say attacking the evidence rather than denying the accusation often indicates guilt?


----------



## mangid (11 Jul 2017)

The driver has been sacked for speeding, "driving above 20mph in a 15mph zone".

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/guided-busway-driver-who-crashed-13312473
http://www.go-whippet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Statement-for-Accident.pdf


----------



## winjim (11 Jul 2017)

I wonder if we'll see a prosecution for dangerous driving. Have these cyclists materialised yet?

ETA: Just checked their twitter feed again. All mention of this incident deleted, save for a retweet of the original newspaper article.


----------



## toffee (11 Jul 2017)

mangid said:


> The driver has been sacked for speeding, "driving above 20mph in a 15mph zone".
> 
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/guided-busway-driver-who-crashed-13312473
> http://www.go-whippet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Statement-for-Accident.pdf



Interesting, the newspaper still mentions cyclists,


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (11 Jul 2017)

toffee said:


> Interesting, the newspaper still mentions cyclists,



That's because the CEN is a rag that has an anti-cycling agenda.


----------



## mangid (11 Jul 2017)

More at the BBC:

Asked about the company's tweets regarding a cyclist or cyclists on the track, he said: "It wasn't down to the cyclists, so for that tweet we apologise."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40558729


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (11 Jul 2017)

mangid said:


> More at the BBC:
> 
> Asked about the company's tweets regarding a cyclist or cyclists on the track, he said: "It wasn't down to the cyclists, so for that tweet we apologise."
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40558729



That's because there were no cyclists. The only person that claimed to see them is the bus driver, and I wouldn't believe him if he told me what day of the week it was.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Jul 2017)

winjim said:


> I think the matter has probably been escalated and the person in charge of their social media accounts told to STFU.


No, that's not how it works. You see this all the time. Authorities happily repeat a narrative that exonerates them, but when that narrative becomes unsupportable, and the truth puts them in a a bad light, then suddenly they can't comment until investigations are complete.

The most egregious example of this I remember was with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, where the Met happily chatted away about the "fact" that he jumped the barriers, but when it became clear he had used a travelcard, they then decided they shouldn't comment on it until investigations were complete.


----------



## winjim (11 Jul 2017)

jefmcg said:


> No, that's not how it works. You see this all the time. Authorities happily repeat a narrative that exonerates them, but when that narrative becomes unsupportable, and the truth puts them in a a bad light, then suddenly they can't comment until investigations are complete.
> 
> The most egregious example of this I remember was with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, where the Met happily chatted away about the "fact" that he jumped the barriers, but when it became clear he had used a travelcard, they then decided they shouldn't comment on it until investigations were complete.


I think it depends on who holds the keys to the social media accounts and how much autonomy they are given. We don't know who exactly tweets from the gowhippet account and to what level the tweets have to be authorised by management. One of the deleted tweets "Our drivers are better than that!" in response to allegations of phone use, seem particularly ill advised in hindsight.

I have a friend who does the social media for a well known middle-class type food brand. Part of his job is to deflect and avoid anything that might be considered controversial, and not get drawn in to that sort of conversation.


----------



## mjr (11 Jul 2017)

mangid said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40558729


Do you think the 24mph is the speed when it hit the wall? I thought they were meant to be able to enter the tracks at 30mph, although that particular entrance is limited to 15mph, which I thought was due to the narrow S curve and sharing with cyclists rather than the track entrance. So I'd expect the speed at the point of jumping the track to be much higher, maybe the 40mph that some accuse busses of taking that curve.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (25 Jul 2017)

The driver tells his side of the story to the local anti-cycling rag.

Apparently, the way to safely avoid cyclists is to speed up...

"I accept that I exceeded the speed limit when overtaking the cyclists but I needed to pass them quickly to avoid an incident - and it for this that I was punished."

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/busway-crash-driver-ive-been-13380912


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Jul 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> The driver tells his side of the story to the local anti-cycling rag.
> 
> Apparently, the way to safely avoid cyclists is to speed up...
> 
> ...




I smell shite.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Jul 2017)

MGIF


----------



## mangid (25 Jul 2017)

Drivers side of the story

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/busway-crash-driver-ive-been-13380912



> He said: "I was driving from Cambridge station and as I was approaching the guideway I saw two cyclists, one male and one female, on my left. As I got nearer the female indicated, by putting out her left arm, that they were going to cross my path to the right to go on the cycle/footpath on my right.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (25 Jul 2017)

What a load of crap!
Saw cyclists, indicating or not, and floored it to get past.

And of course there's the standard 'wobbling all over the road' defence.


----------



## Ajax Bay (25 Jul 2017)

1500 London Edinburgh London riders will be using this route next week - at the 1333km point of the ride, from about Tuesday 2300 till Friday breakfast time. hope the Cambridge bus drivers are aware.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jul 2017)

It seems it is not only cyclists causing problems http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/car-stuck-guided-busway-histon--13379374


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (25 Jul 2017)

mangid said:


> Drivers side of the story
> 
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/busway-crash-driver-ive-been-13380912



TMN to me.

But how the hell does a left arm out indicate that someone is turning right?


----------



## subaqua (25 Jul 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I smell shite.



You got s KFC bargain bucket open ?


----------



## subaqua (25 Jul 2017)

Oh FFS , how bout slow down rather than speed up !


----------



## Dan B (25 Jul 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> [The driver said] "I accept that I exceeded the speed limit when overtaking the cyclists but I needed to pass them quickly to avoid an incident"


Yeah, so, er. How did that work out for you? Incident successfully avoided I trust?


----------



## gaijintendo (25 Jul 2017)

I suspect the telemetry indicates he was speeding on the way in, and he is claiming it was to avoid cyclists.
The speeding would have not been detected had he not crashed the bus.
I would congratulate him myself for choosing to crash his speeding bus rather than kill a wobbly cyclist.


----------



## Dan B (25 Jul 2017)

gaijintendo said:


> I would congratulate him myself for choosing to crash his speeding bus rather than kill a wobbly cyclist.


Absolutely. It's frightening when you're driving a bus and it decides all by itself to go too fast and there is nothing you can do to slow it down


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Jul 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> TMN to me.
> 
> But how the hell does a left arm out indicate that someone is turning right?



Her left arm out to indicate she was taking a road on driver's right. They must have been travelling towards each other (assuming said cyclists even existed).


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Jul 2017)

subaqua said:


> You got s KFC bargain bucket open ?



Is this where I admit I've enjoyed a KFC bucket?


----------



## winjim (25 Jul 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> TMN to me.
> 
> But how the hell does a left arm out indicate that someone is turning right?


It's entirely plausible, considering that she was supposedly "wobbling all over the road", that she was an inexperienced unconfident cyclist not using standard signals. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether that means one would be better hanging back and giving her some space, or flooring it past her as quickly as possible.


----------



## gaijintendo (25 Jul 2017)

Dan B said:


> Absolutely. It's frightening when you're driving a bus and it decides all by itself to go too fast and there is nothing you can do to slow it down


Maybe he injured himself rolling away from the bus on a mechanic's roller board, before the terrorists could blow the bus up.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Jul 2017)

winjim said:


> I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether that means one would be better hanging back and giving her some space, or flooring it past her as quickly as possible.


Flooring it only if you have the skillz not skid widely across a lane of traffic and a foot path.


----------



## mjr (25 Jul 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Flooring it only if you have the skillz not skid widely across a lane of traffic and a foot path.


That's OK then because he did more than that and smashed through a set of concrete tracks, a cycleway and a wall.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jul 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> TMN to me.
> 
> But how the hell does a left arm out indicate that someone is turning right?





glasgowcyclist said:


> Her left arm out to indicate she was taking a road on driver's right. They must have been travelling towards each other (assuming said cyclists even existed).



My thought exactly







This a left signal, but the move will be to MY right


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

There certainly looks like a biker in that image.


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

robjh said:


> Cambridge News are now saying that the 'cause may not be revealed for weeks', but the article casts no more light than the headline.
> I had a look at the site today. The tyre marks are still visible on the busway edges and the cycle path, and make it quite clear that the bus had entered the guided busway for a few yards before veering out of its tracks and crossing the oncoming busway track and cycle path at about 45 degrees from the original direction of travel. Now the raised edges of the busway are several inches high and it would take quite some force to make a bus climb over them and leave the tracks, as well as for the sideways motion to override the resistance of the horizontal guide wheels that hold it to the route. A normally-driven bus should just not be able to do that. My guess is that something went wrong as the bus entered the guided tracks, linked to the speed and/or angle of approach. As for the allegation of cyclists in the way, they would surely have had to be on the busway track itself, and therefore _seriously_ off-course.
> As others have said, on-board CCTV may help to explain the circumstances.



And your qualifications for this piece of speculation are...?


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

Immediately next to the back of the bus I think that is someone on a bike, and in front and to the left of them, another rider on a bike. 

I'm not speculating on the scenario other than that, but you *can* see cyclists in the picture. For those who are petulantly saying there weren't any.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> View attachment 364234
> 
> Immediately next to the back of the bus I think that is someone on a bike, and in front and to the left of them, another rider on a bike.
> 
> I'm not speculating on the scenario other than that, but you *can* see cyclists in the picture. For those who are petulantly saying there weren't any.



Curious passers-by perhaps?

The question remains; were there cyclists present to be avoided, as claimed by the driver?
Note that his employer has deleted its tweet where the justification for the crash was given as the driver swerving to avoid cyclists.


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Curious passers-by perhaps?
> 
> The question remains; were there cyclists present to be avoided, as claimed by the driver?
> Note that his employer has deleted its tweet where the justification for the crash was given as the driver swerving to avoid cyclists.



As I said, I'm not speculating on whether they were the cause or anything, just observing that there are cyclists in that image. 

Deletion of the tweets would be the normal approach following legal advice, and wouldnt in itself prove guilt or innocence.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> As I said, I'm not speculating on whether they were the cause or anything, just observing that there are cyclists in that image.
> 
> Deletion of the tweets would be the normal approach following legal advice, and wouldnt in itself prove guilt or innocence.



From memory, the bus company apologised for the tweet and said cyclists were not the cause of the crash.


----------



## gaijintendo (25 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> As I said, I'm not speculating on whether they were the cause or anything, just observing that there are cyclists in that image.
> 
> Deletion of the tweets would be the normal approach following legal advice, and wouldnt in itself prove guilt or innocence.



From what I understand, cycling is popular in Cambridge. That picture shows a cyclist, but it also shows a bus otherwise blocking the road.
The photo could be any amount of time after the accident. I assume the Ambulance didn't just happen to be there.

I don't think there is any real merit in trying to establish if the cyclists were imaginary or not. There will be footage, and there is telemetry: which showed he was speeding as he approached the busway, if I read the article correctly.


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> From memory, the bus company apologised for the tweet and said cyclists were not the cause of the crash.



Correct, but I am only saying that the tweets would've been removed anyway under legal advice. Regardless of the outcome after that.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (25 Jul 2017)

screenman said:


> Do you drive?





Lonestar said:


> What has that got to do with it? I reserve my right to trust no one when I'm cycling out there.


I'm with @Lonestar on this: whether we drive or not is irrelevant. I've never driven a car (except for a few driving lessons when I was fairly young), but I still know when a motorist is driving dangerously or carelessly.


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

gaijintendo said:


> From what I understand, cycling is popular in Cambridge. That picture shows a cyclist, but it also shows a bus otherwise blocking the road.
> The photo could be any amount of time after the accident. I assume the Ambulance didn't just happen to be there.
> 
> I don't think there is any real merit in trying to establish if the cyclists were imaginary or not. There will be footage, and there is telemetry: which showed he was speeding as he approached the busway, if I read the article correctly.



Tut. 

Some people on here went "I bet there weren't any cyclists really" and made a load of crass statements about drivers blaming crashes on imaginary things. 

I'm simply saying that the image shows cyclists, which suggests that they may have been there, even if it was the busman's fault. Can't you read??


----------



## gaijintendo (25 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> Tut.
> 
> Some people on here went "I bet there weren't any cyclists really" and made a load of crass statements about drivers blaming crashes on imaginary things.
> 
> I'm simply saying that the image shows cyclists, which suggests that they may have been there, even if it was the busman's fault. Can't you read??



It is a road. There may be cyclists. I am not sure you really observed anything helpful.


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

gaijintendo said:


> It is a road. There may be cyclists. I am not sure you really observed anything helpful.



It wasn't intended to be helpful.


----------



## gaijintendo (25 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> It wasn't intended to be helpful.


I was initially trying to be helpful. But I am starting to come around to being unhelpful.


----------



## NorthernDave (25 Jul 2017)

Come on - it can't be easy being a bus driver when your only role models are Stan Butler and Keanu Reeves...


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

gaijintendo said:


> I was initially trying to be helpful. But I am starting to come around to being unhelpful.



Helpful is sooo 2008.


----------



## raleighnut (25 Jul 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> The driver tells his side of the story to the local anti-cycling rag.
> 
> Apparently, the way to safely avoid cyclists is to speed up...
> 
> ...


Someone tell the idiot that the way to avoid cyclists is to brake, not speed up.


----------



## winjim (25 Jul 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> Come on - it can't be easy being a bus driver when your only role models are Stan Butler and Keanu Reeves...


Sandra Bullock was driving the bus.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (25 Jul 2017)

raleighnut said:


> Someone tell the idiot that the way to avoid cyclists is to brake, not speed up.


It looks like at least a few of the comments below the article made this same point. We can only hope the bus driver decides to read these comments.


----------



## mjr (25 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> Some people on here went "I bet there weren't any cyclists really"


Can you quote any?


----------



## bonsaibilly (25 Jul 2017)

mjr said:


> Can you quote any?



I don't need to.


----------



## Dan B (25 Jul 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> Come on - it can't be easy being a bus driver when your only role models are Stan Butler and Keanu Reeves...


Otto Mann?


----------



## mjr (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> I don't need to.


Or can't because people were actually claiming any cyclists wouldn't explain the crash by any competent driver, rather than claiming a busy cycle route has no cyclists.


----------



## bonsaibilly (26 Jul 2017)

mjr said:


> Or can't because people were actually claiming any cyclists wouldn't explain the crash by any competent driver, rather than claiming a busy cycle route has no cyclists.



No, actually there were some posts claiming that there weren't any cyclists at all.


----------



## mjr (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> No, actually there were some posts claiming that there weren't any cyclists at all.


As you'd say:


bonsaibilly said:


> Tut.
> […]
> Can't you read??


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> No, actually there were some posts claiming that there weren't any cyclists at all.



Yes, I don't think there were any cyclists there at the time of the accident. Later, when the picture was taken there were some.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jul 2017)

User13710 said:


> A picture's worth a thousand words.



Wouldn't have got quite that far, but thank you for the compliment


----------



## bonsaibilly (26 Jul 2017)

mjr said:


> As you'd say:



Yes thanks, and I've counted six such posts before I got bored of it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> Yes thanks, and I've counted six such posts before I got bored of it.



Hmmmm. I counted two that made that claim, some others (myself included) expressed scepticism at the driver's account.

However, it matters not as the company has now:

conceded that the driver's excuse was bollocks
apologised for tweeting cyclists were to blame
fired the driver
confirmed he was speeding.

Hopefully he'll be prosecuted for careless driving too.


----------



## mjr (26 Jul 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Hmmmm. I counted two that made that claim,


I think that's being rather generous in the interpretation of them as no cyclists were there, rather than no cyclists were where the driver/company initially claimed.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jul 2017)

winjim said:


> Sandra Bullock was driving the bus.



Stan Butler must be turning in his grave!


----------



## jefmcg (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> No, actually there were some posts claiming that there weren't any cyclists at all.


Seriously? Is that how you read this?


jefmcg said:


> Honestly, I don't think there were any cyclists.



I wasn't denying the existence of cyclists in general, I am one. Nor was I denying the existence of Cambridge cyclists, I've cycled there. No, the only cyclists I was denying existed were the ones that "caused" this accident. There are probably cyclists near most accidents in the UK. Their mere presence does not implicate them as a cause.



bonsaibilly said:


> And your qualifications for this piece of speculation are...?


I'm sure @robjh, like most of us, has spent a lot of time moving in traffic. We absorb a lot of knowledge about the capability and movements of different vehicles by observation. It's no surprise that the first person killed by a commercial train service was during that services inaugural run, but we understand so much about how vehicles can and do move to cross a busy road with confidence.

I think any competent person can look at the trajectory of that bus and state with confidence that a bus being driven at 15mph by a competent driver would not end up smashed into a wall with that force, even if it was beset by thousands of wobbly cyclists.


----------



## oldfatfool (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> It wasn't intended to be helpful.


No shoot sherlock


----------



## robjh (26 Jul 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> And your qualifications for this piece of speculation are...?


Familiarity with the site in question and observation of typical behaviour of cyclists and buses there over several years; examination of still visible traces there a few days later; possession of normal intelligence and the power of reason.

What are yours?

Incidentally, even the driver's own account confirms that my three points of speculation in that post were all correct.


----------



## bonsaibilly (26 Jul 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Seriously? Is that how you read this?
> 
> 
> I wasn't denying the existence of cyclists in general, I am one. Nor was I denying the existence of Cambridge cyclists, I've cycled there. No, the only cyclists I was denying existed were the ones that "caused" this accident. There are probably cyclists near most accidents in the UK. Their mere presence does not implicate them as a cause.
> ...



You would need physics to demonstrate the suppositions about the bus's movement, simply saying "I've observed buses so I know what they would do in a given scenario" is frankly pointless,,, and your own post saying "I don't think there were any cyclists" is not backed up by the photo showing cyclists. Regardless of whether it was their fault. If you choose to make silly mistakes in your choice of phrase that's up to you.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (27 Jul 2017)

@bonsaibilly 

A lot of people, including myself, think that no cyclists were involved IN THE INCIDENT. No one is saying that cyclists don't use the busway path.


----------



## subaqua (27 Jul 2017)

winjim said:


> Sandra Bullock was driving the bus.



well I know where she can park it ...


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (27 Jul 2017)

*Mod note:*

Since the thread was being sidetracked a few posts have been removed. Back on topic from here.


----------



## winjim (27 Jul 2017)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> *Mod note:*
> 
> Since the thread was being sidetracked a few posts have been removed. Back on topic from here.


I'm glad to see the definition of on topic still includes discussion of the cast of _Speed_.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (27 Jul 2017)

winjim said:


> I'm glad to see the definition of on topic still includes discussion of the cast of _Speed_.


We don't mind a bit of fun and silliness. As long as it doesn't take over the thread.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Jul 2017)

User said:


> Oh dear.... it appears several concerned citizens have raised the behaviour / initial response of the bus operator with the Traffic Commissioner.



And just where the fark have you been, eh?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Jul 2017)

User said:


> Family, friends, funerals, fun with new bike, work...



Fair enough.
As you were.


----------

