# Emma Foa's death-verdict announced



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless driving.
Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being crushed between the cement mixer’s rear wheels and roadside railings.
At Westminster Magistrates Court today Michael Thorn, 52 of Headley Down, Surrey was allowed to keep his driver’s licence and was ordered to pay £100 costs.
The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured.
The family of Ms Foa – the daughter of typewriter magnate Adriano Ollivetti said she was wearing a luminious reflector jacket and a helmet when she was crushed by the two tonne lorry.
District Judge Anthony Evans said: 
“I accept in cases of this sort it’s distressing for all concerned, the family of the disceased and the driver whose inadvertance has resulted in a fatality.”

Prosecutor Graham Parkinson told the court the incident happened at 9.10am in Camley Street, Kings Cross.
“Emma was riding her bike and reached the traffic lights. She went along the nearside and waited for the lights to change,” he said. 
*“She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible. He moved off and turned left causing her to be pushed to the ground and killed instantly. He had been looking for some paperwork in his truck… He felt a bump, saw a bike and jumped out to find her.”*
Karen Dempsey, defending, said that Thorn was “shocked and distressed” and that the incident “would live with him for the rest of his life”. She added that witnesses had said he was not driving aggressively.
I am not sure what I am most shocked by. I am not shocked that, despite the fact that Mr Thorn’s criminal negligence has resulted in the unlawful killing of Ms Foa, the court is allowing him to continue to drive. 
I am not shocked that, despite being found guilty of road crime, the driver has been fined £300. 
The sentence is entirely in keeping with the tariff for road killing. The driver who killed London bicycle messenger Sebastian Lukomski received a 6 point endorsement and a £1000 fine. 
Yet again, the old adage ‘if you want to get away with murder, get behind the wheel of a lorry’ is proven true. OK, it’s not murder, it’s manslaughter but someone is dead because someone else was in charge of dangerous machinery, and failed to their job properly.

*I am shocked that the judge has chosen the word “inadvertence” to describe the actions of the driver. Making a left turn whilst fumbling for papers in a HGV? That’s not inadvertence – that’s just f***ing stupid.* 
I am shocked that the defending barrister said that the driver was not driving aggressively.
As if a lack of aggression excuses somehow a negligent act which has led to an avoidable death. The dead woman’s only mistake was to be riding her bicycle and assuming that “a luminous reflective jacket” and a helmet would protect her.
She stopped at the lights, and she wasn’t in the “blind spot”. But the driver didn’t see her, because he wasn’t looking. And she was crushed to death because he was too busy checking his pay-sheet to make sure he had got his overtime to pay attention to what his two-tonne machine might be rolling over.

This is the reality of cycling in London. No matter how many campaigns, no matter how much lobbying, no matter how many pro-cycling articles the fact remains that any stupid, lazy, feckless waster of an idiot of a driver can kill with virtual impunity- the fine equivelent to less than the cost of the bike.
Beyond belief.


----------



## Tynan (21 Sep 2007)

nasty business

not clearing the driver, of course not

but alongside another vehicle at a left turning?

especially a cement mixer

it's what we're all told to never ever do a million times, don't try and pass or be inside a large vehicle at left hand turns

you can blame the driver, of course you can but passing a vehicle turning left makes you at least in part negligent


----------



## domtyler (21 Sep 2007)

Not much to say about this really as I don't know the full facts. I am sure that lorry would be near twenty tonnes rather than two though.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

I would also like to know more before forming an opinion. A good reminder of the reasons not to go down the side of a large vehicle, but thats about as much as we can say.

If the prosecution managed to demonstrate that the driver could see her but just didn't look because he was clarting on with paperwork then this is scandalous. If he really couldn't see her... Well, its tragic, and he deserves to be punished for driving while messing with paperwork, perhaps a greater punishment than he has received, but ultimately we can't tell from that report.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

Tynan said:


> it's what we're all told to never ever do a million times, don't try and pass or be inside a large vehicle at left hand turns



I got rear ended by another cyclist last year. There was a cycle lane, with a lorry to the right of it, indicating to turn left at the junction. No way in hell I was going to use that cycle lane, so I waited behind, and got clipped by another cyclist who wanted to bomb straight down the inside. Their choice to take that stupid risk of course, shame she wasn't paying attention to the cyclist in front of her (i.e. me).


----------



## Maz (21 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> I got rear ended by another cyclist last year. There was a cycle lane, with a lorry to the right of it, indicating to turn left at the junction. No way in hell I was going to use that cycle lane, so I waited behind, and got clipped by another cyclist who wanted to bomb straight down the inside. Their choice to take that stupid risk of course, shame she wasn't paying attention to the cyclist in front of her (i.e. me).


Think of it this way, Cab - you probably saved her life.


----------



## asterix (21 Sep 2007)

It's apparently easy to be a smartarse and say the cyclist shouldn't have done what she did but her 'misdemeanour' was never likely to result in someone else's death. 

The fact remains that the driver was in charge of a potentially very dangerous vehicle and saw fit to 'look for paperwork in his truck'. The sentence is hardly going to send a strong message to the many others who believe driving is merely a peripheral activity.


----------



## magnatom (21 Sep 2007)

asterix said:


> It's apparently easy to be a smartarse and say the cyclist shouldn't have done what she did but her 'misdemeanour' was never likely to result in someone else's death.
> 
> The fact remains that the driver was in charge of a potentially very dangerous vehicle and saw fit to 'look for paperwork in his truck'. The sentence is hardly going to send a strong message to the many others who believe driving is merely a peripheral activity.



I see what you are saying asterix, but we also have responsibility for our own safety. As others have said we don't have the facts so the paperwork may not have been contributory to the accident. 

For example when I stupidly went up the side of an HGV, 
if the driver had pulled to the left and I had been killed, I would expect that I would be at least 50% to blame. I must admit if that had happened to me I probably wouldn't want the driver to be to heavily punished. 

Obviously my incident doesn't bear much relation to the one on the report.


----------



## Tynan (21 Sep 2007)

same law applies to cyclists as cars, passing on the inside is dubious, triply so at a junction


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_same law applies to cyclists as cars, passing on the inside is dubious, triply so at a junction_

Not true, filtering is entirely legal and my commute would take ten times as long without filtering.

Emma may or may not have been injudicious. Mr Thorn was criminally negligent and killed Emma from being a lazy, inattentive fool. The fact he is still driving around on London's roads is staggering.


----------



## magnatom (21 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> _same law applies to cyclists as cars, passing on the inside is dubious, triply so at a junction_
> 
> Not true, filtering is entirely legal and my commute would take ten times as long without filtering.
> 
> Emma may or may not have been injudicious. Mr Thorn was criminally negligent and killed Emma from being a lazy, inattentive fool. The fact he is still driving around on London's roads is staggering.



spindrift,

We really don't have all the information, with which to say that. Yes he should have been aware and yes he shouldn't have been messing about with papers, but the cyclists may have been in a blind spot and we don't know exactly when he was distracted in relation to the incident.


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_the cyclists may have been in a blind spot_

As Buffalo Bill points out, no legal compunction exists for lorry drivers to have extended mirrors fitted. Thorn's lorry did not have these £80-£100 mirrors fitted and judging by this case Thorn could kill three cyclists over ten years and still it would be cheaper than fitting the mirrors. Anyone who thinks this is fair is a buffoon.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Sep 2007)

Filtering might be legal, but I believe there is significant onus on us to filter safely and properly.


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

I disagree entirely.

"Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also *when his vehicle began to turn left* and the fatal crash occured."

A person in control of 20t or so of stationary metal and cement should not move this vehicle without a thorough check that there is nothing in its path and, if he can't be sure whether he's about to squash someone or not, stay still until he _can_ be sure.

To behave otherwise is dangerous driving, which in this case caused death.

And as for the ridiculous £300 fine - this bugger should have been locked up for a few years and banned from driving for life, since he's obviously incompetent as a driver and should not be allowed charge of heavy machinery.


----------



## Maz (21 Sep 2007)

They're under starter's orders....and they're off!!


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

asterix said:


> It's apparently easy to be a smartarse and say the cyclist shouldn't have done what she did but her 'misdemeanour' was never likely to result in someone else's death.



I agree. Although I wouldn't say its a smartarse thing to do, its repeating an important safety message; don't go kerbside of a big vehicle where the driver may not be able to see you. I don't think we can possibly repeat that too often.



> The fact remains that the driver was in charge of a potentially very dangerous vehicle and saw fit to 'look for paperwork in his truck'. The sentence is hardly going to send a strong message to the many others who believe driving is merely a peripheral activity.



I agree with that too, although I don't believe that its the duty of a court to always be sending out messages. I don't know whether the guy could have seen her; do you?


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> _the cyclists may have been in a blind spot_
> 
> As Buffalo Bill points out, no legal compunction exists for lorry drivers to have extended mirrors fitted. Thorn's lorry did not have these £80-£100 mirrors fitted and judging by this case Thorn could kill three cyclists over ten years and still it would be cheaper than fitting the mirrors. Anyone who thinks this is fair is a buffoon.



Fair? FAIR? Who said anything about it being fair?

I agree that there should be a law stating that such vehicles must have mirrors like that fitted. There isn't currently such a law though. Until there is, it'll be very easy for cyclists to filter into the blind spot of a big vehicle like that, and as a result they'll die. Fair? Hell no. Doesn't mean that the bloke could have done anything about it, or that he broke the law. Faffing about with paperwork, he's in the wrong. Would he have avoided her otherwise? Do you know the answer to that? I don't.


----------



## magnatom (21 Sep 2007)

Maz said:


> They're under starter's orders....and they're off!!



 I'm involved with enough debating at the moment. I think I will drift out of this one....


----------



## Elmer Fudd (21 Sep 2007)

I've always worked on the principle that if I can't see the drivers face in his nearside mirror, stop, because he can't see me.


----------



## col (21 Sep 2007)

It is a difficult one to work out,but the driver should have been aware of what was around him.Blind spots are known,so should be doubly checked.Looking at paperwork while at a junction(anytime really) is a big no no,and it shows in my opinion,that he wasnt paying full attention to the road.So i agree with spindrif.Also,the resulting fine is in reality not a very good deterent to unatentive drivers,aspecially when something this awful happens.We all get into situations where we wish we hadnt,mistakes happen,but a cyclist in a blind spot possibly,next to a left turning vehicle at a junction, shouldnt be punished by injury or death.Due to the driver not checking thoughrouly,and being distracted by something that could be looked at in a safer place,i have to put blame on the driver,given these reasons.Now im taking it for granted that he didnt do it on purpose,so the word accident crops up,but an accident that could have been avoided by the driver,and also by the cyclist.Again,its just an opinion on what iv read so far.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

col said:


> It is a difficult one to work out,but the driver should have been aware of what was around him.Blind spots are known,so should be doubly checked.



Check all you like. Its a blind spot, you can't see it.



> Looking at paperwork while at a junction(anytime really) is a big no no,and it shows in my opinion,that he wasnt paying full attention to the road.



I am confident that no one here has, or would, disagree with that.


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_Would he have avoided her otherwise? Do you know the answer to that?_



I know an answer as to whether Emma's death was avoidable.

When someone is in charge of twenty tons of metal on public roads it is beholden on him to ensure he is driving safely. It is entirely forseeable that cyclists will be on the road. Thorn did not check whether anyone was on his nearside and admitted to being distracted when he killed Emma.


Fairness has everything to do with it since in any cyclist v twenty ton vehilce collision it is obvious who will come off worse and it is obvious upon whom the greater responsibility lies.


Thorn is a killer driver who has been allowed to keep driving. This is the reality.


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_Check all you like. Its a blind spot, you can't see it._

You can if you bother to fit proper mirrors. Thorn or his employer didn't bother. Many lorries are driving round London with the drivers having bugger all idea whether their next turn will kill someone, let's keep focussed on that fact rather than any culpability on Emma's part.


----------



## col (21 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Check all you like. Its a blind spot, you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> I am confident that no one here has, or would, disagree with that.





I didnt word that very well,sorry.But you can check blindspots by Physically moving in the cab,which makes it not a blind spot,if you know what i mean.


----------



## habibi (21 Sep 2007)

Emma's husband and his daughters had turned up at court a few weeks ago to be told that the case would be heard on October 3.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/092007/news092007_04.html

_“We made emotional space for that date, but I received a call this morning from a police officer telling me the case was settled,” he said._

Typical really, isn't it. Wouldn't want upset and grieving relatives messing up a routine points and fine outcome, would we? Best they aren't in attendance. Might hold up the rest of the day's proceedings. Give them a quick call after the event.

£300 and five points for a driver's inattention causing death is a disgrace. 

To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant. They were both stationary at a junction, ffs. The lorry driver didn't check it was safe to turn before manoevering.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Sep 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> I've always worked on the principle that if I can't see the drivers face in his nearside mirror, stop, because he can't see me.




Very wise.


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

But still cyclists are being killed by lorries. Last year, Harriet Tory was killed by a left turning lorry on Clerkenwell Road, and Conrad Dutoit was killed in the Pancras Way bike lane by a right turning lorry. The lorry driver who killed him, Mr Ibrahim, was found guilty of ‘Driving Without Due Care And Attention’ (ie he didn’t look before turning) and ‘Driving Other Than In Accordance With A Licence’ (ie he wasn’t licensed to drive the category of lorry that he crushed Conrad to death with), fined £500, plus £250 costs and disqualified for 56 days. Patricia Macmillan was also killed last year by a turning lorry in West London, but the media managed to blame her iPod instead. And these three, remember, are only the ones that I have personally heard about. If the number of cyclists killed in London remains at the same level as 2004, 14, then there are at least another 3 that I haven’t heard about, seeing as most years lorries account for nearly half of cyclists killed in London.

My personal experience is that lorry drivers , especially skip and tipper drivers, are homicidal maniacs.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> I know an answer as to whether Emma's death was avoidable.



That isn't what I asked you.



> When someone is in charge of twenty tons of metal on public roads it is beholden on him to ensure he is driving safely. It is entirely forseeable that cyclists will be on the road. Thorn did not check whether anyone was on his nearside and admitted to being distracted when he killed Emma.



And if he checked, do you know whether he could have seen her? Yes or no.



> Fairness has everything to do with it since in any cyclist v twenty ton vehilce collision it is obvious who will come off worse and it is obvious upon whom the greater responsibility lies.



Fairness has nothing to do with it, its a court case and it is about legality. Get used to it.



> Thorn is a killer driver who has been allowed to keep driving. This is the reality.



Indeed, he drove, she died. Do you know that he didn't look? Do you know that if he did look, he would have seen her? Bluntly, do you know whether or not she cycled into a blind spot that he couldn't see into? Yes or no.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> You can if you bother to fit proper mirrors.



Then campaign for those to be mandatory. I'm in favour of that. Till that point, keep the hell out of blind spots.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

col said:


> I didnt word that very well,sorry.But you can check blindspots by Physically moving in the cab,which makes it not a blind spot,if you know what i mean.



I'm not sure thats true of a big cement mixer. Are you?


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

habibi said:


> To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant. They were both stationary at a junction, ffs. The lorry driver didn't check it was safe to turn before manoevering.



So a cyclist is never at fault for picking a road position where they can't realistically be seen?


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

How do you know I don't campaign for these mirrors to be fitted?

How do you know Emma was in a blind spot.

Why do you think a £300 fine for killing someone is fair?

Why do you think it fair for a person in charge of twenty tons of vehicle in public not to check it's safe to turn?

The only option is that <deleted>.


TFL never even responded to these questions:

1. Number of cycle K/SI(Killed & Seriously Injured) cycle collisions at junctions, analysed by: a. by other vehicle involved 
b. involving turning lorry?
c. involving red light running by cyclist 
d. involving red light running by other vehicle
e. involving pavement cycling
f. other contributory factor
2. Number of pedestrian K/SI collisions
a. by vehicle involved
b. by location (on pavement, on crossing, near crossing, etc) 
c. involving pavement cycling 
d. other contributory factor
3. Illegal road user behaviour
a. number of complaints re speeding
b. number of complaints re red light running by vehicle type involved, if possible 
c. number of complaints re pavement cycling 
d. estimate of the percentage of motor vehicles speeding in London 
e. estimate of the percentage of motor vehicles red light running in London
f. estimate of the percentage of cyclists running red lights in London 
g. estimate of the percentage of cyclists cycling on pavements in
London.


----------



## habibi (21 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Indeed, he drove, she died. Do you know that he didn't look?



*The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured.*


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_So a cyclist is never at fault for picking a road position where they can't realistically be seen?_

Why do you think it unrealistic for a driver to check that it's safe to turn?


----------



## habibi (21 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> So a cyclist is never at fault for picking a road position where they can't realistically be seen?



no. i didn't say that. but its irrelevant to the case.

and you sir, are an arse.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> How do you know I don't campaign for these mirrors to be fitted?



Do you?



> How do you know Emma was in a blind spot.



I don't, which is why I'm in no position to comment on whether or not she was. You don't know either, so you're in no position to comment.



> Why do you think a £300 fine for killing someone is fair?



Thats the second time you've misrepresented what I've said in this discussion. Second strike. Three strikes and you're out.

I didn't say that, I don't think its fair. I don't see what 'fair' has to do with it.



> Why do you think it fair for a person in charge of twenty tons of vehicle in public not to check it's safe to turn?



Third strike. You're out.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

habibi said:


> *The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured.*



And for that, you'll see if you read what I've written, I'm all in favour of the bloke being punished more severely than he has been. But I don't know (and neither do you) whether or not he would have seen her had he been looking more carefully; she was kerb side of him, its entirely possible that he couldn't see her anyway. 

Do you have more information on this you're not sharing? If you do, then share it, because from what I've seen none of us are in a position to say whether or not the driver could feasibly have seen her.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

habibi said:


> no. i didn't say that. but its irrelevant to the case.
> 
> and you sir, are an arse.



What you said was:



> To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant.



Yes, it really is relevant. If the cyclist puts himself in a place where the motorist cannot see the him, then it really, really is relevant. Your implication is that the cyclist can't be at fault for sitting in a blind spot; are you now saying that you know that she didn't do that? Do you have more information on this case than you're sharing then, or are you just speculating?

And you should lighten up a bit and stop assuming you're more convincing because you're willing to throw personal insults around in an argument.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

> Not wanting to side with anyone, but how does the fact that this driver has got to live with the knowledge that he killed someone fit into the equation?



I wouldn't have thought so. Although all too often its something used as a defense for a weak sentence.


----------



## Tynan (21 Sep 2007)

what cab said

frankly I think that 14 deaths a year relative to the number of cyclists in London, a significant number of them riding with very little consideration for their safety (no lights after dark being the classic) is almost insignificant

how many people kill themselves falling down their own stairs every year

takes two to make an accident like that happen, being inside a big truck at a junction really is asking for something bad to happen, it's a matter of time


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_what I've seen none of us are in a position to say whether or not the driver could feasibly have seen her._

I am, as I've said repeatedly. Unless the cyclist is directly behind the middle of the back of the lorry (and therefore unlikely to be crushed by a lorry moving forwards) there are no blind spots- they simply do not exist.

If you mean it is unreasonable for the driver to take the trouble to fit extended mirrors or get off his fat arse and look out of the nearside window, then yes indeed, you are a fool.

The driver could have checked to see if Emma was there. He chose not to do so (and may very well have been paid per load) and killed a woman. You can bleat all you want about how the driver of lorries can't see their nearside but this compounds their guilt rather than mitigates it, as you repeatedly claim.


http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=917

‘All HGV vehicles, operating in the UK, must have a mirror positioned on the exterior of the vehicle on the passenger side, which enables the driver to have a full view of vehicles and other road users in the neighbouring lanes, when driving on all roads in the United Kingdom.'. 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060420/pm/60420s01.htm


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_ frankly I think that 14 deaths a year relative to the number of cyclists in London, a significant number of them riding with very little consideration for their safety (no lights after dark being the classic) is almost insignificant_

I'd very much like to see your evidence for such victim blaming, especially since most KSI incidents involving cyclists occur in daylight and in only 17% of cases is the cyclist held to be at fault.


----------



## col (21 Sep 2007)

The nearside and offside mirrors cover the side of the vehicle,the blindspots could be lower than the bottom of the door,if its a high vehicle,This cement vehicle is fixed as far as i understand,so the driver,if unaware of whats there when he pulls up,can check by sitting up in his cab for any blindspot,so making them not blindspots,or even sliding about in his cab.It doesnt matter what is next to him,he can see it if he makes an effort to try.Doing these checks can be affected by a number of things,being in a hurry for what ever reason,seems to be the main reason these days,to make people take short cuts in what they do.Could this be classed as dangerous driving?Yes i think it should,because we still need to see if anyone or anything is in the way of a manouver.Ultimately the driver is responsible for the results of his actions in his vehicle,Im sure he will be feeling terrible about what has happened,because he should have checked properly before moving off.


----------



## Tynan (21 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> _ frankly I think that 14 deaths a year relative to the number of cyclists in London, a significant number of them riding with very little consideration for their safety (no lights after dark being the classic) is almost insignificant_
> 
> I'd very much like to see your evidence for such victim blaming, especially since most KSI incidents involving cyclists occur in daylight and in only 17% of cases is the cyclist held to be at fault.



where do I blame anyone? Where do a say the cyclists are to blame? Where do I say cyclists are killed after dark?

Dear god do you understand any of the posts you reply to with such certainty? I merely say, again, that considering the number of cycle journeys in London every year, 14 seems very small to me for deaths, especially considering the manner many cyclists ride in such heavy dangerous traffic

and cement mixers and similar sized trucks have blind spots you can hide a car in never mind a bike, regular cars do for that matter, have you ever been in the cab of an HGV?

I have a feeling that it'd be a bit hard to make a left hand turn while leaning out the left hand window, that's just me though, you'll doubtless know better


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_considering the number of cycle journeys in London every year, 14 seems very small to me for deaths,_ 

According to CItycyclists the Square Mile is the most dangerous place in England in which to cycle, despite comprising a tiny part of the English road netwrok.

I don't see any grounds for complacency at all.


----------



## Tynan (21 Sep 2007)

me neither, so what?

starting with never riding up the inside of large vehicles at junctions, that's top of the things not to do list


----------



## Buffalo Bill (21 Sep 2007)

I posted the Standard piece, and have campaigned on the issue of HGV/cyclist deaths in London for a number of years. I have written to the Mayor of London, my MP, my MEP, various members of the London's Assembly etc etc.

In the reporting of the court case it very clearly states

"[The cyclist] was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible."


----------



## col (21 Sep 2007)

What also struck me ,is there is no mention of whether the driver was indicating to turn left?Does anyone know if he was?


----------



## gambatte (21 Sep 2007)

Buffalo beat me to 
*“She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible"*
Kind of makes the blind spot argument an irrelevent diversion?


----------



## Tynan (21 Sep 2007)

depends if what you read into 'would have been' really doesn't it?


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

_depends if what you read into 'would have been' really doesn't it?_

Again in English.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (21 Sep 2007)

col said:


> What also struck me ,is there is no mention of whether the driver was indicating to turn left?Does anyone know if he was?




Good question. The reports don't say. I wouldn't like to assume one way or another.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (21 Sep 2007)

Tynan said:


> depends if what you read into 'would have been' really doesn't it?



I took that to mean 'would have been visible, had the driver looked in his mirrors'


----------



## spindrift (21 Sep 2007)

"Blind spot" seems to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for killer drivers.


----------



## Cab (21 Sep 2007)

Thats a statement from the prosecutor. That he is asserting that she would have been visible is simply a sign that he's doing his job, its an adversarial justice system and he's putting forward one version of events. Does anyone have any information as to whether it was established in court whether or not she really would have been visible, or is this solely based on what the prosecutor said?


----------



## skwerl (21 Sep 2007)

I know this point cam eup on page 2 but I missed this thread until now.

What is the definition of 'filtering'? I believe it to be passing the offside of stationary/slow-moving vehicles. In effect, it's overtaking.
Is it lawful to pass down the nearside? That would be undertaking, which is *not* legal.
Filtering between two lanes is still overtaking the traffic on the left.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Sep 2007)

Incorrect. Undertaking isn't always illegal, and it's often encouraged where there is a cycle lane.

You'd be right in saying that undertaking is ill-advised though. Undertaking leads to the undertakers.


----------



## ash68 (21 Sep 2007)

having read this thread I feel very sorry for all concerned,mostly the cyclist and her family.Any death on the road is one too many,but as mentioned before without full facts it's hard to aportion blame.With arguments about undertaking/filtering on the go,perhaps we all need to make sure we are responsible for our own safety and don't put ourselves in dangerous circumstances just to save a few seconds.I feel it's fine to undertake when there is room & the traffic is slow moving,but if I am not sure of the drivers' intentions I will wait behind every time.We need to assume drivers can't or won't see us and be ready for their mistakes.It's us that gets hurt not them, the rights or wrongs of it don't come into it if your lying dead on the road.LOOK OUT FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WILL.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> Buffalo beat me to
> *“She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible"*
> Kind of makes the blind spot argument an irrelevent diversion?



Not really. If the driver was staring at his left hand mirror the whole time he was stationary then yes, he'd have seen her filtering. If on the other hand, he was using the time while stationary to check a map, say, to see where his next drop was then no, he wouldn't have seen her. And by the time he looked in his mirrors she'd have been in the blind spot and invisible to him, unless he leaned out of his cab window which is obviously not going to happen. 
I'm not saying it's right that there's a blind spot there, but there is. I'm not saying we should be checking maps at traffic lights, but we do. I am saying the last thing cyclists should ever do is creep up the inside of large vehicles at traffic lights, especially when they're indicating. And before anyone jumps on me, I have at least one pedalestrian a week try and do this to my lorry and I haven't squashed anyone yet.


----------



## Spin City (21 Sep 2007)

I do not know the full details of this case; only those included in this Thread so far. 

However, I do believe that crashes on the road will usually be the blame of one or more of those involved (and/or possibly another party). Unfortunately the legal system in this country seems to treat those guilty of causing a road crash far too leniently. If blame could be proved then more severe penalties could be handed out to the guilty. If road users (and possibly other parties) thought that their actions could result in a conviction of this sort then maybe they would be more careful to try to prevent these crashes. 

In my view the driver of this lorry may have thought twice about looking through his papers if the guilty in a case of this sort received a much more severe penalty.


----------



## Abitrary (21 Sep 2007)

If in doubt about anything like that, or red light jumping, get immediately on the pavement where you're less likely to get sued


----------



## Johnny Thin (22 Sep 2007)

It's always skip lorries etc that do this sort of thing as they're basically just slamming around doing as much piece work as they can to earn their pay. The judge seemed to be saying "Well, it's very sad but the bloke's gotta earn his dosh, we can't let one silly cyclist cause too much disruption." I passed a very similar case in Oxford about 15 years ago where a young medical student had been wiped out by a skip lorry turning left. They let him off with similar nonchalant verdict, but reformed the junction so it couldn't happen again.


----------



## User169 (22 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> She was killed instantly after being crushed between the cement mixer’s rear wheels and roadside railings.



Isn't it time that railings such as these were removed? They always used to worry me.


----------



## gambatte (22 Sep 2007)

Problem then is you get some tw*t in a Chelsea tractor parking 1/2 on the pavement and 1/2 on the road, right on the junction.


----------



## Terminator (22 Sep 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> I've always worked on the principle that if I can't see the drivers face in his nearside mirror, stop, because he can't see me.



I've noticed with taxi drivers is that I can see their face in the mirror but they almost seem to be ignoring their left side or right side mirror although half the time Im sure they know im there I wont take the risk and they probably know this.


----------



## Terminator (22 Sep 2007)

Delftse Post said:


> Isn't it time that railings such as these were removed? They always used to worry me.



They can be useful like stopping stupid peds from rushing into the road.Am I right or am I right?


----------



## BentMikey (22 Sep 2007)

It's a public highway mate, peds have just as much right to the road as we do.

Problem with those railings is that they only speed up motor vehicle traffic, but they don't make life better or safer for vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. They're bad all round, and should be torn out.


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> I'm not sure thats true of a big cement mixer. Are you?



I drive cargos the driver of the cement truck would probaly have to jump into the passenger seat and since he should be wearing a seat belt it would be difficult to see his blind spot.It is a shame what happend but its true what has been said stay out of the blind spots both may be at fault and yes he should not have even bothered with looking at his paper work.


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

> Not wanting to side with anyone, but how does the fact that this driver has got to live with the knowledge that he killed someone fit into the equation?


I'm sure the driver of the cement mixer will fell guilty for the rest of his life for all we know he might never get behind the wheel again


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> "Blind spot" seems to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for killer drivers.


Its not a get out of jail free card at all,blind spot are a realality they do exsited it seems to me anything bigger and heavier than a bike you seem to dislike you don't seem to realise cyclist can be at fault aswell.


----------



## spindrift (23 Sep 2007)

_The judge seemed to be saying "Well, it's very sad but the bloke's gotta earn his dosh, we can't let one silly cyclist cause too much disruption."_ 

Indeed.


Lorry drivers kill cyclists and get away with it, in part due to the lazy incompetence Corporation of London. No culpability on the part of the cyclist either.
The majority of cycle fatalities in London involve left turning vehicles and the majority also involve lorries: 
in central London the majority of cyclist fatalities caused by left-turning lorries while in the rest of London this collision type is 'only' about a quarter of cyclist fatalities. 

In 2000 a cement lorry on London Wall overtook a 20 year female, Ms Barlow, cycling westwards then turned left immediately afterwards, crushing her to death.


After the driver claimed in court not to have seen her and was only fined £250, the girl's mother decided to take action into her own hands after finding out how many similar so-called accidents there had been. 
She bought shares in the cement company, heckled the directors at their AGM and forced them to fit extra safety mirrors to their lorries. 

Unfortunately before the mirrors were fitted the same lorry (but a different driver) killed a 19 year old cyclist while turning left into Primrose Street from Bishopsgate in 2001.

http://www.citycyclists.org.uk/
It's no accident! 
1/4 of London cycle deaths in City
In 2004 a quarter of London's cyclist fatalities took place in the City, despite the Square Mile making up just a thousandth of the total area of Greater London. While the rest of London sees improvements in safety due to new 20mph zones and cycle facilities, the Corporation has refused to spend money granted to it by Transport for London.

http://www.londonmessengers.org/HGV-Campaign
HGV Campaign
To date, 7 London bicycle messengers have been killed while working, all by HGV's.
While the LBMA has already devoted considerable efforts to raising awareness of these dangers, having twice painted the roads with the names of the fallen and also having publicised their cases in the programme distributed free at 2003 ECMC, these preventable tragedies continue, most recently with the death of Sebastian Lukomski (10/8/1976 - 23/2/2004).

All the Thames bridges have a very poor safety record for cyclists even by the City's standards, which has the worst Killed or Seriously Injured ('KSI') rate for cyclists of any local authority in the country.
There was nothing the cyclists could have done. Lorries overtake, swing left, crush girls to death and the drivers get away scot free.

There is an appalling postscript to Ms Barlow's death:
Correction from Cynthia Barlow, the mother in question: 
"Incidentally, I read further down your website and the mention of my daughter is not strictly correct – reality is rather worse than that I’m afraid. 
The driver of the lorry in my daughter’s case was acquitted, not fined, so nothing happened to him at all. 

The same lorry, with a different driver, was in the following year involved in another incident in which the cyclist, Sue Coll, was not in fact killed but suffered catastrophic injuries. 
The same driver as was involved in this second case was also involved in a third case in which another cyclist received disabling injuries. 
The prosecution of the driver in the second case involving Sue Coll was an exact repetition of my case – same barrister, same expert witness, same tactics, same everything, and same outcome, the driver was again acquitted.
So I have carried on campaigning, not just with RMC, but also on the subject of failings in the criminal justice system."
I spoke to Sue Coll after her trial and was absolutely sickened by the similarities, same lies, same strategy of arrogant defence barrister attacking and humiliating the main prosecution witness (a van driver), etc. 
The driver’s defence even cited one of the initiatives that had come about as a result of my involvement with RMC as evidence that he was a conscientious driver, knowing that the truth would not come out because the prosecution had already agreed not to mention either the previous incident involving the same lorry, or the other previous incident involving the same driver, so as not to prejudice the driver’s chance of a fair trial. 

A fair trial for the victim would be nice. 
On the final day of the trial, it was obvious that the driver was going to be acquitted so Sue’s family came to court to support her. 
When the driver arrived, the police ushered him into a private back room “so that he wouldn’t be upset at seeing her family”. 

Really.


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

Maybe it is just easier to blame the driver for every accident,but surely cyclist must be aware of the blind spots in any vehicle and no mention at all if the vehicle have indicated left.The roads are getting busier and more dangerous Not all accidents are the fault of the drivers cyclist must share some of the blame.


----------



## col (23 Sep 2007)

I think its a little unfair if drivers were blamed all the time,i wouldnt go down the left side of any large vehicle,especailly if nearing a junction or roundabout,not even in a car.


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

col said:


> I think its a little unfair if drivers were blamed all the time,i wouldnt go down the left side of any large vehicle,especailly if nearing a junction or roundabout,not even in a car.



I do agree with you it is unfair,in the highway code it say's
ROAD JUNCTIONS
57.ON THE LEFT.When approaching a junction on the left,
watch out for vehicles turning in front of you,out of or into the
side road.Do not ride on the inside of the vehicles signalling or
slowing down to turn left.

58. Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of 
room to manoeuvre at corners.The may have to move over to
the right before turning left.Wait until they have completed
the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the
kerb while turning.Do not be tempted to ride in the space
between them and the kerb.

Some cyclist can also become careless when on the road as well.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (23 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Its not a get out of jail free card at all,blind spot are a realality they do exsited it seems to me anything bigger and heavier than a bike you seem to dislike you don't seem to realise cyclist can be at fault aswell.




Emma Foa was not in a blind spot.

See here.


----------



## gambatte (23 Sep 2007)

Do we now agree, that in this case, as I said before, this
*makes the blind spot argument an irrelevent diversion?*


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

Fair enough Buffalo Bill all i'm saying is blind spots in vehicle's do exists.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (23 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Fair enough Buffalo Bill all i'm saying is blind spots in vehicle's do exists.



I never said they didn't.

See http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/lorry-blind-spot-demo-in-trafalgar-square


----------



## col (23 Sep 2007)

Because of the terrible outcome of this,its hard to give an opinion based on nothing more than common sense.There are blind spots,sometimes these blindspots may be difficult to check,sometimes not.It seems i was in error to say that shifting about on the seat would help with this particular vehicle.Non the less,the driver is still at error in this situation,with checking paperwork.Also ,i dont for one second think the cyclist put herself in a dangerous position on purpose,again mistake and accident comes to mind.Even though i believe that it is unfair to blame the drivers all the time,he should have been more vigilant than he was.The only real solution to this happening, is what has been suggested,with mirrors designed to cancel blind spots,and education of the dangers to cyclists,for both parties.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (23 Sep 2007)

I have often had the thought, and this isn't specific to this particular case but more to *all* road traffic incidents. That road safety would improve leaps and bounds simply by revoking the drivers licence and making them re-take their test.

There would obviously have to be a clear structure around this, to make sure (as much as possible) than an innocent party in a collision, presuming they are still alive of course, is not punished by this.

My reasoning is that to be involved in a collision, the driver obviously was not in control of their vehicle, thus they require re-testing to make sure that they are safe and under control of their vehicle. This includes drivers who require special licences needing to re-test for them too.

A £300 fine and a smattering of points on a drivers licence is far, far, less of a deterrent than having to go back to L-plates and get retested. It would also serve to replace the token fine by making the driver pay for their lessons and test.


----------



## col (23 Sep 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I have often had the thought, and this isn't specific to this particular case but more to *all* road traffic incidents. That road safety would improve leaps and bounds simply by revoking the drivers licence and making them re-take their test.
> 
> There would obviously have to be a clear structure around this, to make sure (as much as possible) than an innocent party in a collision, presuming they are still alive of course, is not punished by this.
> 
> ...




Even though i agree with your reasoning,it might be more difficult to draw the rules up to go by.As one or the other party may not be to blame,and if the driver was not,is it still reasonable to expect them to retest?Or if the cyclist was to blame,what would the deterent be for them,or vice versa?


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (23 Sep 2007)

That is why I'm no lawmaker 

I think given due attention it would be possible to create strong enough guidelines to make a workable system. It really would be very hard to do though, I totally agree.

The issue of non-licenced road users is a tricky one, and that I suppose should be dealt with through the normal fining system. It is certainly something that would need to be included.



> ...As one or the other party may not be to blame,and if the driver was not,is it still reasonable to expect them to retest?...



I thought I mentioned that, must not have been clear what I meant!

That is what I meant when I said that there would need to be clear guidelines, probably based around the current method of determining / distributing blame. Naturally it would not be fair to have to re-take your test if some muppet smashed into the back of your car at the traffic lights.


Just a pipedream of mine, to go along with using smart cars as peak-hour taxis in central london to save space and emmissions, and also with being treated like a decent human being when I am cycling  Hope (or delusion) is a wonderful thing!


----------



## Buffalo Bill (23 Sep 2007)

col said:


> again mistake and accident comes to mind.Even though i believe that it is unfair to blame the drivers all the time,he should have been more vigilant than he was.The only real solution to this happening, is what has been suggested,with mirrors designed to cancel blind spots,and education of the dangers to cyclists,for both parties.



Sorry, I have to take issue with the word 'accident'. An accident implies something unavoidable.

This was no accident. This was a collision resulting from negligence.

I agree that both parties have a duty to educate themselves. That's why I have done as much as I can to publicise the dangers.

The hauliers do not do enough. In fact, I think they do as little as they can get away with. Like blaming cyclists for being 'blind-spots'. Or striking attitudes like this.


----------



## col (23 Sep 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> That is why I'm no lawmaker
> 
> I think given due attention it would be possible to create strong enough guidelines to make a workable system. It really would be very hard to do though, I totally agree.
> 
> ...





OOps yes you had mentioned it,sorry bout that.But getting a working set of rules to go by,as you say,would ,i believe take a very long time,of the best legal minds.As for the general idea,i think its a good un.Your pipedream of saving emissions and space is,i think something that could be workable.But would need the councils to actually do something.like widen the traffic free zone in town centres,thats if they already have them,and allow non engine transport only.But being treat like a decent human being?come on,you cant have everything.


----------



## col (23 Sep 2007)

Buffalo Bill said:


> Sorry, I have to take issue with the word 'accident'. An accident implies something unavoidable.
> 
> This was no accident. This was a collision resulting from negligence.
> 
> ...





I agree,wrong choice of word there,but in general terms,an accident is the only way to describe something that happened ,that wasnt the intention of either party.And yes ,i also agree not enough is done in the vehicle department to help stop these things happening.But the sad fact seems to be the cost,in this profit orientated world.But how to get across to cyclists the dangers involved too?Its a difficult problem.


----------



## gambatte (23 Sep 2007)

Looks like we may soon have a good way of apprtioning blame. Won't be long till they push standardising the rule in effect in many parts of europe. In a collision between bike and car/van/bus etc there would be an instant presumption of blame (not against the cyclist) in the absence of any contrary evidence.


----------



## col (23 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> Looks like we may soon have a good way of apprtioning blame. Won't be long till they push standardising the rule in effect in many parts of europe. In a collision between bike and car/van/bus etc there would be an instant presumption of blame (not against the cyclist) in the absence of any contrary evidence.




This is the sort of stance already taken towards my job,unless the other vehicle has ran into mine,then i am blamed,but i suppose all other reasons and possibilities are looked into first,before the lynching


----------



## RANDOM (23 Sep 2007)

Buffalo Bill said:


> I never said they didn't.
> 
> See http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/lorry-blind-spot-demo-in-trafalgar-square



I could be wrong but spindriff doesn't seem to think they exist,and all i was doing was explaining to him that they do.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

This bears re-posting:

The sentencing of the driver who killed Emma Foa has attracted a lot of interest and comment in the virtual world of cycling forums.
Most contributors have expressed outrage at the sentence. However, a significant minority have criticised the cyclist for positioning herself in the ‘wrong’ place, and also sought to absolve the driver by suggesting that Ms Foa was hidden in the vehicle’s ‘blind-spot’.
I want to correct this impression. The prosecutor was reported as making the statement:
_She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible._
This is a remarkably precise statement. How can the prosecution have been so certain of the length of time that she was along-side the truck, and that she would have been visible?
The answer is that the junction was over-looked by CCTV cameras, and that the police examined the vehicle and its mirrors to determine what would have been visible. It is this evidence that allowed the prosecution to state so unequivocally that the driver would have seen the cyclist in his mirrors, had he been paying attention to the road, instead of looking at page 3 or whatever it was.
As to whether the truck was signalling, whether Ms Foa arrived at the junction before or after the truck, I can’t say, based on the reports that I have read. It is true to say that the left-hand side of a truck is no place for a cyclist, given the number of London cyclists that have been killed by lorries.
However, given that nearly all on-road cycle lanes are on the left, and that TfL published a series of posters showing cyclists in exactly the wrong position, I findit difficult to criticise a cyclist, particularly a dead cyclist, for following the intuitive line, and keeping to the left. I also find it regrettable that, despite the unequivocal statements at the trial, cyclists are rushing to the defence of the driver, using the perennial blind-spot defence. I hope that I have dismissed this red-herring.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> The prosecutor was reported as making the statement:



Yes.Thats his job. Did the court accept that, was it included in the judgement, yes or no?


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

Worth bearing in mind too the two recorded deaths above where the lorry driver overtook, *and then immediatley turned left, killing two cyclists.*

In other words the cyclists did nothing that even the most fervent victim-blamer could claim made them even partly culpable in their own deaths.

Cyclists, in other words, can be crushed to death by lazy, inattentive drivers and the drivers get off scot free.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> Worth bearing in mind too the two recorded deaths above where the lorry driver overtook, *and then immediatley turned left, killing two cyclists.*
> 
> In other words the cyclists did nothing that even the most fervent victim-blamer could claim made them even partly culpable in their own deaths.
> 
> Cyclists, in other words, can be crushed to death by lazy, inattentive drivers and the drivers get off scot free.



I agree, many times cyclists have come off worst due to left turning vehicles when it isn't the fault of the cyclist. Stick to the point; do you have evidence that the court accepted the claim made by the prosecutor that the cyclist _in this specific incident_ was visible? Yes, or no.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

There was the girl who worked for the PR department at CFC killed in this way.No verdict yet but it will be interesting if the lorry driver receives the same punishment as the driver who killed Ms Barlow. He was not punished at all.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> There was the girl who worked for the PR department at CFC killed in this way.No verdict yet but it will be interesting if the lorry driver receives the same punishment as the driver who killed Ms Barlow. He was not punished at all.



For the fourth time (I think, might be more):

Stick to the point; do you have evidence that the court accepted the claim made by the prosecutor that the cyclist in this specific incident was visible? Yes, or no.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

Come on Cab, that's being obtuse. I can't imagine anyone doubting the CCTV evidence in the way you're implying.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

Cab, your posts are becoming increasingly shrill and hysterical and you keep asking questions that have been addresses ten pages ago.

Please don't barge into threads and insist on answers already given, just read the thread properly:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300


Emma stopped at the lights, and she wasn’t in the “blind spot”. But the driver didn’t see her, because he wasn’t looking. And she was crushed to death because he was too busy checking his pay-sheet to make sure he had got his overtime to pay attention to what his two-tonne machine might be rolling over. The whole event including Emma's hideous death was captured on CCTV. The CCTV images were shown in court.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Come on Cab, that's being obtuse. I can't imagine anyone doubting the CCTV evidence in the way you're implying.



I absolutely can imagine the defense saying that CCTVfootage form a different angle is only questionably evidence for the driver being able to see the cyclist.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> Cab, your posts are becoming increasingly shrill and hysterical and you keep asking questions that have been addresses ten pages ago.



So the answer is 'No, I don't have any further information, it was claimed by the prosecutor that she wasn't in a blind spot but I don't know whether that was accepted or rejected by the court as true'.

Look, we all have massive sympathy for the cyclist here, but you're forgetting that a prosecution isn't about who you have sympathy for. Its about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt; if there is reasonable doubt about whether or not the driver could see the cyclist then you have to deal with that.


----------



## cupoftea (24 Sep 2007)

I blame the driver; he was looking at papers not the road. He admitted that. He should have his license taken away, if not be sent to jail.

Cyclists do, do silly things but then we’re not in charge of several tons of fast moving metal, what would have happened if he’d lost control and mounted the pavement? Oh that’s ok he was looking at page 3.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

cupoftea said:


> I blame the driver; he was looking at papers not the road.



I doubt whether anyone would disagree with you on that point.


----------



## CotterPin (24 Sep 2007)

The bottom line is (or should be) the driver is a trained professional. He should know that these incidents can occur and how to avoid them happening. 

The cyclist is someone who jumped on a bike - there is no requirement for training. The only way the message not to go down the inside of a large vehicle can get to a cyclist is through advertising, point of sale material, none of which can be wholly effective.

I would certainly not argue for mandatory cycle training for all - who's going to pay for it?

But the lorry driver as a person who was sat in a cab, took a test, presumably passed it, and is the operator of the more lethal piece of machinery, should know that this kind of thing can happen, and be trained to deal with these incidents. And if necessary re-trained on regular occasions.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> So the answer is 'No, I don't have any further information, it was claimed by the prosecutor that she wasn't in a blind spot but I don't know whether that was accepted or rejected by the court as true'.
> 
> Look, we all have massive sympathy for the cyclist here, but you're forgetting that a prosecution isn't about who you have sympathy for. Its about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt; if there is reasonable doubt about whether or not the driver could see the cyclist then you have to deal with that.



The evidence on the blind-spot would be easy to prove using CCTV to determine the relative positions of the vehicles on the road, and the measurements from the mirrors.

This is absolutely standard practice in these cases.

It may be an assumption, but it's based on knowledge of traffic police procedure in fatal collisions.

If you like, I can phone the standard reporter and find out, tho.


----------



## gambatte (24 Sep 2007)

Seems there are people on here who are assuming the vehicle actually has a blind spot.


----------



## bonj2 (24 Sep 2007)

I haven't read the whole thread but on reading the OP, the report says the cement mixer is two tonne. I'm sorry but a cement mixer is not two tonne.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

Buffalo Bill said:


> The evidence on the blind-spot would be easy to prove using CCTV to determine the relative positions of the vehicles on the road, and the measurements from the mirrors.
> 
> This is absolutely standard practice in these cases.
> 
> ...



I agree, it should be relatively simple to work it out, yet we've seen many assertions that it was proven with absolutely no one willing to say 'yes, it was proven to the satisfaction of the judge'. 

_If_ it was proven in court that the driver could see the cyclist, and _if_ the judge accepted that, then this sentence was far, far, far too lenient. But if there is doubt as to whether the driver could see the cyclist then thats a different matter.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (24 Sep 2007)

bonj said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but on reading the OP, the report says the cement mixer is two tonne. I'm sorry but a cement mixer is not two tonne.



Yeah, that's wrong. I think that may have been a typo by the Standard journo who wrote the original report.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> Seems there are people on here who are assuming the vehicle actually has a blind spot.



Was it argued in court that the vehicle didn't have a blind spot?


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Yes all vehicle's have blindspots the cement mixer might be a 3.5 ton truck certainly no more than 7.5 ton.Cyclist could pay for their own training so they can safely ride on the roads.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

Cab, I do understand what you're getting at, but you're being excessively pedantic and hairsplitting. To be fair though, perhaps yours is a good alternative view to provide balance to spindrift's.

Personally I'm not happy with the verdict or the lack of blame and punishment on the driver.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Cab, I do understand what you're getting at, but you're being excessively pedantic and hairsplitting.



No, I'm really not. The issue here is whether the punishment was fair; if the driver could not see the cyclist, then the the punishment may have been closer to being fair. Personally, I'd increase the penalty for faffing around with paperwork like that, and give someone an outright driving ban for it. But thats not how the law works.

It isn't splitting hairs to point out that, legally, you'd heve to demonstrate that he could see her.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

If everyone clicked on Buffalo Bill's link above it would make a difference.


The cost would be minimal, the implications would be that the old chestnut "blind spot" excuse could not be trotted out.
That's not to say blind spots don't exist, but that for a cost less than the price placed on Emma's life by the courts such blind spots would be eliminated.
Click on the link and make a difference.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

_if the driver could not see the cyclist, then the the punishment may have been closer to being fair._ 

Thereby giving a green light to any motorist who is applying lipstick, chatting on a mobile, or otherwise distracted. All they have to say is "I didn't see you".

Thorn could have checked to see if Emma was there and had he done so Emma would be alive. Your tedious repetition of your baseless assertion that Emma was not visible is getting tiresome, please read the evidence above, the CCTV images were shown in court.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

You're wrong Cab. Having a blind spot is no excuse for not checking in it to be sure it's clear. Cars have blind spots, and when I was taught to drive I was taught to check that it was clear before manouvering.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> Thereby giving a green light to any motorist who is applying lipstick, chatting on a mobile, or otherwise distracted. All they have to say is "I didn't see you".



You're seriously comparing that with the possible scenario of a cyclist positioning himself in the blind spot of alarge vehicle? You're an idiot.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You're wrong Cab. Having a blind spot is no excuse for not checking in it to be sure it's clear. Cars have blind spots, and when I was taught to drive I was taught to check that it was clear before manouvering.



And I stated that its a good excuse where?


----------



## gambatte (24 Sep 2007)

Never got to court as he realised he had no defence


----------



## gambatte (24 Sep 2007)

if a cab has the mirrors fitted it has no blind spot.

Random, *10 year old kids have the right to be cycling on the road*. All drivers, never mind ‘professional’ ones should drive to the conditions. The condition includes the fact that cyclists have the right to be on the road, as do horses etc.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> if a cab has the mirrors fitted it has no blind spot.
> 
> Random, *10 year old kids have the right to be cycling on the road*. All drivers, never mind ‘professional’ ones should drive to the conditions. The condition includes the fact that cyclists have the right to be on the road, as do horses etc.



Yes all driver should driver to the condition of the High Way Code Book,but cyclist no matter what age they are should all so be made aware of the dangers of the road and still go through some sort of training.The High Way Code Book has after all not left them out and maybe they should take a look themselfs.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

That may be, but careless zarks in heavy metal cages are the ones that need to take the ultimate care. It is they that bring significant danger to everyone else, unlike cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Yes all driver should driver to the condition of the High Way Code Book,but cyclist no matter what age they are should all so be made aware of the dangers of the road and still go through some sort of training.The High Way Code Book has after all not left them out and maybe they should take a look themselfs.



You don't want that though. Cyclists trained en masse to take safe, assertive road positions? Trained to expect good manners from motorists and not to blandly accept aggressive behaviour? You'd hate it.


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> That may be, but careless zarks in heavy metal cages are the ones that need to take the ultimate care. It is they that bring significant danger to everyone else, unlike cyclists and pedestrians.




I think this is not right,everyone can bring significant danger,through their actions,ie the pedestrian that walks out with out looking,the cyclist pulling a wheely while going head to head with an oncoming vehicle,just for example.


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> You don't want that though. Cyclists trained en masse to take safe, assertive road positions? Trained to expect good manners from motorists and not to blandly accept aggressive behaviour? You'd hate it.





What makes you say that?Sarcasm doesnt really help either?This is just the sort of argueing that doesnt get any one anywhere.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

col said:


> What makes you say that?Sarcasm doesnt really help either?This is just the sort of argueing that doesnt get any one anywhere.



Its entirely true. The often stated claim that motorists would be happier if we were all trained is patently untrue; in fact, the more competent cyclists there are the longer it'll take them to get anywhere, the more they'll have to obey the rules of the road rather than overtaking too closely. The fallacy I'm exposing is the idea that a trained cyclist one is a kerb hugging crawler; a cyclist trained in basic road safety is precisely the kind of cyclist that those motorists who claim we need training _don't_ want.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

col said:


> I think this is not right,everyone can bring significant danger,through their actions,ie the pedestrian that walks out with out looking,the cyclist pulling a wheely while going head to head with an oncoming vehicle,just for example.



If you don't mind me saying so, its a pretty moronic example. Wheely head to head with an oncoming vehicle? Come on.


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> If you don't mind me saying so, its a pretty moronic example. Wheely head to head with an oncoming vehicle? Come on.



That was my reason for adding it,it does happen,in fact iv had it twice in the last month.My point being,is this a cyclist?Of course it is,so look how dangerous you (generalised) can be.See what i mean?
The first of your threads you said ,you dont want that,and you'd hate it,insinuating to Random that you know his thoughts.Again,i dont think you have any reason to go at him like that,he has come across as level headed and sensible,even after verbal abuse,he didnt go into have a go back mode. That seems to be goading ,for just that sort of reaction.
I think the training side for cyclists,is meant for the ability to recognise dangerous places and avoid them,like nearside of large vehicles.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> That may be, but careless zarks in heavy metal cages are the ones that need to take the ultimate care. It is they that bring significant danger to everyone else, unlike cyclists and pedestrians.



No cyclist can be a danger to themself and to other road users as so can pedestrians who like to walk out in front of a ten ton bus when the bus has right of way going through a green light and the red man is still on for them.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> You don't want that though. Cyclists trained en masse to take safe, assertive road positions? Trained to expect good manners from motorists and not to blandly accept aggressive behaviour? You'd hate it.



Of coarse i would no one wants to any one get injured on the road.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

_That was my reason for adding it,it does happen,in fact iv had it twice in the last month._

Ever wonder why people reckon you're a troll?


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> If you don't mind me saying so, its a pretty moronic example. Wheely head to head with an oncoming vehicle? Come on.



Yes not only does that happen have also seen the cyclists weaving in and out of the white lane markings in the middle of the road.So they must be made aware of the dangers also


----------



## gambatte (24 Sep 2007)

So be a good driver, other peoples attitudes shouldn't affect how you drive or ride. 

If you see a cyclist causing a dangerous situation, report it. Same as if I almost get sent down the road on my a*se, I'll be reporting the driver.

I think with bad driving and bad cycling more reporting is required. If the police suddenly found that 75% of reported crime related to incidents on the road. I hope they'd not still be concentrating on speed cameras?


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> No cyclist can be a danger to themself and to other road users as so can pedestrians who like to walk out in front of a ten ton bus when the bus has right of way going through a green light and the red man is still on for them.



There's no such thing as right of way in this country. Pedestrians don't bring danger to anyone in the way a bus or a car does. Pedestrians don't kill 3,500 people a year in the UK, drivers do.


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> _That was my reason for adding it,it does happen,in fact iv had it twice in the last month._
> 
> Ever wonder why people reckon you're a troll?




I dont understand why your so against both parties opinions,and why would saying what has happened to me be classed as a troll?
Your swearing and calling is more of a trolls actions,and i still find some of your answers puzzling 

Thought you had blocked me anyway?


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> There's no such thing as right of way in this country. Pedestrians don't bring danger to anyone in the way a bus or a car does. Pedestrians don't kill 3,500 people a year in the UK, drivers do.



According to the High Way Code book the right of way does exist also that doesn't give the pedestrian the right to endanger thier life by walking out in front of any vehicle or cyclist for that matter.


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> There's no such thing as right of way in this country. Pedestrians don't bring danger to anyone in the way a bus or a car does. Pedestrians don't kill 3,500 people a year in the UK, drivers do.




I wonder what the pecentage is ,of these,that were caused by vehicles swerving to avoid hitting someone,then hitting someone else.ie the innocent person,or the vehicle stopping suddenly so it didnt hit someone,and the vehicle behind crashed into the back?


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> So be a good driver, other peoples attitudes shouldn't affect how you drive or ride.
> 
> If you see a cyclist causing a dangerous situation, report it. Same as if I almost get sent down the road on my a*se, I'll be reporting the driver.
> 
> I think with bad driving and bad cycling more reporting is required. If the police suddenly found that 75% of reported crime related to incidents on the road. I hope they'd not still be concentrating on speed cameras?




Agreed,but the bad news is,even with cctv footage showing what has happened,not much happens.I think we end up back at the cost and cutback scenario again.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> According to the High Way Code book the right of way does exist also that doesn't give the pedestrian the right to endanger thier life by walking out in front of any vehicle or cyclist for that matter.



"The rules in _The Highway Code_ do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others".

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/06.htm


The pedestrian might be doing something stupid as in your example, but the danger comes not from the pedestrian, but from the fast moving heavy vehicle. It might seem pedantic or hair splitting, but it's an important point because it places the burden of responsible driving on the driver.


----------



## gambatte (24 Sep 2007)

col said:


> Agreed,but the bad news is,even with cctv footage showing what has happened,not much happens.I think we end up back at the cost and cutback scenario again.



and with cctv we still have people saying 'but maybe she was in the blind spot'?


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

The pedestrian might be doing something stupid as in your example, but the danger comes not from the pedestrian, but from the fast moving heavy vehicle. It might seem pedantic or hair splitting, but it's an important point because it places the burden of responsible driving on the driver.


Of course you are right,but the can of worms opened is a little more worrying,for example.A pedestrian walks out into a busy road,the vehicle is that close, braking in time isnt an option, it swerves and has an accident,the pedestrian then says,it wasnt my fault.Even though the pedestrian gave no warning,and/or thought the vehicle had seen them.The point is,it doesnt matter how carefull you drive,sometimes there is nothing else to do.Would the driver be responsible for the resulting accident.?


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> and with cctv we still have people saying 'but maybe she was in the blind spot'?




Good point


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> "The rules in _The Highway Code_ do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others".
> 
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/06.htm
> 
> ...



My mistake then, but why does this vehicle have to be fast moving and heavy why not maybe say a careless cyclist who can still injure a pedestrian. and what about the responsiblity of the pedestrian why should it always be left to the driver of the vehicle both parties i would think should have a responsibilty unless we have to get now and hold there hands .Drivers can only account for themselfs and their own actions pedestrians need to look after themself.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

> what does this right of way come under?



As i have said now my mistake it would probably have been better to say that pedestrian should give way to a ten ton bus when the bus has the green light to continue its journey and that the should hold back till the green man comes on for them instead of forcing the driver into an emergency stop.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

col said:


> That was my reason for adding it,it does happen,in fact iv had it twice in the last month.




Then you're driving on planet cretin, a strange and wonderful place where people can continually attempt to commit suicide and fail.

I'm not wasting my time on any more of that kind of fiction.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Of coarse i would no one wants to any one get injured on the road.



So, let me get this absolutely clear...

You're driving along, and you encounter a cyclist in primary position. That means they're where they're safest, in the middle of the lane. You wait to overtake safely, meaning you don't do so until you can do so with at least enough room so that if they fell off to the right, you'd miss them. You then encounter another cyclist, who is doing the same. And in fact, every cyclist does likewise.

And you want that? I don't believe you. I think you'd be moaning loudly about cyclists being in your way.

Fact is, motorists don't want cyclists riding safely. They want cyclists riding out of the way.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Yes not only does that happen have also seen the cyclists weaving in and out of the white lane markings in the middle of the road.So they must be made aware of the dangers also



A greater proportion of motorists break the law than cyclists. Fact. Look up the figures for how many people admit breaking the speeding law. Look at any narrow street with cars parked on the pavement. 

I'm all in favour of cyclists obeying the law, but I'm just not having it that cyclists are a special case who need more training than they're currently getting. Perhaps when the number of casualities inflicted on non-cyclists by cyclists is regularly signigficanly more than none per year, you'll have a point. Till then, this is just sour grapes.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

> You're right. The emphasis needs to move from finding someone to blame, to taking responsibility and control. And away from ownership of the road, to sharing it.
> 
> However, 'fast moving and heavy' vehicles kill thousands of people every year. Careless cyclists, while still fully responsible for their actions, don't.
> 
> by the way, you didn't answer my question random -are you a bus driver?



Yes i'm and yes i'm also carefully when passing cyclist and when i have passed them will give my mirror a check to make sure they are ok


----------



## col (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Then you're driving on planet cretin, a strange and wonderful place where people can continually attempt to commit suicide and fail.
> 
> I'm not wasting my time on any more of that kind of fiction.




If you dont believe what im saying,then yes this is a doomed debate.but i can say these things do happen,and when i first encountered it,i was as shocked as you are disbelieving me.They dont do it to commit suicide i think,but to scare the driver,and score im hard points with their mates.And only when youve nearly come to a stop,do they veer off laughing,at i would guess the strange white colour my face probably is.Im disapointed that you seem to think im making this up,but i dont blame you,it does sound ridiculous.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> So, let me get this absolutely clear...
> 
> You're driving along, and you encounter a cyclist in primary position. That means they're where they're safest, in the middle of the lane. You wait to overtake safely, meaning you don't do so until you can do so with at least enough room so that if they fell off to the right, you'd miss them. You then encounter another cyclist, who is doing the same. And in fact, every cyclist does likewise.
> 
> ...



Maybe thats all you want to believe which is fine if it makes you happy,at the end of the day i do not want a dead cyclist on my consious for the rest of my life.Yes i have moaned about wanting cyclist out of my way no doubt the same way as you have moaned about other vehicle getting your way.As you can't really comment on my driving for the simply reason that you don't what my driving is like i will tell you i will hang back and over take when it is safe to do so.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Yes i have moaned about wanting cyclist out of my way no doubt the same way



Point proved. You can pressure for cyclists to be trained all you like, it'll just lead to you moaning more about us being in your way. Because thats where we're _meant_ to be.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> A greater proportion of motorists break the law than cyclists. Fact. Look up the figures for how many people admit breaking the speeding law. Look at any narrow street with cars parked on the pavement.
> 
> I'm all in favour of cyclists obeying the law, but I'm just not having it that cyclists are a special case who need more training than they're currently getting. Perhaps when the number of casualities inflicted on non-cyclists by cyclists is regularly signigficanly more than none per year, you'll have a point. Till then, this is just sour grapes.



No i can assure you this is not sour grapes.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Point proved. You can pressure for cyclists to be trained all you like, it'll just lead to you moaning more about us being in your way. Because thats where we're _meant_ to be.



But hold on a minute i also moan about tractors being in my way hell even buses but i still would like to see a safer cyclist on the road than a dead one


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> No i can assure you this is not sour grapes.



Isn't it? So you spend longer complaining on motorist forums about motorists breaking speeding laws (more do than cyclists who break the rules), or who cause injury to others on the road (more do than there are cyclists), or who use the road uninsured (there are more uninsured motorists on our roads than there are cyclists - fact)? Do you complain about bus drivers who go through red lights on bus driver forums? Do you complain about motorbikes overtaking dangerously on motorbiking forums? 

Or is it, as I suspect, a particular gripe about cyclists? 

Go on, admit it, its sour grapes. If you can't admit it to us, you'll never be able to get over it.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> But hold on a minute i also moan about tractors being in my way hell even buses but i still would like to see a safer cyclist on the road than a dead one



Then stop moaning about cyclists being in your way.

Do you really not see why thats a scary, scary thing for a bus driver to admit to? Do you not understand why that makes the whole claim that you're interested in cyclists putting their safety first (i.e. that you're moaning when they do so) quite unbelievable?


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

This seems to have turned into a , have a go at anyone who drives a bus.Lets try and get something a little more clear than it seems.My self and Random it seems to me,is all for safety of cyclists,and yes we all have had a moan at being held up by anything,but it doesnt mean we drive like the idiots you have seen or come across.Lets keep it from becoming personal shall we?I can assure you,especailly Cab,you dont seem to believe what i say,but everytime i come across a cyclist,i give as much as possible.I have a feeling Random does too.This subject has a lot of problems that need addressing,but getting heated with someone who obviously agrees with you about safety for cyclists doesnt help.Do i get heated with you ,and paint you the same colour as the wheely idiots,?So possibly we could change from argueing at, to debating with?


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

col said:


> So possibly we could change from argueing at, to debating with?



To debate you chaps will have to start answering more of the points put to you than you've been doing. Do you see that happening?


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Fire away,im more than happy to try to.


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Actually Cab,iv just had an idea.How about i start a new thread,called...bus driver questions?or something else if you like,but it can basically be somewhere for any questions that anyone would like a straight and honest answer too.Ill do my best to do that,what do you think?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> if a cab has the mirrors fitted it has no blind spot.



This is codswallop. My artic cab has three mirrors on the passenger side and two on the driver's side and there's still a blind spot big enough to swallow a car on a roundabout if the conditions are "right" (if you see what I mean). It's not a problem usually because I watch the mirrors constantly when I'm manovering, but if a cyclist were to creep along the inside of my trailer while I was retuning the radio, checking my A-Z or looking at my notes while stopped at traffic lights, I might well find it difficult to spot them. And because I'm a cyclist too, I look for cyclists in the mirrors and so far they've always positioned themselves where I can see them. But it's unlikely I'd see a cyclist just behind the passenger door on the left of the cab, or creeping up the side of the trailer when the cab is at an angle to it (on the approach to or exit from a roundabout, for instance - all the mirrors in the world won't help here as they won't enable me to see through the corner of the trailer). I'm not offering this as an excuse for squashing cyclists, simply to counter the "no-blind-spot" fiction put about by people who don't seem to know what a lorry actually is.


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Am i right to believe RT,that fixed vehicles can be sorted with mirrors,but i did think artics are a differnt problem,because of the bend that can occur?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Point proved. You can pressure for cyclists to be trained all you like, it'll just lead to you moaning more about us being in your way. Because thats where we're _meant_ to be.



Come on Cab, we've all moaned about slower vehicles in front of us from time to time, whether in the car, on the bike or driving a sodding great lorry. It doesn't mean we want to see cyclists off the roads or riding in the gutter; I know I don't. In fact, I'm more likely to mutter dark thoughts about cyclists who wobble about in the gutter rather than dominating their road space and preventing me from overtaking dangerously. (Not that I ever would.)


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2007)

col said:


> Am i right to believe RT,that fixed vehicles can be sorted with mirrors,but i did think artics are a differnt problem,because of the bend that can occur?



Pretty much. But some of the modern big sleeper cabs have a big blind spot down the passenger side and immediately in front of the cab even without a trailer on, purely because of the height of the things. We've just got four new Renault tractor units where I work and they're all fitted with mirrors above the middle of the windscreen, looking down the radiator grille: maybe these will help prevent some incidents involving pedestrians or cyclists. 
But however many mirrors a lorry has, and whatever size it is, between it and the kerb is not a good place to be. End of story.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Come on Cab, we've all moaned about slower vehicles in front of us from time to time, whether in the car, on the bike or driving a sodding great lorry.



_Very_ few of us, I suspect, have gone and registered on a website covering road user groups to which we don't belong specifically to moan about those road users. Frankly, thats borderline obsessive.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

col said:


> Fire away,im more than happy to try to.



Then don't request that I repeat myself for your benefit, its crap form.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> _Very_ few of us, I suspect, have gone and registered on a website covering road user groups to which we don't belong specifically to moan about those road users. Frankly, thats borderline obsessive.



What about Magnaton and his registration on that bus drivers' site?


----------



## gambatte (25 Sep 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> What about Magnaton and his registration on that bus drivers' site?



I believe that was to answer daisy dirts comments about him.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

> I'd leave them to it. I've just had a quick look. Even though Daisy has posted some useful and proper comments now to try to balance things out, the thread is still populated by those too opinionated to see the wood.



Remember, the same Daisydirt posted this:



> Along a busy road they'd put in a cycle/ footpath to keep the buggers off the road. Still had twats who insisted on riding in the road and making like difficult for bus drivers. Due to the number of bends in that road, and the fact it wasn't very wide, it was hard getting round them.



Sorry, he can say anything likes about cycling/cyclists from now on, he's clearly got no concept of how to behave towards fellow road users.

And he's one of the more moderate contributors to that discussion!

I've known plenty of bus drivers, they're just folks like anyone else. I accept that a few bad 'uns get them all a bad name, which is unfortunate. But you'd have thought that they would therefore be aware of that, and conscious that there is no point treating other road users the same way.


----------



## spindrift (25 Sep 2007)

I'm confused that RANDOM is considered a more sensible poster when he's admitted he thinks there's nothing wrong with GBH or homophobia, either!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2007)

To be fair, Cab, it doesn't say at any point that he goes barging past cyclists leaving no room to spare, or deliberately aims at them, just that it can sometimes be hard to get round them. Which is true enough. The "twats who ride on the road" comment is a bit out of order I agree, but I don't agree that it shows he has no idea how to behave towards fellow road users.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Sep 2007)

I'm with RT on that. The cycle path thing is just standard ignorance about cycling.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (25 Sep 2007)

I've checked out that site too, and it a bit hard to make sense of. The blog is pretty funny, some of the forum posts pretty scary. 

I think the best we can do is be open and civilised to RANDOM who is making a big effort over here - how are we going to change peoples minds by being agressive and arguing?

Maybe we should, as col suggested, start up another thread to get out of the heat of this one. There is no need to mirror the cyclists thread on their forum just because we have the chance to outnumber a bus driver:O:O


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Remember, the same Daisydirt posted this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I genuinely think that most drivers don't realise how crap/dangerous a lot of cycle paths are - it becomes obvious once you've tried to use them to get anywhere, but from the window of a car/bus, I think it's not so clear.



> I've known plenty of bus drivers, they're just folks like anyone else. I accept that a few bad 'uns get them all a bad name, which is unfortunate. But you'd have thought that they would therefore be aware of that, and conscious that there is no point treating other road users the same way.


I can't say I know any personally, but the ones I've encountered in the city centre (Manchester) so far have given me the room I've needed, and appeared pretty attentive to other road users. Nearer home (Cheadle Road) I was passed way too close by one (Finglands being the company, I think) - if I'd not been scared out of my wits, I'd have reported him/her to the company. That's my only nasty bus experience so far though, and on a purely headcount basis, and on my limited experience, buses seem to be driven better than cars on my commuting route.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The "twats who ride on the road" comment is a bit out of order I agree, but I don't agree that it shows he has no idea how to behave towards fellow road users.



He believes that cyclists should be off the road on a cycle path. I gather he is also a professional driver. And you don't see any problem with that? 

If someone doesn't know the rules of the road they shouldn't be _on_ the road. Isn't it that simple?


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I'm with RT on that. The cycle path thing is just standard ignorance about cycling.



That kind of ignorance is quite unacceptable from your average motorist. It is _completely_ unacceptable from someone who drives as a profession.


----------



## magnatom (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> That kind of ignorance is quite unacceptable from your average motorist. It is _completely_ unacceptable from someone who drives as a profession.



Cab,

I agree that it is unacceptable, but unfortunately it is reality. If we were to ban every car/bus/lorry etc driver that was ignorant about cycling then the roads would be very quiet indeed (hey maybe it is a good idea ).

The only way to resolve these issues is by education. It'll never happen, but I really think the best way to educate drivers about cycling is to have a compulsory cycling test as part of the driving test. i.e. before you can drive a car you have to prove you can ride a bike. 

Maybe as the government ponders raising the driving age, maybe any gap that is created should be filled with learning to cycle! 

(Disclamer if the bus drivers decided to copy this to their forum: I really don't expect this will happen, it's just a pipe dream........)


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Then don't request that I repeat myself for your benefit, its crap form.




My intention was to make it easier.


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

> I don't think Random is more sensible. Just that his posts are more sensible when he has no choice, but when he's back with his mates he can start with the rubbish again.




I think it may be that he is showing his sensible side on here,but as most of us do,when we are with our mates,we join in with the banta.Their jokes are not to cyclists tastes,but they are i think just that, jokes.This was my point about the way we attack him,because he is a bus driver,yes its in a polite way,but a character attack all the same.


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> That kind of ignorance is quite unacceptable from your average motorist. It is _completely_ unacceptable from someone who drives as a profession.




Its something that most of us took for granted,myself included,but i have realised that misconception through being on here.Otherwise i would have still been thinking,why dont they use the path thats been built for them?


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

col said:


> Its something that most of us took for granted,myself included,but i have realised that misconception through being on here.Otherwise i would have still been thinking,why dont they use the path thats been built for them?



Then with the greatest respect, you shouldn't have been a professional driver.

I can't believe how p1$$ poor an understanding of road laws people can have and still gain employment driving busses.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> He believes that cyclists should be off the road on a cycle path. I gather he is also a professional driver. And you don't see any problem with that?
> 
> If someone doesn't know the rules of the road they shouldn't be _on_ the road. Isn't it that simple?



I don't see a problem with moaning about it, on a forum or otherwise. You're not going to tell me you've never had a quiet moan when you're stuck behing a tractor or a caravan, surely? Quietly muttering under your breath is fine, overtaking dangerously is not.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> I agree that it is unacceptable, but unfortunately it is reality. If we were to ban every car/bus/lorry etc driver that was ignorant about cycling then the roads would be very quiet indeed (hey maybe it is a good idea ).



Wouldn't have to though. The way to encourage people to learn the rules is to enforce them; you wouldn't have to discipline many bus drivers for acting aggressively towards cyclists who validly choose not to use cycle paths before word would get round and your problem wold be solved. 

As for banning people who stubbornly refuse to obey the rules that keep us safe on the roads... What a good idea 



> The only way to resolve these issues is by education. It'll never happen, but I really think the best way to educate drivers about cycling is to have a compulsory cycling test as part of the driving test. i.e. before you can drive a car you have to prove you can ride a bike.
> 
> Maybe as the government ponders raising the driving age, maybe any gap that is created should be filled with learning to cycle!
> 
> (Disclamer if the bus drivers decided to copy this to their forum: I really don't expect this will happen, it's just a pipe dream........)



Its a nice idea, but it won't happen.

What we have now is vast swathe of the population who don't know what it means to be other than a motorist; they were driven around by their parents, they got a car, they drive around themselves now. Bloke on the news this morning, complaining that his parking space at work in Nottingham will soon be taxed. Apparently he'd have to get the bus to town and the bus back out and it would take him an hour so he has to drive. Only lives four miles from work. And thats a typical person now.

Bikes are just in the way to people like that. They're street furniture. They're not a valid form of transport, they're just random crap to overtake. 

It would take more than a cycling test to learn enough to pass and then ignore to change attitudes, its a far greater cultural change that is needed. And, frankly, if the attitude of even a minority of professional drivers is as irrespobsible as it is over on that bus drivers site, its even more of an uphill struggle than I thought.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I don't see a problem with moaning about it, on a forum or otherwise. You're not going to tell me you've never had a quiet moan when you're stuck behing a tractor or a caravan, surely? Quietly muttering under your breath is fine, overtaking dangerously is not.



Honestly, no, I haven't. I'll complain if I get inconvenienced by someone doing something thats actually illegal or dangerous, but not if they're just going about their business. Why would that get me where I'm going any faster?

If I get stuck behind a bin van I'll moan, but thats because the smell since we went to fortnightly collections around here is just intolerable, and I think its actually quite dangerous to be hurling rotting food around like that. It isn't the inconvenience; they're just blokes out doing their job, theres nothing wrong with that.

Honestly... Is crass moaning about everyone else wasting three seconds of your time now the norm amongst cyclists too?


----------



## gambatte (25 Sep 2007)

Muttering under your breath is akin to speaking to yourself.

Writing on an internet forum is broadcasting. If some of those posts on 'Bloodbus' had been written about an ethnic or religious group, someone would have complained to the police, records would now be seized and people arrested.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> If some of those posts on 'Bloodbus' had been written about an ethnic or religious group, someone would have complained to the police, records would now be seized and people arrested.



Precisely. These comments are no less chilling because they're being made about cyclists than if they were made about any other percieved grouping of people.


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Then with the greatest respect, you shouldn't have been a professional driver.
> 
> I can't believe how p1$$ poor an understanding of road laws people can have and still gain employment driving busses.




A slight overreaction,possibly cab?Cycle lanes were supposed to be the big thing for cycling on the roads,it is now apparent they have flaws,this isnt in the driving test for any vehicle i think,telling us how flawed they actually are.So to say that, is i think, unfair.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

col said:


> A slight overreaction,possibly cab?Cycle lanes were supposed to be the big thing for cycling on the roads,it is now apparent they have flaws,this isnt in the driving test for any vehicle i think,telling us how flawed they actually are.So to say that, is i think, unfair.




What? You mean its reasonable for someone who is a professional driver to not know what the purpose of different kinds of lanes for traffic on the road are for? Crazy talk.

I stand by my statement. That lack of knowledge should preclude someone from being professional driver.


----------



## RANDOM (25 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> I'm confused that RANDOM is considered a more sensible poster when he's admitted he thinks there's nothing wrong with GBH or homophobia, either!



As i said spindrift that is something i have never said


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Isn't it? So you spend longer complaining on motorist forums about motorists breaking speeding laws (more do than cyclists who break the rules), or who cause injury to others on the road (more do than there are cyclists), or who use the road uninsured (there are more uninsured motorists on our roads than there are cyclists - fact)? Do you complain about bus drivers who go through red lights on bus driver forums? Do you complain about motorbikes overtaking dangerously on motorbiking forums?
> 
> Or is it, as I suspect, a particular gripe about cyclists?
> 
> Go on, admit it, its sour grapes. If you can't admit it to us, you'll never be able to get over it.



Yes i have cursed other drivers for their dangerous driving maybe not on their forum but have done so to their faces.So its not just bad cyclist that i gripe about also uninsured drivers do piss me off as their vehicles are more than likely not road worth.And no its not sour grapes for me but maybe it is for you.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Yes i have cursed other drivers for their dangerous driving maybe not on their forum but have done so to their faces.So its not just bad cyclist that i gripe about also uninsured drivers do piss me off as their vehicles are more than likely not road worth.And no its not sour grapes for me but maybe it is for you.



So, in other words, you don't go to motorbiker forums to gripe about bad motorbikers, you don't go to motoring forums to complain about bad motorists, you don't go to bus driver forums and condemn those who make disturbing boasts about assaulting cyclsits with their busses... But you _have_ joined a cycling forum and promptly started picking at cyclists because some of them are bad. And you really expect me to believe thats not sour grapes?

Go on, prove it. Go back to your bus forum and post something to some of the people who have advocated breaking the law by intimidating or assaulting cyclists. Call them unprofessional morons. Call them irresponsible law breakers. Tell them outright that they're getting bus drivers a bad name and that their statements are shameful. You're _not_ going to do that because you're _not_ consistent. You _don't_ view cyclists in the same way as you do other road users or you wouldn't be specifically griping _here_.

But there it is, theres your challenge, do it or accept that it has been proven that you have lamentable double standards.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> What? You mean its reasonable for someone who is a professional driver to not know what the purpose of different kinds of lanes for traffic on the road are for? Crazy talk.
> 
> I stand by my statement. That lack of knowledge should preclude someone from being professional driver.




Im at a loss Cab,you seem to have a lot of aggression towards me,if you let me know what iv done,perhaps i can rectify it?


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

> I agree to some extent. But as has been said many times, he is a professional in direct contact with the public, who entrust their safety to him. A public forum like this is no place for a professional driver to be letting off steam with his mades. Especially considering the aggressive and childish attitudes.
> 
> If someone posted on here about purposely, for example, running a pedestrian over I for one wouldn't be 'joining in with the banter'. And I wouldn't consider that person a mate.




As i would too Mr P,If someone did purposely try to hit someone,i would be the first to put a stop to them.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

col said:


> Im at a loss Cab,you seem to have a lot of aggression towards me,if you let me know what iv done,perhaps i can rectify it?



You're playing the wounded soldier part now?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> You're playing the wounded soldier part now?



Well, you do seem to be having a go at him for no particular reason, Cab. I speak purely as a disinterested observer.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> You're playing the wounded soldier part now?




No,im genuinly interested as to why you have this
problem with me?

If i was playing the wounded soldier i would be shouting,,COREMAN COOOREMAAAN.


----------



## spindrift (26 Sep 2007)

_Go on, prove it. Go back to your bus forum and post something to some of the people who have advocated breaking the law by intimidating or assaulting cyclists. Call them unprofessional morons. Call them irresponsible law breakers. Tell them outright that they're getting bus drivers a bad name and that their statements are shameful. You're not going to do that because you're not consistent._

Looks like you're right cab. 

Random, it's a bit cowardly to run away from this challenge.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Well, you do seem to be having a go at him for no particular reason, Cab. I speak purely as a disinterested observer.



Nope, doing nothing of the sort. Haven't had a go at him at all, I've simply not agreed with him.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

col said:


> No,im genuinly interested as to why you have this
> problem with me?



Really? Looks like you're dodging the points put to you.

To recap; you believe it is acceptable that professional drivers do not know the rules of the road. For example, not knowing what cycle lanes are actually for is something you see as fine. Further, in your opinion its fine for professional drivers to publically boast about assaulting other road users using their vehicles to do so. You don't see that as unprofessional or chilling in any way.

I disagree with that, and I would say any professional driver guilty of those things deserves to lose his job. Further, he needs clinical psychiatric help.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Really? Looks like you're dodging the points put to you.
> 
> To recap; you believe it is acceptable that professional drivers do not know the rules of the road. For example, not knowing what cycle lanes are actually for is something you see as fine. Further, in your opinion its fine for professional drivers to publically boast about assaulting other road users using their vehicles to do so. You don't see that as unprofessional or chilling in any way.
> 
> I disagree with that, and I would say any professional driver guilty of those things deserves to lose his job. Further, he needs clinical psychiatric help.





I wont even try to answer what you are trying to insinuate here.Your problem is worse than i thought,you need help.


spindrift,i didnt even know about that forum until it was mentioned on here,So where you get the "your forum"from,i dont know,again iv tried to be friendly with you,but your similar to cab,except she doesnt use as bad language,you need help also.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

col said:


> I wont even try to answer what you are trying to insinuate here.Your problem is worse than i thought,you need help.



And again you avoid the questions.

You believe that it is forgiveable for a professional driver not to know what certain traffic lanes are for. You have been unwilling to condemn those who make light of intentionally harm cyclists using their bus as a weapon. 

And you think that _I_ Havet he problem...



> but your similar to cab,except she doesnt use as bad language,you need help also.



And now everyone has mental problems if they think that professional drivers should show a little professionalism.

All of this passive-aggressive nonesense you're coming out with to avoid having to either justify what you've said or retract it, its just tiresome. Do you stand by your comments or do you not?


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> And again you avoid the questions.
> 
> You believe that it is forgiveable for a professional driver not to know what certain traffic lanes are for. You have been unwilling to condemn those who make light of intentionally harm cyclists using their bus as a weapon.
> 
> ...





By traffic lanes you mean cycle lanes do you?please point out to me where i said it was ok not to know what certain traffic lanes are for?

Tell me where i have also said its ok to harm cyclists with a bus.


Your becoming the tiresome one,you generalise on my beliefs and what you say i think,well answer my two questions above.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2007)

Guys,

Time out. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

Lets all agree that in general drivers are poorly educated about the issues facing cyclists. Therefore, we should be focusing our energies on finding ways to educate drivers, not bickering among ourselves.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

col said:


> By traffic lanes you mean cycle lanes do you?please point out to me where i said it was ok not to know what certain traffic lanes are for?



Certainly. In response to me saying this (referring I'm sure you'll remember to you saying that you hadn't known the law with regarding cycle lanes and cycling):


> Then with the greatest respect, you shouldn't have been a professional driver.
> 
> I can't believe how p1$$ poor an understanding of road laws people can have and still gain employment driving busses.



And you replied with (emphasis mine):



> A slight overreaction,possibly cab?Cycle lanes were supposed to be the big thing for cycling on the roads,it is now apparent they have flaws,this isnt in the driving test for any vehicle i think,telling us how flawed they actually are.*So to say that, is i think, unfair*.





> Tell me where i have also said its ok to harm cyclists with a bus.



Certainly, just as soon as you point out where I've accused you of that. More passive aggressive rubbish, accusing me of making a quite scandalous accusation against you that I haven't made.



> Your becoming the tiresome one,you generalise on my beliefs and what you say i think,well answer my two questions above.



And more of the same nonesense from you again. Look, this is simple; the responsibility of driving a big vehicle rather requires understanding the road and respecting others. You don't require that of professional drivers, I do.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

magnatom said:


> Guys,
> 
> Time out. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.
> 
> Lets all agree that in general drivers are poorly educated about the issues facing cyclists. Therefore, we should be focusing our energies on finding ways to educate drivers, not bickering among ourselves.




When have i not? but it seems im being painted as someone who agrees with whats being said on the other forum,i have always tried to be friendly and honest,but when someone continualy attacks you with this ,and then acuses me of avoiding the subject?its annoying to say the least,so i would still like the answers to my questions above.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Certainly. In response to me saying this (referring I'm sure you'll remember to you saying that you hadn't known the law with regarding cycle lanes and cycling):
> 
> 
> And you replied with (emphasis mine):
> ...





You really are incredible cab,i now know this to be a wind up, very good.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

col said:


> You really are incredible cab,i now know this to be a wind up, very good.



Shameful cop out.


----------



## spindrift (26 Sep 2007)

Maybe you could find a thread to post your stupid smileys on Col not quite as sensitive as this one?

You unfeeling callous basket case.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (26 Sep 2007)

WTF have I just walked into?!? This is a bloodbath on a supposedly friendly and intelligent forum!

I don't think Cab and Col are even reading each others arguments! You guys aren't even arguing a point any more, you are arguing about what you may or may not have implied in a response you posted that may or may not have missed the mark in the first place!?!


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> So, in other words, you don't go to motorbiker forums to gripe about bad motorbikers, you don't go to motoring forums to complain about bad motorists, you don't go to bus driver forums and condemn those who make disturbing boasts about assaulting cyclsits with their busses... But you _have_ joined a cycling forum and promptly started picking at cyclists because some of them are bad. And you really expect me to believe thats not sour grapes?
> 
> Go on, prove it. Go back to your bus forum and post something to some of the people who have advocated breaking the law by intimidating or assaulting cyclists. Call them unprofessional morons. Call them irresponsible law breakers. Tell them outright that they're getting bus drivers a bad name and that their statements are shameful. You're _not_ going to do that because you're _not_ consistent. You _don't_ view cyclists in the same way as you do other road users or you wouldn't be specifically griping _here_.
> 
> But there it is, theres your challenge, do it or accept that it has been proven that you have lamentable double standards.



No i think your the moron and no i don't have to prove anything.Typical woman how can't stand a guy arguing with them.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> No i think your the moron and no i don't have to prove anything.Typical woman how can't stand a guy arguing with them.



You're resorting to personal abuse now because it has been clearly demonstrated that you're only here to have a go at cyclists. You're not going to apply anything like the same standards in your own back yard.

Case proven I think.

Why do you think I'm a woman?


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> _Go on, prove it. Go back to your bus forum and post something to some of the people who have advocated breaking the law by intimidating or assaulting cyclists. Call them unprofessional morons. Call them irresponsible law breakers. Tell them outright that they're getting bus drivers a bad name and that their statements are shameful. You're not going to do that because you're not consistent._
> 
> Looks like you're right cab.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Here speaks the big man how hides behind his computer and calls his forum chums names.Go drive a bus with drunk's and neds down dodgy street's at night and see how brave you are.



So what are you saying, you're brave enough to drive a bus but not brave enough to tell other bus drivers when they're being numpties?


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> You're resorting to personal abuse now because it has been clearly demonstrated that you're only here to have a go at cyclists. You're not going to apply anything like the same standards in your own back yard.
> 
> Case proven I think.
> 
> Why do you think I'm a woman?



Have had plenty from you,and think what you like if it makes you happy.Because you go on and on like one thats why i think your a women and you don't like some one speaking back to you in a nice way of coarse.


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> So what are you saying, you're brave enough to drive a bus but not brave enough to tell other bus drivers when they're being numpties?



To their face's no problem.


----------



## fossyant (26 Sep 2007)

Mod's please zap this thread............. thanks.... 20+ pages of utter rubbish - Please leave the odd post that is relevant ?


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

fossyant said:


> Mod's please zap this thread............. thanks.... 20+ pages of utter rubbish - Please leave the odd post that is relevant ?



That would be mine that should stay then


----------



## gambatte (26 Sep 2007)

2nd Fossyants proposal. Maybe not trim it, just lock/close it


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> To their face's no problem.



But you'll tell cyclists over the net? 

I don't get it.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Have had plenty from you,and think what you like if it makes you happy.Because you go on and on like one thats why i think your a women and you don't like some one speaking back to you in a nice way of coarse.



Why are you even posting here Random?


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Why are you even posting here Random?



It was just to let you know that most bus driver's are decent people who which not to bully other road users and definately not to bully cyclist but some of you refuse to believe that.My intention was not to come on here and provoke any one maybe we are as stubborn as each other.But one thing i can assure you is i don't get into my buses and think heh i'm going to bully a cyclist,i wish to hurt know one.


----------



## RANDOM (26 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> But you'll tell cyclists over the net?
> 
> I don't get it.



If giving the chance yes.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> It was just to let you know that most bus driver's are decent people who which not to bully other road users and definately not to bully cyclist but some of you refuse to believe that.My intention was not to come on here and provoke any one maybe we are as stubborn as each other.But one thing i can assure you is i don't get into my buses and think heh i'm going to bully a cyclist,i wish to hurt know one.



And you stand by and share a forum with people who do claim to do precisely that. Then you came over here and immediately started complaining about the shortcomings of cyclists. 

If you didn't intend to provoke, why did you choose to do that? Why not instead demonstrate that you really do believe that bus drivers should behave decently by making a stand on that issue? 

Bottom line: You've got a funny way of trying to build bridges, if thats your intention. Your claim that you're trying to change perceptions isn't convincing.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> If giving the chance yes.



So, to recap...

You criticise cyclists over the net. You're not one yourself, are you?

You don't criticise bus drivers over the net, and you stand by idly and share forum space with people who claim to be happy both intimidating and assaulting cyclists using their busses.

Ain't the best tack to take when trying to make friends on a cycling forum, is it?


----------



## starseven (26 Sep 2007)

This thread is now closed.

Any contributors with views to air may start a new thread more relevant to their point.


----------

