Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Zingzang wrote:

It's a little worrying how many people seem incapable of understanding plain English, and infer viewpoints that were never expressed in the first place.

Sturmey's point seems pretty clear to me: not that you shouldn't stand up for yourself on the road, but that if you do, you should think carefully about who is wielding the bigger weapon, and position yourself accordingly until the immediate threat of retaliation has passed.

Rights and wrongs are another issue entirely. It's not difficult to see that, surely.

+1

Sturmey was just trying to give some sensible 'stay safe' advice for the real world, without in any way condoning what the bus driver did. It's amazing how often sh1t fights break out in this forum over nothing.

I agree. Sometimes it's better to just let stuff go, not because standing up for yourself is wrong, but because it's just not worth it.

*sighs*

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying in this context it's pretty irrelevant, and to say it isn't is to excuse the driver.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As mentioned on another thread, I once gestured at a driver that he was too close when he passed. Not even a rude gesture, just a Italian style "too close", and I waved at him (sarkily) when I passed.

Would that be the Italian thumb and forefinger held quite close together? In a way that might have been capable of being interpreted as "Small dick. You have a small dick. About this big"?

No.

Would it matter if it was?

It might have provided context. In some countries there are (as I understand it) certain hand gestures that are damned near guaranteed to start a fight. Obv everyone who is in Britain should obey the law of the land but per contra, in our enlightened E&D and multicultural age, people should bear in mind that a seemingly innocuous gesture or phrase may be received with a surprisingly hostile reaction.

But yeah, basically you would have deserved it. And more. :twisted:

sfichele

@ bails87, out of interest, what did the police do about your 'incident' ?

rick_chasey

It was basically what happened in Bail's video, apart from he left enough room that I didn't touch the car, and there was more of me trying to cycle away and him trying to run me over, and I spent a lot more time getting kicked on the floor.

Oh and I had two black eyes, a sprained neck, and heavy bruising on one side of my rib-cage and abdomen.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's almost as if you didn't bother reading what I said.

It's because what you're saying is erroneous.


Had the cyclist broken any laws?

Doesn't seem like it. He's not been arrested, or fined.

So why should he get hit? He shouldn't. That's all there is to it. If you think there is, than you're apologising for the actions of the driver, which is indefensible.

The problem here is that the bus driver hit him, not that the bus driver was wound up by the cyclist. I get wound up all the time (even on here, believe or not) but I don't use it as a pretext to assault someone!

No I'm not.

Once again you're looking for a view I've not given.

There is no "apologising" for the bus driver from me. But if you think the cyclist didn't provide a "reason" (not, NOT a justification) then it is you who are erroneous.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I agree. Sometimes it's better to just let stuff go, not because standing up for yourself is wrong, but because it's just not worth it.

*sighs*

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying in this context it's pretty irrelevant, and to say it isn't is to excuse the driver.

Not at all. The driver is a c*nt and should be in jail and shouldn't be allowed to drive ever again.

To say "X was attacked by Y, X could have avoided the attack by moving away from Y" doesn't mean we're also saying "X being attacked was X's fault".

Edit: sfichele, "given the financial situation" the police decided that him writing a letter saying "I regret that we bumped into each other" and "Sorry for over reacting" was how it would be dealt with. So, sweet FA really.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's almost as if you didn't bother reading what I said.

It's because what you're saying is erroneous.


Had the cyclist broken any laws?

Doesn't seem like it. He's not been arrested, or fined.

So why should he get hit? He shouldn't. That's all there is to it. If you think there is, than you're apologising for the actions of the driver, which is indefensible.

The problem here is that the bus driver hit him, not that the bus driver was wound up by the cyclist. I get wound up all the time (even on here, believe or not) but I don't use it as a pretext to assault someone!

so if cyclist breaks the law, then its fair game to hit them?

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's almost as if you didn't bother reading what I said.

It's because what you're saying is erroneous.


Had the cyclist broken any laws?

Doesn't seem like it. He's not been arrested, or fined.

So why should he get hit? He shouldn't. That's all there is to it. If you think there is, than you're apologising for the actions of the driver, which is indefensible.

The problem here is that the bus driver hit him, not that the bus driver was wound up by the cyclist. I get wound up all the time (even on here, believe or not) but I don't use it as a pretext to assault someone!

so if cyclist breaks the law, then its fair game to hit them?

If he'd stabbed the driver in the face I'd suggest there's more mitigating circumstances.

Agreed?

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I agree. Sometimes it's better to just let stuff go, not because standing up for yourself is wrong, but because it's just not worth it.

*sighs*

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying in this context it's pretty irrelevant, and to say it isn't is to excuse the driver.

Not at all. The driver is a c*nt and should be in jail and shouldn't be allowed to drive ever again.

To say "X was attacked by Y, X could have avoided the attack by moving away from Y" doesn't mean we're also saying "X being attacked was X's fault".

It does, because you're apportioning some responsibility for what happened to the cyclist, since you're saying he has the option to avoid it.

In reality, the cyclist can't expect the outcome is he nearly gets killed, so it's not a fair option, and not something the cyclist should reasonably consider, especially in the heat of the moment.

Paulie W

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I agree. Sometimes it's better to just let stuff go, not because standing up for yourself is wrong, but because it's just not worth it.

*sighs*

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying in this context it's pretty irrelevant, and to say it isn't is to excuse the driver.

Not at all. The driver is a c*nt and should be in jail and shouldn't be allowed to drive ever again.

To say "X was attacked by Y, X could have avoided the attack by moving away from Y" doesn't mean we're also saying "X being attacked was X's fault".

BUt it kind of does or at least it apportions some of the blame to the cyclist for what happened

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's almost as if you didn't bother reading what I said.

It's because what you're saying is erroneous.


Had the cyclist broken any laws?

Doesn't seem like it. He's not been arrested, or fined.

So why should he get hit? He shouldn't. That's all there is to it. If you think there is, than you're apologising for the actions of the driver, which is indefensible.

The problem here is that the bus driver hit him, not that the bus driver was wound up by the cyclist. I get wound up all the time (even on here, believe or not) but I don't use it as a pretext to assault someone!

No I'm not.

Once again you're looking for a view I've not given.

There is no "apologising" for the bus driver from me. But if you think the cyclist didn't provide a "reason" (not, NOT a justification) then it is you who are erroneous.

Maybe motive is a better word than reason - reason implies some sort of coherent thought.

bails87

Paulie W wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I agree. Sometimes it's better to just let stuff go, not because standing up for yourself is wrong, but because it's just not worth it.

*sighs*

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying in this context it's pretty irrelevant, and to say it isn't is to excuse the driver.

Not at all. The driver is a c*nt and should be in jail and shouldn't be allowed to drive ever again.

To say "X was attacked by Y, X could have avoided the attack by moving away from Y" doesn't mean we're also saying "X being attacked was X's fault".

BUt it kind of does or at least it apportions some of the blame to the cyclist for what happened

Well that's not my intention, or my belief, at all. The bus driver made the decision to run someone over. It's his fault and he should face the consequences of his actions. The fact that the cyclist could have stepped away to avoid the attack makes no difference to what the driver chose to do.

veronese68

bails87 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Zingzang wrote:

It's a little worrying how many people seem incapable of understanding plain English, and infer viewpoints that were never expressed in the first place.

Sturmey's point seems pretty clear to me: not that you shouldn't stand up for yourself on the road, but that if you do, you should think carefully about who is wielding the bigger weapon, and position yourself accordingly until the immediate threat of retaliation has passed.

Rights and wrongs are another issue entirely. It's not difficult to see that, surely.

+1

Sturmey was just trying to give some sensible 'stay safe' advice for the real world, without in any way condoning what the bus driver did. It's amazing how often sh1t fights break out in this forum over nothing.

I agree. Sometimes it's better to just let stuff go, not because standing up for yourself is wrong, but because it's just not worth it.

I agree with this too. I get out of the way, not because I expect them to deliberately mow me down but because I expect gross incompetence. I heard a car accelerating towards a closing gap so I dived out of the way. The car then piled into a parked car, had I carried on I would have been crushed between the two. I got the cars number and reported it to the police. They told me he's a well known local drunk driver, so presumably no licence, no insurance, no conscience. Absolute scumbag.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's almost as if you didn't bother reading what I said.

It's because what you're saying is erroneous.


Had the cyclist broken any laws?

Doesn't seem like it. He's not been arrested, or fined.

So why should he get hit? He shouldn't. That's all there is to it. If you think there is, than you're apologising for the actions of the driver, which is indefensible.

The problem here is that the bus driver hit him, not that the bus driver was wound up by the cyclist. I get wound up all the time (even on here, believe or not) but I don't use it as a pretext to assault someone!

No I'm not.

Once again you're looking for a view I've not given.

There is no "apologising" for the bus driver from me. But if you think the cyclist didn't provide a "reason" (not, NOT a justification) then it is you who are erroneous.

Maybe motive is a better word than reason - reason implies some sort of coherent thought.

Good suggestion RJS, that is exactly what I mean.

rick_chasey

It's a pretty poor motive. And not one you can reasonably expect to assume.

"I'm being a tw@t, therefore this guy has a motive to deliberately hit me with the bus he's driving. " ?

notsoblue

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Bus drivers are all brain-dead sociopaths, we all know that, but I'm surprised at this driver's actions.
Sturmey is right. It may well be wise to allow the idiot with the 10 tonne+ bus to go past. Bus Vs bike will always only have one winner.
RC and NSB may think that an air of rightous indignation and a layer of lycra protects them from idiots, but it doesn't.

I was being facetious with my comments earlier suggesting that the victim was being blamed... But really, we don't know exactly what was said before the assault, and it doesn't really matter. There is never a "reason" for purposely hitting someone with a bus. Thats why this guy was sent to prison for it.

I hate to draw parallels but this sounds just like the kind of discussion that seems to pop up around domestic violence and sexual assault cases. "Surely they must have done something to prompt being attacked?". Come one people, wtf?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Bus drivers are all brain-dead sociopaths, we all know that, but I'm surprised at this driver's actions.
Sturmey is right. It may well be wise to allow the idiot with the 10 tonne+ bus to go past. Bus Vs bike will always only have one winner.
RC and NSB may think that an air of rightous indignation and a layer of lycra protects them from idiots, but it doesn't.

I was being facetious with my comments earlier suggesting that the victim was being blamed... But really, we don't know exactly what was said before the assault, and it doesn't really matter. There is never a "reason" for purposely hitting someone with a bus. Thats why this guy was sent to prison for it.

I hate to draw parallels but this sounds just like the kind of discussion that seems to pop up around domestic violence and sexual assault cases. "Surely they must have done something to prompt being attacked?". Come one people, wtf?

Quite.

bails87

Fine...

Disclaimer: Bails87 in no way blames the cyclist for being run over.

Rick, I have no time for aggressive, bullying drivers, but to say there was absolutely no way the cyclist could have avoided the attack is not realistic. Could he have known exactly what was going to happen? No, of course not. But you're better off behind an angry driver than in front of them. I am NOT blaming the cyclist.

If a woman is raped when she's walking home on her own, and the police advise people to get taxis to avoid being in a similar situation are they blaming the victim? I don't think so. They're acknowledging that there's a ar*e who'll take advantage of the situation to do something bad. That the victim has put themselves in a vulnerable position does nothing to diminish the crime of the agressor.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a pretty poor motive. And not one you can reasonably expect to assume.

"I'm being a tw@t, therefore this guy has a motive to deliberately hit me with the bus he's driving. " ?

Mate, that's not what motive means, is it? Most crimes have a motive, but this doesn't diminish the guilt of the perpetrator in any way. Leaving one's car unlocked with a laptop on the front seat does not diminish the guilt of someone who steals it, but hiding the laptop and locking the car would still be a good idea.

I'd suggest that people who are driving aggressively and erratically are precisely the people who are likely to react aggressively to any attempt to confront them. Your experience and mine would confirm this.

I agree that there is a dilemma in that to simply shrug and carry on implies acceptance of such behaviour, and reporting through the 'proper channels' seems to be so ineffective, but we are mistaken if we think direct personal confrontation is going to change such people.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Fine...

Disclaimer: Bails87 in no way blames the cyclist for being run over.

Rick, I have no time for aggressive, bullying drivers, but to say there was absolutely no way the cyclist could have avoided the attack is not realistic. Could he have known exactly what was going to happen? No, of course not. But you're better off behind an angry driver than in front of them. I am NOT blaming the cyclist.

If a woman is raped when she's walking home on her own, and the police advise people to get taxis to avoid being in a similar situation are they blaming the victim? I don't think so. They're acknowledging that there's a ar*e who'll take advantage of the situation to do something bad. That the victim has put themselves in a vulnerable position does nothing to diminish the crime of the agressor.

I kinda think the police are in that instance to be honest.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Fine...

Disclaimer: Bails87 in no way blames the cyclist for being run over.

Rick, I have no time for aggressive, bullying drivers, but to say there was absolutely no way the cyclist could have avoided the attack is not realistic. Could he have known exactly what was going to happen? No, of course not. But you're better off behind an angry driver than in front of them. I am NOT blaming the cyclist.

If a woman is raped when she's walking home on her own, and the police advise people to get taxis to avoid being in a similar situation are they blaming the victim? I don't think so. They're acknowledging that there's a ar*e who'll take advantage of the situation to do something bad. That the victim has put themselves in a vulnerable position does nothing to diminish the crime of the agressor.

I kinda think the police are in that instance to be honest.

Really? I'm not talking about saying "well, she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it". I mean where the police offer advice, to avoid being in a potentially dangerous situation. Like saying "don't leave your car running to de-ice while you go back in the house". If someone steals your car in that scenario then the thief is to blame, and they'll be done for taking the car, but the owner could have avoided it by locking the doors with the spare key or staying outside.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I think this thread is demonstrating how hard it is to bring objectivity to bear on an issue where one has personal experience (either by virtue of having experienced something similar, or by virtue of feeling that one has come close to, but managed to avoid something similar).

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a pretty poor motive. And not one you can reasonably expect to assume.

"I'm being a tw@t, therefore this guy has a motive to deliberately hit me with the bus he's driving. " ?

Mate, that's not what motive means, is it? Most crimes have a motive, but this doesn't diminish the guilt of the perpetrator in any way. Leaving one's car unlocked with a laptop on the front seat does not diminish the guilt of someone who steals it, but hiding the laptop and locking the car would still be a good idea.

I'd suggest that people who are driving aggressively and erratically are precisely the people who are likely to react aggressively to any attempt to confront them. Your experience and mine would confirm this.

For sure, but I'll be f*cked if anyone suggests I had getting my hip broken, or getting kicked on the ground, or those two hit &runs I've been involved with are remotely my fault.

Next people will be saying "well, he's on a bike so he should expect abuse. After all, they're irritating to motorised vehicle drivers because they slow them down, so they have a motive", which is also clearly bull.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

I think this thread is demonstrating how hard it is to bring objectivity to bear on an issue where one has personal experience (either by virtue of having experienced something similar, or by virtue of feeling that one has come close to, but managed to avoid something similar).

It's not about being objective.

It's about solving the problem.

This happens more often.

This needs to be stopped.

Chat about what cyclists can do to avoid people who deliberately go out of their way to hurt them MISSES THE POINT, and obscures the issue.

rick_chasey

It was the same at my school.

I got detention from my teacher because my uniform 'wasn't up to scratch'. What had happened was I got beaten up, dragged across the grass and had fags stubbed out on my chest.

When I explained this to the teacher, her response was "you shouldn't make a target out of yourself", and kept me in detention rather than giving them sh!t. In this case, she meant walking around with my violin case, which makes me look "geeky" and a target.

I mean, wtf ?

They said the same to my parents when they complained. "Rick doesn't go out of his way to avoid the bullies". Crazy.

veronese68

Let's look at this a different way. What can we learn from this?
There are lunatics out there who are quite preparde to use their vehicle to mow you down because they don't agree with you. Whilst we are in no way to blame for this, as the more vulnerable party we should consider getting out of the way and letting the potential murderer go. By doing this we can live to ride another day.
Being in the right isn't worth being murderised to death for.

DonDaddyD

Rick, I think you're showing an unprecedented level of naivety here.

17 months is too leniant. GBH with intent, I would have thought would be the more appropriate sentence (if it is a sentence - Spen confirmation please).

Nothing justifies what the bus driver does and the question has to be asked, had the cyclist been a car would the bus driver have smashed a bus into his car?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Agendas aside for the time being.

Preface: I'm not remotely interested in trying to excuse or mitigate or justify what the bus driver did. But I am always interested in the "why" - why did this happen? How did it escalate to this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17069235

The talk to camera piece says that it started on the rdbt. The driver got too close, the cyclist banged the bus, then it seems to pick up at the beginning of the CCTV footage with the cyclist parked across the front of the bus.

At about 35s into the video clip, there is what looks like the bus and the cyclist on the rdbt.

Now they may have gone further round (anyone know the area and able to comment?), but I'm struggling to see from that 3-4 seconds what the incident on the rdbt was. What is more striking to me is the pace at which the cyclist entered the rdbt - it almost looks as if he is trying to catch the bus, which may suggest an incident before they got to the rdbt.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I think this thread is demonstrating how hard it is to bring objectivity to bear on an issue where one has personal experience (either by virtue of having experienced something similar, or by virtue of feeling that one has come close to, but managed to avoid something similar).

It's not about being objective.

It's about solving the problem.

This happens more often.

This needs to be stopped.

Chat about what cyclists can do to avoid people who deliberately go out of their way to hurt them MISSES THE POINT, and obscures the issue.

Where you see an unavoidable problem that requires a solution, others are seeing an avoidable problem and suggesting ways to avoid it.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

For sure, but I'll be f*cked if anyone suggests I had getting my hip broken, or getting kicked on the ground, or those two hit &runs I've been involved with are remotely my fault.

Next people will be saying "well, he's on a bike so he should expect abuse. After all, they're irritating to motorised vehicle drivers because they slow them down, so they have a motive", which is also clearly bull.

People (on other forums) already say this. They point to the fact that he was riding in primary "right in front of the bus" and suggest this is an aggressive move deserving of escalation. If I'm honest, if I think a motorist is going to try and overtake me closely to intimidate, its hard to judge whether it will be safer to stick in primary to not give him the opportunity to do that, or to bail at the side of the road because he's going to run into me.