Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist
Comments
-
Greg66 wrote: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.
I have not ridden over this RaB for a while (the "bear pit" as it is affectionately known), but there is/was a bus lane on the approach (to the left) meaning that buses going straight ahead would have to cut across two lanes to merge - as the bus does. This is not "ideal" for traffic going straight ahead as the cyclist is doing (I'm pretty sure it's a gentle downhill on the approach, hence the cyclist's speed on the RaB). It looks as though they are competing for the same piece of road space. The video ends at a critical juncture as it appears the cyclist is going to get squeezed between the bus and the traffic to the right as they continue towards Marlborough St. I'd guess this is the incident that preceded the horrific events further down the road.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I mean, it gets pretty bad.
When i was getting beaten up as a kid I always walked the same route to the bus stop out of principle. My teacher suggested I sneak round the back but I was f*cked if I was going to have to run and hide my way to get on my bus to go home. It was the principle.
(as an aside, once a stagecoach bus driver refused to let me on because I'd been kicked in the head and was bleeding profusely from my eyebrow. My 'rents were both at work so I had to wait at school till 7 before I could get picked up).
Now there are days I don't go out cycling because I can't stand being shouted at that day.
I mean, that's bad. My spirit's been, literally, beaten out of me.
So the principle was "I will not be cowed by bullies".
And now you won't go out on your bike some days for fear of being bullied.
Whereas had you taken a more expedient approach, you would not have suffered the beatings. And may have avoided your cycling phobia.
You've learned the hard way that principles have a price, and what the price of yours was.
Personally, from what you say, I think you struck a poor deal.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I mean, it gets pretty bad.
When i was getting beaten up as a kid I always walked the same route to the bus stop out of principle. My teacher suggested I sneak round the back but I was f*cked if I was going to have to run and hide my way to get on my bus to go home. It was the principle.
(as an aside, once a stagecoach bus driver refused to let me on because I'd been kicked in the head and was bleeding profusely from my eyebrow. My 'rents were both at work so I had to wait at school till 7 before I could get picked up).
Now there are days I don't go out cycling because I can't stand being shouted at that day.
I mean, that's bad. My spirit's been, literally, beaten out of me.
So the principle was "I will not be cowed by bullies".
And now you won't go out on your bike some days for fear of being bullied.
Whereas had you taken a more expedient approach, you would not have suffered the beatings. And may have avoided your cycling phobia.
You've learned the hard way that principles have a price, and what the price of yours was.
Personally, from what you say, I think you struck a poor deal.
Are you serious?
Do you not think it would have been a good idea, to, y'know, stop the people beating me up in the first place?
That is an apologist stance if I ever saw one.
I got bullied off the road because I've been assaulted twice, once putting me in hopsital. The only principle I was sticking to was riding on the road. If you can't see that, you're myopic. If you can, and still think that, you're a...0 -
+1Paulie W wrote:The reality is that we dont walk, cycle, drive, assuming everyone is an idiot or a psycho. We actually assume that most people, most of the time are going to act within the "rules". If we didnt we'd never go out. Sure people do stupid things and sure there are some people who react in a way that is completely out of proportion but in the vast majority of cases those things happen and then they're over. We cant (and shouldnt) modify our behaviour on the basis of extremes of behaviour because we end up living our life in fear and allowing our actions to be dictated by other's (possible) behaviour. You can call this naive or "not living in the real world" but if that's what the real world is like you can keep it!!
Part of the reason why cycling is so dangerous in this country (compared to others in europe) is that cyclists are seen as second class citizens with no right to be on the road. And the experience that most of us have had on the road during our commutes or recreational rides would be unheard of in NL or Denmark. I don't think people realise just how totally bat sh1t crazy the attitudes in this country are towards cyclists. And that isn't because theres something about British cyclists that makes people want to swerve their cars at them, throw stuff at them, shout random abuse, and honk their horns at them.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?0 -
W1 wrote:
Out of how many slanging matches?notsoblue wrote:Well, experience differs. I've had half a dozen apologies.
Actually, I've probably had less of those than I have had others... And actually, the last one I can recall started out that way but then ended up with both of us apologising when traffic was stationary a bit later on :P 0 -
Bloody hell, G66...Greg66 wrote:Whereas had you taken a more expedient approach, you would not have suffered the beatings. And may have avoided your cycling phobia.0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?
Keep them separated?
Then you avoid the accident, right?0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?
Strict liability would apply more to a case where a van hit the child running out, than a drafter being caught out by a van taking evasive action.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Are you serious?
Do you not think it would have been a good idea, to, y'know, stop the people beating me up in the first place?
That is an apologist stance if I ever saw one.
I got bullied off the road because I've been assaulted twice, once putting me in hopsital. The only principle I was sticking to was riding on the road. If you can't see that, you're myopic. If you can, and still think that, you're a...
It wasn't clear from what you wrote that your cycling phobia is rooted in cycle-bullying, rather than having been bullied as a child.
The principle of being entitled to ride on the road is no less laudable than not to be bullied. But without apologising one jot for the actions of the bullies or the drivers, you're someone who, on your own account, comes across as a magnet for this sh!t. Most of the rest of us aren't. Again: this has nothing to do with the perpetrators; but how is it you're a lightning rod for trouble?0 -
To everyone saying that it is reasonable to assume that drivers are not psychos.... really?
Based on my experience of commuting for the last 5 years I'd say it is entirely reasonable to assume that most drivers have the capability of being a psycho.
Obviously that is an unfortunate status quo - but until it changes I'll be moderating my behaviour around all the potential nutters that are bombing around in 2 ton death machines.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?
Keep them separated?
Then you avoid the accident, right?
We've done the segregation thing to death. It's not got popular support.
I'm surprised you're such a strong proponent of it, given your historic unwillingness to put yourself out of reach of the bullies.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?
Strict liability would apply more to a case where a van hit the child running out, than a drafter being caught out by a van taking evasive action.
Strict liability means it is strict. You're always liable, no matter what.
You're proposing a presumption.0 -
Isn't it assumed vs strict liability.notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?
Strict liability would apply more to a case where a van hit the child running out, than a drafter being caught out by a van taking evasive action.
Assumed would blame the van driver unless he could prove otherwise (witnesses, big hole in the back of the van). Strict would always blame the van.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Are you serious?
Do you not think it would have been a good idea, to, y'know, stop the people beating me up in the first place?
That is an apologist stance if I ever saw one.
I got bullied off the road because I've been assaulted twice, once putting me in hopsital. The only principle I was sticking to was riding on the road. If you can't see that, you're myopic. If you can, and still think that, you're a...
It wasn't clear from what you wrote that your cycling phobia is rooted in cycle-bullying, rather than having been bullied as a child.
The principle of being entitled to ride on the road is no less laudable than not to be bullied. But without apologising one jot for the actions of the bullies or the drivers, you're someone who, on your own account, comes across as a magnet for this sh!t. Most of the rest of us aren't. Again: this has nothing to do with the perpetrators; but how is it you're a lightning rod for trouble?
It's often my size, as stated above.
People think they can beat me up without consequences. From my experience, they'd be right.
I've noticed I get a lot less when I'm older - even less now my balding is noticeable. I think people respect age quite a bit.
School I was pretty loud for sure, and it got to the point where I was so used to it I'd take the heat for friends.
Beyond school I think it's partly unlucky, and partly my size. Me ending up in hospital no-one could have done anything - the first I knew they were there was when I was on the floor. The assault - would that have happened if I was a 6 foot rugby player? Probably not.
As an aside, never got ANY hassle in Sheffield. Cambridge was by far and away the worst. London comes a distant, distant second.0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Surely the solution here is strict liability? If pedestrians and cyclists were treated like holy cows then motorists wouldn't go near them to intimidate. Wouldn't be worth the risk.
How is strict liability appropriate when a cyclist is drafting a van in the van's blindspot, the van brakes hard to avoid a child who has run out, and the cyclist slams into the back of the van and ends up a quadriplegic?
Strict liability would apply more to a case where a van hit the child running out, than a drafter being caught out by a van taking evasive action.
Strict liability means it is strict. You're always liable, no matter what.
You're proposing a presumption.
Fair enough, wrong terminology, basically I'm talking about how the law considers liability in cases like this in NL and DK.0 -
Was the bus driver thinking rationally enough to go "Hmmm, I'll be presumed to be responsible, so I won't run him over"? He must have seen the dozens of cars, cyclists and pedestrians who would be witnesses, as well as the passengers, the CCTV that was on lamposts and possibly also on board the bus. And he still hit him. Preumed liability wouldn't have made a jot of difference....IMHO.
0 -
Greg66 wrote:
I'm surprised you're such a strong proponent of it, given your historic unwillingness to put yourself out of reach of the bullies.
I've come to the conclusion the law doesn't provide cyclists with enough protection from cars, so the alternative is to actually separate the bike from the car to avoid the contact happening in the first place.
If I have enough of it from time to time, and I'm more tolerant than most of hassle, then I can imagine others will be put off.
I do think you need NSB's if in doubt, it's not the cyclist/ped's fault argument to back up the infrastructure.0 -
Sure, if presumed liability had been put in place the week before, no, it wouldn't have made a difference. But if we were the kind of country where presumed liability was seen as a rational and desirable law, then incidents like this would be much rarer. And more importantly, the reaction to the incident would be totally different. Reading the Daily Mail comments for this story are like peering into a hot cess pit.bails87 wrote:Was the bus driver thinking rationally enough to go "Hmmm, I'll be presumed to be responsible, so I won't run him over"? He must have seen the dozens of cars, cyclists and pedestrians who would be witnesses, as well as the passengers, the CCTV that was on lamposts and possibly also on board the bus. And he still hit him. Preumed liability wouldn't have made a jot of difference....IMHO.0 -
No legislation will account for a nutter being a nutter. When the red mist descends, what is 'right', moral and legal will not be accounted for.
There will always be nutters who take things too far.
They will never think about the law, but the resulting sentence *may* change their future behaviour.
A driving ban for life; severly screws a persons life up - in this case, rightfully so.
**The guy was from Frome, all nutters......
***some of the above is not true!0 -
Most continental countries actually operate what we would call an assumed liability 9as opposed to strict) that is the motorist is deemed at fault unless he can 'show' the cyclist or ped was.
You wouldn't stand in front of a guy holding an AK47 and try and piss him off, why do it to someone driving a bus and capable of driving over you?
SimonCurrently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
An interesting flip point to people who complain about reckless cyclists (possibly OT, but I've been reading the Daily Mail comments....I know, I know) is how many of us drive, and how few of us ever get into a slanging match with a cyclist when we're in the car.
I've never, ever had a problem with a cyclist while driving. How much of that is down to me being the angriest cyclist around here? maybe a bit. How much of that is down to me knowing how to drive safely around a cyclist? Probably a lot.
That, IME, is the biggest problem. Most drivers don't cycle, they think "I didn't hit you" means they overtook completely safely. They have no problem overtaking then hitting the brakes for a red light. If more drivers rode bikes in traffic, traffic would be kinder to cyclists. If cars and buses aren't so close that you can touch them, then people won't get precious about their car being touched, so they won't punch/run down cyclists.0 -
I'm desperately trying to find a link to an article about a case in NL a few years ago where a group of teenagers was hit by a chap in a 4x4 while waiting at a junction. None of them were actually hurt, but the public reaction to the accident seems incredible as someone who cycles in the UK. It made national news, and people were outraged. Half a dozen people get killed in London every year and people *still* blame the cyclists for not being savvy enough.0
-
notsoblue wrote:I'm desperately trying to find a link to an article about a case in NL a few years ago where a group of teenagers was hit by a chap in a 4x4 while waiting at a junction. None of them were actually hurt, but the public reaction to the accident seems incredible as someone who cycles in the UK. It made national news, and people were outraged. Half a dozen people get killed in London every year and people *still* blame the cyclists for not being savvy enough.
Vid about it here:
http://www.utilitycycling.org/2011/02/c ... therlands/0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Sure, if presumed liability had been put in place the week before, no, it wouldn't have made a difference. But if we were the kind of country where presumed liability was seen as a rational and desirable law, then incidents like this would be much rarer. And more importantly, the reaction to the incident would be totally different. Reading the Daily Mail comments for this story are like peering into a hot cess pit.bails87 wrote:Was the bus driver thinking rationally enough to go "Hmmm, I'll be presumed to be responsible, so I won't run him over"? He must have seen the dozens of cars, cyclists and pedestrians who would be witnesses, as well as the passengers, the CCTV that was on lamposts and possibly also on board the bus. And he still hit him. Preumed liability wouldn't have made a jot of difference....IMHO.
I think you're imposing rationality on someone who is clearly irrational.
I would hope that the value of human life would have been a much greater barrier to his actions that the legal consequences. Clearly not.0 -
I can relate to that - most drivers don't cycle but most cyclists drive and those that do are likely to be more careful around cyclists because they appreciate the situation that cyclists are in (I know that's they way I tend to be).bails87 wrote:An interesting flip point to people who complain about reckless cyclists (possibly OT, but I've been reading the Daily Mail comments....I know, I know) is how many of us drive, and how few of us ever get into a slanging match with a cyclist when we're in the car.
I've never, ever had a problem with a cyclist while driving. How much of that is down to me being the angriest cyclist around here? maybe a bit. How much of that is down to me knowing how to drive safely around a cyclist? Probably a lot.
That, IME, is the biggest problem. Most drivers don't cycle, they think "I didn't hit you" means they overtook completely safely. They have no problem overtaking then hitting the brakes for a red light. If more drivers rode bikes in traffic, traffic would be kinder to cyclists. If cars and buses aren't so close that you can touch them, then people won't get precious about their car being touched, so they won't punch/run down cyclists.
TBH the worst and most frequent aggo I've had from motorists is when I've been drving my car. My experiences riding a bike in London rush hour have been pretty uneventful really: it's one of the old chestnuts on here that people's exepriences of commuting on a bike can be so massively different."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah, I get your point. But these people are on a bell curve of normal behaviour. The more that cyclists are accepted on the roads by the majority of people, the less likely that nutters are to go crazy and try to kill people with their cars. There will always be outliers that don't adhere to norms, or even actively go against them, but most cases of road rage are due to people acting in a way that is either supported or not frowned upon by their peers. You can't stop people from taking guns to work and shooting their colleagues, but you can predict that this will be a much less likely occurrence in a country that doesn't feel comfortable with gun use than in one that does.W1 wrote:I think you're imposing rationality on someone who is clearly irrational.
I would hope that the value of human life would have been a much greater barrier to his actions that the legal consequences. Clearly not.0 -
Origamist wrote:notsoblue wrote:I'm desperately trying to find a link to an article about a case in NL a few years ago where a group of teenagers was hit by a chap in a 4x4 while waiting at a junction. None of them were actually hurt, but the public reaction to the accident seems incredible as someone who cycles in the UK. It made national news, and people were outraged. Half a dozen people get killed in London every year and people *still* blame the cyclists for not being savvy enough.
Vid about it here:
http://www.utilitycycling.org/2011/02/c ... therlands/
Thats the one. Astonishing. Not one person suggesting that it was the teenager's fault for being in the way. I'd like this country to be more like that.0 -
+ lots. This is what demonstrates the bus driver is a complete lunatic. When pushed he had no moral compass and acted in a way that is utterly unacceptable. I don't think any law would prevent this from happening. He tried to kill someone, not caring how many people were watching.W1 wrote:I would hope that the value of human life would have been a much greater barrier to his actions that the legal consequences. Clearly not.0 -
Given your suggestion that the best way to deal with people like this is to never respond with indignation to anyone hassling you, do you think people like this are common?Veronese68 wrote:
+ lots. This is what demonstrates the bus driver is a complete lunatic. When pushed he had no moral compass and acted in a way that is utterly unacceptable. I don't think any law would prevent this from happening. He tried to kill someone, not caring how many people were watching.W1 wrote:I would hope that the value of human life would have been a much greater barrier to his actions that the legal consequences. Clearly not.0
