Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist

MonkeyMonster

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

+ 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.

and thus should not be let out ever or for at least a long long time. It's premeditated attempted murder.

bails87

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

+ 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.

I thought the presumed liability only applied to insurance anyway, not criminal charges. So people are suggesting that a man who would happily ignore all the moral and legal 'barriers' to running someone over with a bus would actually choose not to do it because it might cost his employer's insurance company some money.......

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

+ 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.

I thought the presumed liability only applied to insurance anyway, not criminal charges. So people are suggesting that a man who would happily ignore all the moral and legal 'barriers' to running someone over with a bus would actually choose not to do it because it might cost his employer's insurance company some money.......

No. Thats not what I said, at least.

bails87

notsoblue wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

+ 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.

I thought the presumed liability only applied to insurance anyway, not criminal charges. So people are suggesting that a man who would happily ignore all the moral and legal 'barriers' to running someone over with a bus would actually choose not to do it because it might cost his employer's insurance company some money.......

No. Thats not what I said, at least.

Ah, ok, but I thought that's how it worked in the European places that use it. I may be mistaken though.

SJ

clarkey cat wrote:

it doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing any Hi-Viz...

I don't think 'being seen' was an issue here...
The bus driver was fully aware of his presence with or without hi-viz. Yes he should have been wearing it, would it have prevented the bus driver doing what he did? Probably not.

veronese68

notsoblue wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

+ 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.

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?

Thankfully I don't think they're that common. If they were I probably wouldn't be here myself. I'm certainly not above a bit of righteous indignation myself. I've had a bloke get out of his car and come at me with a claw hammer in return for me getting annoyed with him taking the lane I was in. I've had a bloke tell me he was going to run me off the road if I called him a w@nker again after he nearly took me off my motorbike as he was texting whilst negotiating a roundabout. I must confess I did get rather angry with him and he may have had a bright red mark from my visor bashing his forehead repeatedly as I told him he was a w@nker, driving like a w@nker in a w@nker's car. That finished with him telling me he was very sorry and he wouldn't do it again. I 'won' that one, but it could have gone the other way. There aren't really any winners when it gets like that.
I'm telling myself to try and rise above it as much as I'm telling anybody else.
Most people realise that they are in danger of crossing a line, even when wound right up. A few don't, and they are the really dangerous ones.

bails87

SJ wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

it doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing any Hi-Viz...

I don't think 'being seen' was an issue here...
The bus driver was fully aware of his presence with or without hi-viz. Yes he should have been wearing it, would it have prevented the bus driver doing what he did? Probably not.

I think Clarkey cat was being sarcastic......

SJ

bails87 wrote:

SJ wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

it doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing any Hi-Viz...

I don't think 'being seen' was an issue here...
The bus driver was fully aware of his presence with or without hi-viz. Yes he should have been wearing it, would it have prevented the bus driver doing what he did? Probably not.

I think Clarkey cat was being sarcastic......

Difficult to tell... on a forum!

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I thought the presumed liability only applied to insurance anyway, not criminal charges. So people are suggesting that a man who would happily ignore all the moral and legal 'barriers' to running someone over with a bus would actually choose not to do it because it might cost his employer's insurance company some money.......

No. Thats not what I said, at least.

Ah, ok, but I thought that's how it worked in the European places that use it. I may be mistaken though.

I think it would make a difference to how drivers treat cyclists in general. Particularly with regards to how much space they're given. There seems to be a bit of an attitude (imo) that cyclists take on the burden of risk when they ride on the roads, and I think that has a direct effect on how they're treated by motorists. If in the back of their mind they always have the thought that cyclists shouldn't be on busy roads anyway, then to them that absolves them of some of the responsibility for avoiding an accident. I've had people overtake me very closely and cut me up even after they've clearly seen me. This is a really common thing for cyclists in the UK. I'm not talking about bus wielding psychos here, I'm talking about those who just don't care. If it was generally known that in the event of a motor vehicle collision with a cyclist or a pedestrian, it was up to the driver to prove that the pedestrian or cyclist was at fault, then people wouldn't think they could get away with taking chances.

Its like shared ped/cyclist paths. I know that if I ride closely past a family at 18mph on a path like that, I would be at fault if one of the kids meandered out without looking and we collided. If that collision lead to serious injury or death then I know I'd quite rightly be under a huge amount of scrutiny. The debate wouldn't be about whether or not the kid was wearing a helmet, or hi-viz, or whether he was in the middle of the road and should have known better.

sfichele

notsoblue wrote:

bails87 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I thought the presumed liability only applied to insurance anyway, not criminal charges. So people are suggesting that a man who would happily ignore all the moral and legal 'barriers' to running someone over with a bus would actually choose not to do it because it might cost his employer's insurance company some money.......

No. Thats not what I said, at least.

Ah, ok, but I thought that's how it worked in the European places that use it. I may be mistaken though.

I think it would make a difference to how drivers treat cyclists in general. Particularly with regards to how much space they're given. There seems to be a bit of an attitude (imo) that cyclists take on the burden of risk when they ride on the roads, and I think that has a direct effect on how they're treated by motorists. If in the back of their mind they always have the thought that cyclists shouldn't be on busy roads anyway, then to them that absolves them of some of the responsibility for avoiding an accident. I've had people overtake me very closely and cut me up even after they've clearly seen me. This is a really common thing for cyclists in the UK. I'm not talking about bus wielding psychos here, I'm talking about those who just don't care. If it was generally known that in the event of a motor vehicle collision with a cyclist or a pedestrian, it was up to the driver to prove that the pedestrian or cyclist was at fault, then people wouldn't think they could get away with taking chances.

Its like shared ped/cyclist paths. I know that if I ride closely past a family at 18mph on a path like that, I would be at fault if one of the kids meandered out without looking and we collided. If that collision lead to serious injury or death then I know I'd quite rightly be under a huge amount of scrutiny. The debate wouldn't be about whether or not the kid was wearing a helmet, or hi-viz, or whether he was in the middle of the road and should have known better.

+1, Couldn't agree more with that! in addition, I think that law might help to "educate" drivers into realising that bikes need space, and that they can legitimately occupy primary when its not safe for others to overtake. It seems the vast majority of problems either come from drivers

1) Not looking properly at junctions/transitions.
2) Not giving enough room and then sometimes cutting in
3) Having the wrong assumption that cyclists should get out of the way when riding primary

There are so many ill-informed drivers and changing insurance liability might wake drivers up to the last two problems!

veronese68

notsoblue wrote:

bails87 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I thought the presumed liability only applied to insurance anyway, not criminal charges. So people are suggesting that a man who would happily ignore all the moral and legal 'barriers' to running someone over with a bus would actually choose not to do it because it might cost his employer's insurance company some money.......

No. Thats not what I said, at least.

Ah, ok, but I thought that's how it worked in the European places that use it. I may be mistaken though.

I think it would make a difference to how drivers treat cyclists in general. Particularly with regards to how much space they're given. There seems to be a bit of an attitude (imo) that cyclists take on the burden of risk when they ride on the roads, and I think that has a direct effect on how they're treated by motorists. If in the back of their mind they always have the thought that cyclists shouldn't be on busy roads anyway, then to them that absolves them of some of the responsibility for avoiding an accident. I've had people overtake me very closely and cut me up even after they've clearly seen me. This is a really common thing for cyclists in the UK. I'm not talking about bus wielding psychos here, I'm talking about those who just don't care. If it was generally known that in the event of a motor vehicle collision with a cyclist or a pedestrian, it was up to the driver to prove that the pedestrian or cyclist was at fault, then people wouldn't think they could get away with taking chances.

Its like shared ped/cyclist paths. I know that if I ride closely past a family at 18mph on a path like that, I would be at fault if one of the kids meandered out without looking and we collided. If that collision lead to serious injury or death then I know I'd quite rightly be under a huge amount of scrutiny. The debate wouldn't be about whether or not the kid was wearing a helmet, or hi-viz, or whether he was in the middle of the road and should have known better.

I completely agree that that we shouldn't be treated as second class citizens. I agree with the vast majority of what you say. Unfortunately, until attitudes change we have to be more defensive than is ideal. Plus we're the vulnerable ones which makes it even more important.
Not convinced by presumed liability, but open to suggestion.

notsoblue

Veronese68 wrote:

I completely agree that that we shouldn't be treated as second class citizens. I agree with the vast majority of what you say. Unfortunately, until attitudes change we have to be more defensive than is ideal. Plus we're the vulnerable ones which makes it even more important.
Not convinced by presumed liability, but open to suggestion.

What is it about presumed liability that is unconvincing?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

I think it would make a difference to how drivers treat cyclists in general.

I take all of your post on-board, but I am firmly of the view that anyone who is blase enough with peoples lives will not change their habits due to some technical legal position, particularly as most liability is covered by insurance which has a limited personal effect on the driver. If the thought of killing someone isn't enough to stop bad driving; if the thought of going to prison for years isn't enough to stop bad driving; why do you think that pre-determining liability will alter drivers' mindsets?

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

Genuine question - what reckless cycling a) is there, and b) would be encouraged with presumed liability?

If you hit a cyclist who jumps a red light when you were cruising through green at 29mph, the cyclist will still be at fault.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

I've heard this said quite often as a rebuttal to arguments for things like presumed liability, but I still don't get it. What kind of people do you think would cycle more recklessly as a result of liability changes? Having a collision with a car is self evidently not something that anyone would want to increase the risk of. If anything, cyclists are way way more aware of their vulnerability than other road users are. How would this encourage reckless cycling?

veronese68

notsoblue wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I completely agree that that we shouldn't be treated as second class citizens. I agree with the vast majority of what you say. Unfortunately, until attitudes change we have to be more defensive than is ideal. Plus we're the vulnerable ones which makes it even more important.
Not convinced by presumed liability, but open to suggestion.

What is it about presumed liability that is unconvincing?

It just sits uneasily with me. One of the problems with some people is that they assume they are right and everybody else is wrong and they may see this as justification. This is not a problem unique to one particular group, but some of all groups. Richmond Park is full of this sort of attitude. Pedestrians on the shared path get uppity with cyclists, cyclists on the road get uppity with drivers, drivers get annoyed that cyclists are too fast, or too slow up hills. It's actually possible to get around by treating other users with a bit of respect and leaving them a bit of space. Some people choose not to do this, I've heard people boasting about deliberatley stepping in front of cyclists on the shared path. I told them they were idiots and they could get hurt. This sort of twunt would see presumed liability as justification for stepping in front of a cyclist.
I'm not a fan of the over the top compensation culture, legitimate claims are different. I worry this could lead to an increase in spurious claims.
As I say, I'm not completely closed off to the idea. It would need to be very carefully implemented.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

I've heard this said quite often as a rebuttal to arguments for things like presumed liability, but I still don't get it. What kind of people do you think would cycle more recklessly as a result of liability changes? Having a collision with a car is self evidently not something that anyone would want to increase the risk of. If anything, cyclists are way way more aware of their vulnerability than other road users are. How would this encourage reckless cycling?

I need a house deposit, I see a porsche not going 'too fast'... I'd take the hit on the presumption I coukd get £30,000. Not my belief but there is the mindset. Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I think it would make a difference to how drivers treat cyclists in general.

I take all of your post on-board, but I am firmly of the view that anyone who is blase enough with peoples lives will not change their habits due to some technical legal position, particularly as most liability is covered by insurance which has a limited personal effect on the driver. If the thought of killing someone isn't enough to stop bad driving; if the thought of going to prison for years isn't enough to stop bad driving; why do you think that pre-determining liability will alter drivers' mindsets?

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

I coukdn't agree more with this if I tried. I can't help the suggestion of shifting liabilty to the driver is a security blanket fir some than actual practical solution.

notsoblue

Veronese68 wrote:

It just sits uneasily with me. One of the problems with some people is that they assume they are right and everybody else is wrong and they may see this as justification. This is not a problem unique to one particular group, but some of all groups. Richmond Park is full of this sort of attitude. Pedestrians on the shared path get uppity with cyclists, cyclists on the road get uppity with drivers, drivers get annoyed that cyclists are too fast, or too slow up hills. It's actually possible to get around by treating other users with a bit of respect and leaving them a bit of space. Some people choose not to do this, I've heard people boasting about deliberatley stepping in front of cyclists on the shared path. I told them they were idiots and they could get hurt. This sort of twunt would see presumed liability as justification for stepping in front of a cyclist.
I'm not a fan of the over the top compensation culture, legitimate claims are different. I worry this could lead to an increase in spurious claims.
As I say, I'm not completely closed off to the idea. It would need to be very carefully implemented.

Well thats a fair point, I agree. It couldn't be put in place overnight.

You're right in saying that everyone should be more respectful of others. People behave differently when they have a physical advantage when there's an altercation or conflict on the road, or even when they just want to get somewhere faster. It encourages anti-social behaviour towards others who don't have the advantage of speed or protection. I think the law should protect those who have the most to risk out of a collision. This would punish those who seek to use the fact that they're driving a heavier vehicle to intimidate by too close or honking the horn, or even go so far as to swerve.

Idiots will still be idiots, but at least the law would be against them. As for pedestrians purposefully walking out in front of cyclists, if we all felt safer on the roads, more people would cycle, so boasting about annoying cyclists would be less socially acceptable.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need a house deposit, I see a porsche not going 'too fast'... I'd take the hit on the presumption I coukd get £30,000. Not my belief but there is the mindset.

Can you speculate about the logistics of someone somehow abusing presumed liability to get an insurance claim out of a porsche that was "not going too fast".? I have literally no idea how that would work.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

Is there presumed liability in Jamaica?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

Genuine question - what reckless cycling a) is there, and b) would be encouraged with presumed liability?

If you hit a cyclist who jumps a red light when you were cruising through green at 29mph, the cyclist will still be at fault.

IF you can prove it. If not, the fault will be presumed to be yours. That is the wrong way around, you shouldn't need to prove your innocent, it is up to the claimant to prove your guilt, as they are the ones making the accusations.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

I've heard this said quite often as a rebuttal to arguments for things like presumed liability, but I still don't get it. What kind of people do you think would cycle more recklessly as a result of liability changes? Having a collision with a car is self evidently not something that anyone would want to increase the risk of. If anything, cyclists are way way more aware of their vulnerability than other road users are. How would this encourage reckless cycling?

Fraudsters? It would be a piece of p!ss to have an "accident" and know that the driver will need to prove their innocence, which may well be completely impossible - so you get a payout.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

It just sits uneasily with me. One of the problems with some people is that they assume they are right and everybody else is wrong and they may see this as justification. This is not a problem unique to one particular group, but some of all groups. Richmond Park is full of this sort of attitude. Pedestrians on the shared path get uppity with cyclists, cyclists on the road get uppity with drivers, drivers get annoyed that cyclists are too fast, or too slow up hills. It's actually possible to get around by treating other users with a bit of respect and leaving them a bit of space. Some people choose not to do this, I've heard people boasting about deliberatley stepping in front of cyclists on the shared path. I told them they were idiots and they could get hurt. This sort of twunt would see presumed liability as justification for stepping in front of a cyclist.
I'm not a fan of the over the top compensation culture, legitimate claims are different. I worry this could lead to an increase in spurious claims.
As I say, I'm not completely closed off to the idea. It would need to be very carefully implemented.

Well thats a fair point, I agree. It couldn't be put in place overnight.

You're right in saying that everyone should be more respectful of others. People behave differently when they have a physical advantage when there's an altercation or conflict on the road, or even when they just want to get somewhere faster. It encourages anti-social behaviour towards others who don't have the advantage of speed or protection. I think the law should protect those who have the most to risk out of a collision. This would punish those who seek to use the fact that they're driving a heavier vehicle to intimidate by too close or honking the horn, or even go so far as to swerve.

Idiots will still be idiots, but at least the law would be against them. As for pedestrians purposefully walking out in front of cyclists, if we all felt safer on the roads, more people would cycle, so boasting about annoying cyclists would be less socially acceptable.

Why do you think presumed liability would work, whereas decent morals and prison don't? What actual effect do you think it would have that isn't already encouraged by the law?

rick_chasey

I'd be interested to know how it works in Holland, since cyclists are presumed innocent. in motor versus bike accidents, and I don't think they have an insurance problem....

MonkeyMonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

DDD, I love your typos

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

Genuine question - what reckless cycling a) is there, and b) would be encouraged with presumed liability?

If you hit a cyclist who jumps a red light when you were cruising through green at 29mph, the cyclist will still be at fault.

IF you can prove it. If not, the fault will be presumed to be yours. That is the wrong way around, you shouldn't need to prove your innocent, it is up to the claimant to prove your guilt, as they are the ones making the accusations.

Er, I don't understand how this would be different than it is now. RLJ is still illegal. There would be eyewitnesses, or CCTV showing this. Presumed liability doesn't give pedestrians carte blanche to do this in traffic and doesn't protect cyclists when they run red lights. I'm not sure why you think it does, am I wrong about this?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Why do you think presumed liability would work, whereas decent morals and prison don't? What actual effect do you think it would have that isn't already encouraged by the law?

Because there are models in europe that show it works, and just relying on decent morals and prison in this country doesn't work.

veronese68

Worrying that personal injury lawyers are in the adverts on this page.

Kieran_Burns

Veronese68 wrote:

Worrying that personal injury lawyers are in the adverts on this page.

*cough* A D B L O C K *cough*

(plus it uses terms used in the text - put some random crap in and see how they change )

notsoblue

Kieran_Burns wrote:

put some random crap in and see how they change

Two seals, bobbing in the water.