Bristol Bus Driver

Sudden Death

Wotcha,

Did anyone else find their blood boiling whilst watching the news today (17/02/2012)?
Specifically the CCTV footage of the Bus driver who rammed a cyclist with his single decker bus?

I see several cyclists who shoot through red lights on a regular basis or hop up on the pavements and skip the lights completely, but this, in my humble opinion, looks like attempted murder and made me Sooooooo angry! :evil:
I don't believe 17 months is enough, it's road rage of the worst kind!

ricardo_smooth

see CC for story/video

delcol

video

Chalky76

absolute disgrace. He'll be out in 5 months for good behaviour

Anonymous

Should have been attempted murder. Sure you can blame it on road rage, but if someone got in a rage and stabbed their wife, that would be attempted murder (assuming they weren't killed).

cat_with_no_tail

Depends though dosent it.

The driver lost the plot and took a single swipe at the cyclist (albeit with a 15t bus) within seconds of the cyclist allegedly pulling his wiper blade. Yes he saw red, snapped and lost control. But you'd never prove there was a conscious decision to try and kill the dude, even though to a rational person sat here in cold light of day it's pretty obvious that it was a real possibility.

Now if he'd stuck it in reverse.......

Of course the driver deserved to be punished for his actions. I also hope he gets some help inside for his anger management issues.

diy

I didn't read the story first, I watched the video a few times. Initially it just looks shocking, then I looked again and saw the cyclist swerving to block the bus driver. It looks like the bus driver was provoked. I think his sentence reflects the fuller story which we would not have heard in detail.

Dangerous Driving and GBH seems right. I don't see this as attempted murder the cps would have considered the "red mist defence". Shocking behavior though. He could have killed him in which case it would have been manslaughter.

Briggo

Sudden Death wrote:

Wotcha,

Did anyone else find their blood boiling whilst watching the news today (17/02/2012)?

No not really.

diy wrote:

Initially it just looks shocking, then I looked again and saw the cyclist swerving to block the bus driver. It looks like the bus driver was provoked.

Correct, you read into it a bit more and you can see the cyclist didn't drop the issue, he continued to provoke the driver, there are no innocent parties here its just the bus driver had a bigger and heavier tool to get his point across. You can clearly see the cyclist moving across unneccesarily as the bus driver tries to overtake him, if he was wanting to get into the right hand lane why didn't he indicate/look over his shoulder to see if its clear which leads you to believe its a clear blocking manouver and not an attempt to turn right, unless he's a retarded cyclist like all the others.

concorde

To be honest if some dick head is stupid enough to wind somebody up in a BIG bus when they're only on a bike then they need to learn a lesson. I'm sure he's learnt it. Dick head!

cat_with_no_tail

Concorde wrote:

To be honest if some dick head is stupid enough to wind somebody up in a BIG bus when they're only on a bike then they need to learn a lesson. I'm sure he's learnt it. Dick head!

You're an idiot!

rockmonkeysc

At least the bus driver used his indicators when he pulled out to get alongside the cyclist.
That's more than most bus drivers manage.
Think I will stick to downhill, road riding looks far too dangerous.

stubs

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Think I will stick to downhill, road riding looks far too dangerous.

Hitting an unexploded bomb with a hammer is safer than riding in a British town centre.

concorde

Not only is road riding dangerous it's extremely boring and pointless! Should be banned!

angry_bird

Concorde wrote:

Not only is road riding dangerous it's extremely boring and pointless! Should be banned!

It's also incredibly gay. Plus they shave their legs.





At this point I'll point out it's ok for MTBers to ride road bikes occasionally as long as they don't shave their legs, they have to do rad tricks on them and show off their sick skillz, and stop halfway through a ride for a beer or 4.

tom_howard

I thought the rider was changing lanes to turn right at the junction?

The Rookie

No, he was clearly trying to wind up the bus driver, you wouldn't taunt a guy holding an AK47, so why someone driving a bus?

The driver was wrong and was punished, the sentance clearly reflects the fact that the cyclist's actions were contributory.

Simon

diy

Contributory to the bus drivers state of mind.

The problem here is the way the human brain works - most road rage situations are due to the primitive part of the brain called the Amygdala. This is the part that makes split second flee, freeze, fight decisions. When you have a near miss, your amygdala which cannot distinguish the severity of the threat, floods the brain with adrenalin and triggers the illogical and irrational behavior seen here. I've been knocked off my motorbike several times by drivers who pull out of driveways or swing in to your path without looking. The immediate desire is to slam their head in their door to knock some sense in to them. You have to realise that you are being driven by your illogical primitive brain and take a moment to get a sense of reality. This goes someway to explain the stupid behavior.

Our legal system recognises such moments of madness - hence this is not attempted murder. Which requires evidence of a calculated and planned attempt.

bluechair84

Jesus Crisps... I was expecting a love tap on the back wheel. He actually sends the cyclist flying :shock:
I think his sentence of 17 months is adequate, more might have been more satisfying, but what I want to know is why wasn't the cyclist given a sentence / fine for not obeying rules of the road? Why is he exonerated from his own mistakes by being the victim of something larger?
Cyclists like this give us a bad name and I'm sure anyone behind the wheel would have been equally infuriated (but likely not to the consequences).

Anonymous

All the more reason for sticking to off road. Only arguments then are with the bobble hats, and generally not going to result in injury. Except where some of them put wire up across trails!

diy

bluechair84 wrote:

but what I want to know is why wasn't the cyclist given a sentence / fine for not obeying rules of the road? Why is he exonerated from his own mistakes by being the victim of something larger?

Two reasons:

Criminal - dangerous cycling carries a fine only, I think (not sure) but part of the test is a danger to others.
Civil - he owes a duty of care to himself and pedestrians, He does not owe a duty of care to the bus driver.

Its highly likely that a claim for his personal injury would take account of his lack of care for his own safety. However, that has to be balanced with the deliberate nature of the attack.

deadkenny wrote:

All the more reason for sticking to off road. Only arguments then are with the bobble hats, and generally not going to result in injury. Except where some of them put wire up across trails!

if you ever saw someone doing that then you'd have ground for arrest due to the seriousness of the crime (indictable offence).

bompington

bluechair84 wrote:

but what I want to know is why wasn't the cyclist given a sentence / fine for not obeying rules of the road? Why is he exonerated from his own mistakes by being the victim of something larger?

Quick multiple choice quiz:
1. Which of these is against the law?

A Touching a bus's windscreen wipers B Banging on a bus's door C swerving

within a lane that you are driving / cycling in
D Using a 15 ton bus to try and wipe out a cyclist

Answers please...

sandy771

Not justifying the actions of the cyclist but the bus driver AIUI *could* have been charged with murder. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought has been further defined over the years to include intent to commit GBH.

provocation is a defence but to be relied upon there must be evidence of it, it must have caused the defendant to lose control and a reasonable man would have done as the defendant did.

Their seemed to be intent to commit GBH - i cant see how driving a bus into someone could be seen otherwise
the was evidence of provocation and the bus driver may have lost control (he may have just been a nasty bastard acting calmly - we dont know) but I fail to see how the defence could argue that a reasonable man might act in the same way.

Irrespective of the cyclists obvious provocation (and we dont know how/if the driver provoked him earlier) using a bus as a weapon is clearly not an appropriate response and I feel he was very very lucky to get away with 17 months

cooldad

I believe you should never touch a bus driver's ears.

bluechair84

bompington wrote:

bluechair84 wrote:

but what I want to know is why wasn't the cyclist given a sentence / fine for not obeying rules of the road? Why is he exonerated from his own mistakes by being the victim of something larger?

Quick multiple choice quiz:
1. Which of these is against the law?

A Touching a bus's windscreen wipers B Banging on a bus's door C swerving

within a lane that you are driving / cycling in
D Using a 15 ton bus to try and wipe out a cyclist

Answers please...

As a few people had analysed earlier, there was an argument and he appeared to be riding in such a way as to provoke the bus driver. He wasn't signalling to turn right, and if he was going straight on he was in the wrong position of the road. It looks suspiciously to me like he was being a jizzstain. The cyclist doesn't own the lane, which is why they start to include cycling lanes; to seperate them from vehicles. I don't commute but I would always leave room for a vehicle to overtake. In which case, I suppot DIYs comment of Criminal suits where by he should be fined. This may very well be nothing in comparison to a fine the bus driver should pay, but it still points out a ratio of blame. The cyclist was a nob (if proveable) to an extent and he should be treated as such.
This all points to psychometric tests being part of the driving license to inhibit potential road rage offenders from committing... [/the rant may continue...]

toasty

bluechair84 wrote:

I don't commute but I would always leave room for a vehicle to overtake.

Well then I'd guess you'll never turn right. It's perfectly legal cycling down the middle of the road, it's useful to break up the traffic if you want to turn or just generally have the fear of getting squished at the side...

Buses very often overtake bikes, then swerve left, into bus stops in front of them. I've had this happen dozens of times. If you block a bus from overtaking you, he just has to accept it, trying to murder you isn't an option.

bompington

bluechair84 wrote:

The cyclist doesn't own the lane, which is why they start to include cycling lanes; to seperate them from vehicles.

Oh dear oh dear.
You want to be very careful you don't stray into Commuting, where they would eat you alive for talking such nonsense.
In law, a bicycle owns the lane to exactly the same extent as a motor vehicle - a vehicle has no right to overtake you in the same lane. Full stop.
It is certainly pragmatic to allow vehicles to pass you without getting in their way, and it does indeed look a bit like he was being deliberately provocative: but it is not against the law to cycle slowly in front of a bus, or even to swerve around the lane in front of a bus.

As mentioned by Toasty above, in city traffic it is often essential to ride in the middle of a lane: for example, when approaching a red traffic light (as in this instance - look at the video closely) so that you can get into the ASL without getting squashed by a bus, for instance.

As for the whole segregation thing, I think you maybe need to spend a bit less time with Top Gear and the Daily Mail ;-)

bluechair84

Believe me, no Daily Mail in my household, only CC which is arguable worse :shock: . I will concede that there are occasions when you want to take up the lane, and we can't see what is beyond the junction that the cyclist may have been preparing for. As I remember, both the left and middle lane were for staight on, common sense tells me to be in the left lane, not the middle of the damn road. From what I saw, he should have been showing greater consideration and awareness (all overshadowed by the driver of course) - indication and positing could have avoided the response of the driver. My point is; I don't think he was blameless. It's an interesting point that bikes have the same right over the road that vehicles do, I doubt very much that drivers feel that way as shown by this bloke.

Briggo

bompington wrote:

C swerving within a lane that you are driving / cycling in

I think you'll find thats rather frowned upon by the police, so much so I'm sure you could get a good telling off. Just because the cyclist is within a lane of the road doesn't give him the right to swerve all over the place within it.

supersonic

Both parties are idiots - the bus driver more of an idiot than the cyclist in this case. The cyclist did in no way deserve to be mown down.

I don't provoke drivers I think are in the wrong. There is always the chance they will see red and do something stupid, as in this case. The same way if a person has a gun, I wouldn't goad him thinking "oooh, that will be murder if he shoo..." splat.

diy

bompington wrote:

In law, a bicycle owns the lane to exactly the same extent as a motor vehicle - a vehicle has no right to overtake you in the same lane. Full stop.

There is no law preventing any vehicle overtaking any other vehicle within the same lane. In fact it is one of the few criteria where it is legal to overtake where there are solid white lines prohibiting overtaking.

You are correct to say "In law, a bicycle owns the lane to exactly the same extent as a motor vehicle. Because both have no ownership whatsoever. The only time it is otherwise is where there is a specialty lane. e.g. mandatory cycle and bus lanes, where other vehicles are prohibited.

To answer your other question a,b,c & d could all be depending on the circumstances.

sandy771 wrote:

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought has been further defined over the years to include intent to commit GBH.

No argument there, but there is a subtle difference between murder and attempted murder beyond the obvious (i.e. someone dies). For attempted murder (which was the cry here) there needs to be intention to kill only (not intent to commit gbh or murder)

supersonic

How do/are the 'rules' of the Highway code taken into account in law?