Bus Driver jailed for knocking down cyclist !!
18 February 2012, 05:56 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to get into some sort of metaphysical cause and effect debate, but legally the Driver is either responsible for his actions in a court of law or has diminished responsibility on the grounds of say madness for example.
There is a 3rd possibility that the bus Driver was being compelled. Maybe the cyclist had a friend who was holding a gun to the head of the bus Drivers child, and was threatening to kill the child unless the Driver attempted to kill the cyclist with his bus? What do you reckon?
18 February 2012, 07:57 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Simple, you are sticking up for the cyclist saying he is totally innocent, I do not condone what the driver did, but if the cyclist didnt provoke him then he wouldnt be in the situation he is now.
If you now want to get off your high and mighty horse and actually see that, you may see more of a 2 sided story rather than just blaming one party and thinking the other totally innocent.
Tony
18 February 2012, 08:38 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's rather like saying that the wife deserved to get hit as she did not make dinner in time. Or I gave my son a good beating as he was late home. Or I knee capped him as he didn't pay his debts.
There are things you don't do. One of them is aiming your vehicle at vunerable road users. If a 40 ton arctic didn't bother braking because a car driver didn't let him pull out would you be defending the lorry driver?
There are things you don't do. One of them is aiming your vehicle at vunerable road users. If a 40 ton arctic didn't bother braking because a car driver didn't let him pull out would you be defending the lorry driver?
18 February 2012, 08:53 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
18 February 2012, 09:04 PM
#96
I just watched the video again and it looks like the cyclist swerves to block the bus from overtaking, all things considered I am starting to think the cyclist deserved it.
Before people get too uppity I cycle as well but I would say 99% of drivers I come across are very good so I don't share the militant 'car drivers are always wrong' mentality.
Before people get too uppity I cycle as well but I would say 99% of drivers I come across are very good so I don't share the militant 'car drivers are always wrong' mentality.
18 February 2012, 09:19 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It's rather like saying that the wife deserved to get hit as she did not make dinner in time. Or I gave my son a good beating as he was late home. Or I knee capped him as he didn't pay his debts.
There are things you don't do. One of them is aiming your vehicle at vunerable road users. If a 40 ton arctic didn't bother braking because a car driver didn't let him pull out would you be defending the lorry driver?
There are things you don't do. One of them is aiming your vehicle at vunerable road users. If a 40 ton arctic didn't bother braking because a car driver didn't let him pull out would you be defending the lorry driver?
To me, neither party is innocent even if the cyclist didnt deserve that, he ended up being an idiot and learnt a hard lesson.
Tony
18 February 2012, 09:38 PM
#98
Both parties were in the wrong, the difference being the bus driver will feel the full force of the law and the rider the felt the force of the bus. Hopefully both will have learnt from this incident.
Perhaps cyclists should be required to have a licence much like other motorised vehicles and be award points for reckless or dangerous riding, hopefully it will reduce these kinds of incidents. At the moment there is no requirement for cyclists to have any form of experience to use the roads.
18 February 2012, 09:45 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
18 February 2012, 09:47 PM
#100
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (51)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wherever I park my car, that's my home
Posts: 20,491
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Perhaps cyclists should be required to have a licence much like other motorised vehicles and be award points for reckless or dangerous riding, hopefully it will reduce these kinds of incidents. At the moment there is no requirement for cyclists to have any form of experience to use the roads.
18 February 2012, 10:03 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a saying, if you dont throw ****, you dont get covered in it when someone throws it back.
Simple, you are sticking up for the cyclist saying he is totally innocent, I do not condone what the driver did, but if the cyclist didnt provoke him then he wouldnt be in the situation he is now.
If you now want to get off your high and mighty horse and actually see that, you may see more of a 2 sided story rather than just blaming one party and thinking the other totally innocent.
Tony
Simple, you are sticking up for the cyclist saying he is totally innocent, I do not condone what the driver did, but if the cyclist didnt provoke him then he wouldnt be in the situation he is now.
If you now want to get off your high and mighty horse and actually see that, you may see more of a 2 sided story rather than just blaming one party and thinking the other totally innocent.
Tony
It is a bit like blaming the beaten wife after her husbands smacks her about because she burned his dinner. She 'provoked' him of course? Two sides to every story?
18 February 2012, 10:24 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately by that comment you've only proven that you don't understand the facts of using the road.
(I was kind of wondering how long, hence my very first post, it would take for the usual uninformed comments to come out. Insurance does not mitigate liability - whether someone is insured or not does not negate their liability when at fault; it simply helps pay for the costs. A cyclist nor a pedestrian does not need a licence to use the road, as they have a right to. Motorists have to have a licence for the privilege, which can be removed remember)
and so it descends into the usual negative stereotypes.....
(I was kind of wondering how long, hence my very first post, it would take for the usual uninformed comments to come out. Insurance does not mitigate liability - whether someone is insured or not does not negate their liability when at fault; it simply helps pay for the costs. A cyclist nor a pedestrian does not need a licence to use the road, as they have a right to. Motorists have to have a licence for the privilege, which can be removed remember)
and so it descends into the usual negative stereotypes.....
18 February 2012, 10:33 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Unfortunately by that comment you've only proven that you don't understand the facts of using the road.
(I was kind of wondering how long, hence my very first post, it would take for the usual uninformed comments to come out. Insurance does not mitigate liability - whether someone is insured or not does not negate their liability when at fault; it simply helps pay for the costs. A cyclist nor a pedestrian does not need a licence to use the road, as they have a right to. Motorists have to have a licence for the privilege, which can be removed remember)
and so it descends into the usual negative stereotypes.....
(I was kind of wondering how long, hence my very first post, it would take for the usual uninformed comments to come out. Insurance does not mitigate liability - whether someone is insured or not does not negate their liability when at fault; it simply helps pay for the costs. A cyclist nor a pedestrian does not need a licence to use the road, as they have a right to. Motorists have to have a licence for the privilege, which can be removed remember)
and so it descends into the usual negative stereotypes.....
18 February 2012, 10:35 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
18 February 2012, 10:39 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick Google:
Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, provides the offence of cycling on a road or public place whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. It states:
30(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
NOTES
(i) The evidence of the extent to which a person is affected must be measured by means other than the provision of a specimen of breath, blood or urine, as there is no power to require such a specimen in these circumstances. However, if such a specimen was offered, it is probable that the evidence obtained by analysis of the specimen would be admissible.
(ii) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence.
(iii) In England and Wales a constable may only arrest without warrant in accordance with the powers of arrest set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In such an instance, that power might be exercised where a satisfactory address has not been furnished, or the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent such a person causing physical injury to himself or any other person (see also other conditions in s24 of PACE).
(iv) The absence of a specific power of arrest in England and Wales affects the ability of the police to present any form of medical evidence of the accused's condition.
(v) There is no offence of 'being in charge' of a cycle under the Road Traffic Acts, but such conduct may well be an offence of drunk in charge of a carriage under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. A bicycle or tricycle is a carriage for the purpose of that section.
30(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
NOTES
(i) The evidence of the extent to which a person is affected must be measured by means other than the provision of a specimen of breath, blood or urine, as there is no power to require such a specimen in these circumstances. However, if such a specimen was offered, it is probable that the evidence obtained by analysis of the specimen would be admissible.
(ii) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence.
(iii) In England and Wales a constable may only arrest without warrant in accordance with the powers of arrest set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In such an instance, that power might be exercised where a satisfactory address has not been furnished, or the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent such a person causing physical injury to himself or any other person (see also other conditions in s24 of PACE).
(iv) The absence of a specific power of arrest in England and Wales affects the ability of the police to present any form of medical evidence of the accused's condition.
(v) There is no offence of 'being in charge' of a cycle under the Road Traffic Acts, but such conduct may well be an offence of drunk in charge of a carriage under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. A bicycle or tricycle is a carriage for the purpose of that section.
18 February 2012, 10:39 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 February 2012, 10:47 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
That's what i know hun,from a bus driver from many moons ago.Its the reason why they always mainly leave the back end sticking out of a bus stop and don't actually pull all the way in,because if they did,they may have to reverse to get out again.
18 February 2012, 10:55 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Yes Kieran i know a licence is not needed to ride a cycle on the road,but you can actually be stopped for riding a cycle if you have been suspected of drinking booze,or taking drugs.
18 February 2012, 11:35 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
18 February 2012, 11:47 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the point is pedestrians are road users to, just like cyclists, you don't need wheels to have a right to be on a road unless it has restrictions like motorways and dual carriageways.
19 February 2012, 12:04 AM
#116
Scooby Regular
Just the other morning at 6am i was driving came to a roundabout slowed to check my right,here we go a cyclist came charging from the right,now i could of sped in front of this guy and turned left,but no i let him past he put up his hand to say hey thanks,i knew i would have to overtake him moments later as he was heading along the same road as me,fair enough.moments later i overtake the guy,but he was a ok cyclist,not a hey i got a cam on my helmet i'm filming you.
19 February 2012, 01:33 AM
#118
Unfortunately by that comment you've only proven that you don't understand the facts of using the road.
(I was kind of wondering how long, hence my very first post, it would take for the usual uninformed comments to come out. Insurance does not mitigate liability - whether someone is insured or not does not negate their liability when at fault; it simply helps pay for the costs. A cyclist nor a pedestrian does not need a licence to use the road, as they have a right to. Motorists have to have a licence for the privilege, which can be removed remember)
and so it descends into the usual negative stereotypes.....
(I was kind of wondering how long, hence my very first post, it would take for the usual uninformed comments to come out. Insurance does not mitigate liability - whether someone is insured or not does not negate their liability when at fault; it simply helps pay for the costs. A cyclist nor a pedestrian does not need a licence to use the road, as they have a right to. Motorists have to have a licence for the privilege, which can be removed remember)
and so it descends into the usual negative stereotypes.....
I'm not against cyclists, but I would rather my children for example be subject to an age limit and formal test in order to use the road. At the moment there is nothing to stop them from riding on the roads now. They're far too young at the moment and simply won't allow it at this stage. I did my cycling proficiency test years and years ago when I was in primary school with courses laid out in a controlled environment. Sadly the take up for this training for this sort of minimum recommended standard for cycling on roads is very low.
With the advent of the Boris bikes in London absolutely anyone can regardless of skill or experience can cycle in London without full comprehension or awareness of how to ride in city traffic. As a result there have been many accidents involving these bikes alone. I can only imagine that they place a lot of faith on other road users to be aware and make allowances for their presence on the road.
If there was a licence for cyclists and a points system, whilst it may not negate the cyclists liability and responsibility, it would allow frequent and persistent offenders to be penalised and banned from riding their bikes on the road.
19 February 2012, 09:32 AM
#119
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean like getting on his bike that day?
I don't want to get into some sort of metaphysical cause and effect debate, but legally the Driver is either responsible for his actions in a court of law or has diminished responsibility on the grounds of say madness for example.
There is a 3rd possibility that the bus Driver was being compelled. Maybe the cyclist had a friend who was holding a gun to the head of the bus Drivers child, and was threatening to kill the child unless the Driver attempted to kill the cyclist with his bus? What do you reckon?
I don't want to get into some sort of metaphysical cause and effect debate, but legally the Driver is either responsible for his actions in a court of law or has diminished responsibility on the grounds of say madness for example.
There is a 3rd possibility that the bus Driver was being compelled. Maybe the cyclist had a friend who was holding a gun to the head of the bus Drivers child, and was threatening to kill the child unless the Driver attempted to kill the cyclist with his bus? What do you reckon?
What the bus driver did was inexcusable, but you never know how people react these days and thinking bad things will never happen to you is naive.
Rightly or wrongly the cyclist has learnt a very hard lesson.
19 February 2012, 10:14 AM
#120
agree
All IMHO - the cyclist was riding along like a ****, clearly he could have been closer to the pavement, staying safe, and still allowing the bus to pass (as wes ll as the stream of cars behind the bus). The cyclist appears to be behaving like a pillock but what the bus driver then does is clearly insane as he could very easily have killed the cyclist. There is no excuse on this planet for the way the bus driver behaved, the fact the cyclist was being a *** just means he was being a ***... but if we ran over every *** we came across in real life SNet NSR would be deserted 
.... it's funny to watch the pro bikers support the cyclist and pro drivers the bus driver... wherein reality both were *****, albeit the driver decided to escalate it to attempted murder.
.... it's funny to watch the pro bikers support the cyclist and pro drivers the bus driver... wherein reality both were *****, albeit the driver decided to escalate it to attempted murder.