Safe Speed Forums

If I may try to answer that please..

I have had many a cyclist in my time where I have had to take evasive action which could have resulted in me or another driver crashing. Thankfully it has always resulted in no contact but if my choice was between hitting the cyclist or hitting a lamp post I will do everything I can to save him from his own actions, no matter what a blithering idiot he may have been.

But quite honestly, I’m starting to wonder why the emphasis is on the two modes of transport anyway

If I got into a fight with a nut who happened to be black should I mention that as a significance to the fight? I don’t see the relevance or point of these labels here at the moment. Is this just to fan the flames of some perceived cold war between drivers and cyclists?

If the bus driver had run a small vehicle off the road being driven by an idiot I don’t think it would have had quite the same air time. If a biker blasted his horn to deliberately make a horse jump and the horse rider ends up with a broken neck, isn’t this yet another example of the stupid actions of one irresponsible person as opposed to: Bus drivers verses cyclist, loud biker verses horse rider, black man versus white man.

These ‘baddies’ are all cut from the same moronic and irresponsible cloth I would have thought. It’s nothing to do with driver, cyclist, horse or colour - or if it is I don’t see the relevance other than to sensationalise the matter. (And it works every time it seems).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Dunno, but you've answered a question with a question.



I used the phrase "what appears to be" deliberately..... you can say it is not and i am happy to accept that but that doesn't change how it appears.

In this case, all the road users had to do was recognise the imposition and simply “merge in turn”, like a great many other road users do many times, each and every day, without feeling aggrieved.


It is more a case of looking for reasons for the behaviour, as opposed to tarnishing a reputation; the particular character tarnished himself with his obviously bad behaviour, which some people have evidently been blind to.

My quote is merely that from a cyclist, raised only as a possible explanation for why that event arose (thus the relevance). The logic within it is inescapable
Yes, it applies to the one road user group – cyclists; however, that is not a poke at cyclists in general as I know the great majority of cyclists will recognise they are in a shared space and “merge in turn”, without feeling aggrieved. (Weepej seemingly might not, even with hindsight, which I find rather disturbing).


Solely "flicking" a wiper blade doesn’t count for much, but that coupled with the banging, blocking, blocking again, swerving to block – those together is a different matter altogether.
TBH, if the driver hadn’t tried to run over the cyclist, the driver could have bought a case of disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace, as well as reckless riding, against that cyclist, and I reckon the case would (rightly) have stuck. Indeed had the cyclist not been run over, this would have been a case for the regulation of cyclists. Conversely, had the cyclist not provoked and the driver had swerved anyway, absolutely everyone would call for the driver to be literally hung, drawn and quartered.

Of course, none of the provocation justifies the driver’s attack; that offence is just too serious to avoid jail, even with the mitigation.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

so which of those is actually a criminal offence ?

That's not what you were originally asking; you have introduced the new factor: "criminal".
Returning to your original question:

RTA1988 makes it quite clear that cycling in a certain manner is an offence. IMO the swerve of our cyclist clearly falls within the category of "Dangerous cycling." [28].
There is also an offence of "Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling" [29], which again I reckon the behaviour of our cyclist also falls within, possibly twice (closing the gap, hogging the lane).

That cyclist also falls foul of the The Public Order Act 1986 "Intentional harassment, alarm or distress." [4A] (the banging on the windows, the "flicking" of the wiper, the verbiage)

Then there is "Penalty for wilful obstruction." (HA 1980, 137) which could be applied several times (bike propped against front of bus, lane hogging)

That's 4 separate offences I believe the rider could have been charged with.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Thank you.

Nothing ourselves but Steve has covered it all so I wont repeat it.
I see it that we are simply trying to fully analysing the events, and trying to understand more about what might have been going on, so that we might all learn from others mistakes and if anyone does anything good, to learn about that too.

I cannot say that I personally see 'primary' as necessary on the roads, but I am interested in your take on why you may feel it can be ? (Without distracting too much from this thread of course)...
I agree with you that many parts of this incident would be wrong whatever the vehicle/s but we are only talking about the facts as they have been presented, it has never been the case that this forum is anti-anyone/group, ... facts and truth are at the heart of this Campaign and that is true too of this forum.
He appears to have been going on a green. Cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road. I hope it is not coming across that people here are somehow unnecessarily 'attacking' the cyclist' ? My original comment still stands.
For him to 'ride correctly' he ought to have been in L2 and on the left most part of that lane. As he pulled out onto the roundabout he needed (pretty much as he was) take the best line to slot into, the next set of lanes, and that is when he seems to take a middle lane approach, when he should be on the left side of that lane, and why he then seems to be in a collision path with the bus - why - who knows.... !
Personally once you start to shout at another person, it is often showing anger, usually stemmed from fear. Going into conflict with another road user is not usually 'best practice'. To 'flick' a wiper blade is open to interpretation - one might flick it and it goes back into position or it may be broken ... but if broken a clear crime as damage has been inflicted, and if only harassment then see Steve's previous points.
If it never wise or sensible to interact with another road user, as you never know where it may lead.
Far, far better to pull over and call the Police and complain /report appropriately, and to also possibly in this case, call the bus depot about any problem with their drivers behaviours, taking note of the licence plate and the bus route if you can.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I'm in an urban environment, reasonably capable of keeping up with traffic apart from a bit of to and fro between lights/junctions. There's a bus behind me, maybe feels a little too close already, there's no chance he can safely pass me without crossing into another lane. It's a multi lane section of road, I take "primary" position or somewhere far enough out to make it clear there's no chance of squeezing past. If the bus is going to insist on overtaking me with marginal speed differential before the next junction/bus stop I prefer it makes maximum use of the other lane that it's going to have to encroach on anyway.

(As a further distraction on the occasions when I've been totally knackered going through urban or with a much slower rider I feel alot less safe as I'm unable to put the effort in to keep up with traffic where it counts and using an assertive position leaves me "exposed" for alot longer than i would like)

Or slightly less urban on Sunday heading NW on this rather more main road than I would have chosen myself:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=warwick ... k&t=h&z=19
To close down the crossroads with the minor road there is a raised section and bollards in the middle for a few hundred metres. I'm following a rider who is struggling on the hills (this direction is uphill) and pretty much riding in the gutter, there's no space here for a safe pass (it may even not be physically possible) so rather than sitting in the gutter I sit further out to discourage any chancers. I feel exposed, yes, I don't like holding up the traffic but for the sake of 30seconds of their & my journey feel this is the safest option.

(Feel free to split)

So now I'm wondering if there would be enough evidence here to go to court with, and would the police actually be bothered ?
The greater offence is clearly that of the bus driver, some mitigation for the cyclists behaviour may have already taken place in sentencing.
I wonder if it would be better to sentence both parties based on their individual unmitigated actions.

Anyway I think I've made my views clear already and I don't think anyone is in serious disagreement (well maybe just the one ) so we'll move on.

Actually ed, that's a good point! Ok, the cyclist was the injured party but what does he get for his part of the provocation? I guess the injury was reparation enough..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Quote:

I wonder if it would be better to sentence both parties based on their individual unmitigated actions.

Mitigation is a central part of justice! BOTH parties should be prosecuted for thier criminal behaviour and BOTH parties should have mitigation taken into account when applying sentence.

Heres how I would do it....

The Bus driver

12 month Ban. reinstement of license subject to psyche review and retest AND lifetime ban on professional driving (IE License only for SDP)

No prison sentence. (IMO Prison should ONLY be used for people who are at imminent risk of recidivist offending or for people serving LWP sentences) In "Dustys world" He would get sentenced to 40 lashes commuted to 10 on grounds of extreme provocation # (Driving ban commencing from time declared medically fit after punishment )

The Cyclist

No fine, definitly No prison....I am content for his injuries to provide both punishment for his pratishness and deterrence against future recurrences! (Which, back in the real world, I am sure it will be!) That will be his mitigation.

However

Civil damages award against Bus driver of no more than 1p! Plus a 12 Month "ASBO" imposed prohibiting his use of a bicycle on the public highway (Effective from when he is declared medically fit from his injuries )

Anyone think that is unreasonable??

(# Note, I am something of a traditionalist! 10 Lashes with a CAT is effectivly 90 strokes! Dont think for one minute that this is a trivial punishment!)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I'm frightened to say I like your thinking Dusty, because It's unpoliticaly incorrect. So if you wouldn't mind reading in between the lines...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

ISTR that you have said this before......!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I'd have thought a better punishment for the cyclist would be prohibiting him from using anything other than a pashley on the public highway

Ahh, The LADA punishment.....

(Or maybe one of those Boris Bikes that I understand weigh as much as a moped!)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Make him drive a Mustang.

Old fashioned justice ( was it Solomon) would suggest he is forced to use public transport,like buses .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Nah, Solomon would have made him spend a year driving one!

(And the Bus driver ride a bike...)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

:
:clap

Like it . Nice one .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on