dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 18:34, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have
needed to brake so hard, and therefore the poor person may still be
alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

Let me get this straight. A vulnerable road user is blamed for the
death of a vulnerable victim so that the killer driver is absolved
from blame twice over? I wonder if this could also happen with a trio,
or more, of vulnerable road users/victims and one killer driver?
Difficult to envisage but maybe someone can come up with a likely
scenario.

There are many people to blame he from the road engineer to the bus
designer, through the old lady, via the bus driver. BUT if the cyclist had
not done some rather silly the effect would be that the old ladies would
still be ok. So the root cause of the incident is still the cyclist, no
matter how much you wriggle and whine.

On 29 May, 22:57, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...
On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:



On May 29, 10:17 pm, Squashme wrote:

On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:

On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner" wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to
brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.

Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice

That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result in
fatalities?

Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this discussion
"dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?

the bus driver had to brake so sharply because some cyclist pulled out in
front of him/her. *

The bus driver had to brake so sharply because he was travelling too
fast for the conditions. The cyclist pulled out because he misread the
busdriver's speed. The primary cause was the unexpected speed of the
busdriver.

*I would have run the cyclist down rather than braked so hard.

So, conscious of driving dangerously, you would compound the offence?

Or is it just your usual fantasy?

Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 22:57, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...
On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:



On May 29, 10:17 pm, Squashme wrote:

On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:

On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner"
wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed
to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame
and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at
the time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would
have been a more appropriate speed, considering you have a
complete understanding of the area and circumstances.

Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice

That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result
in fatalities?

Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this
discussion "dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?

the bus driver had to brake so sharply because some cyclist pulled
out in front of him/her.

The bus driver had to brake so sharply because he was travelling too
fast for the conditions. The cyclist pulled out because he misread the
busdriver's speed. The primary cause was the unexpected speed of the
busdriver.

I would have run the cyclist down rather than braked so hard.

So, conscious of driving dangerously, you would compound the offence?

Or is it just your usual fantasy?

this incident may well have occurred at just walking speed (for the bus) but
would NOT have occurred except for the cyclists mistake/deliberate action.
So what speed would be appropriate for the bus?

On 30 May, 09:53, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 22:57, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...
On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:

On May 29, 10:17 pm, Squashme wrote:

On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:

On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner"
wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed
to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame
and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at
the time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would
have been a more appropriate speed, considering you have a
complete understanding of the area and circumstances.

Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice

That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result
in fatalities?

Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this
discussion "dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?

the bus driver had to brake so sharply because some cyclist pulled
out in front of him/her.

The bus driver had to brake so sharply because he was travelling too
fast for the conditions. The cyclist pulled out because he misread the
busdriver's speed. The primary cause was the unexpected speed of the
busdriver.

I would have run the cyclist down rather than braked so hard.

So, conscious of driving dangerously, you would compound the offence?

Or is it just your usual fantasy?

this incident may well have occurred at just walking speed (for the bus) but
would NOT have occurred except for the cyclists mistake/deliberate action.
So what speed would be appropriate for the bus?

Slower, obviously. But you don't, as yet, know the speed, do you?

If it was walking speed, then what would be the problem with a cyclist
pulling out? Why the urgent reaction of the busdriver?

I tend to hang on for dear life in our buses. They both accelerate and
brake suddenly. And the seats are slippy sometimes.

On 30 May, 09:00, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 23:24, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message

.. .

Mrcheerful wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message
...
On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 10:17 pm, Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm
With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to
brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.
I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view
may be unpopular.
Lower speed limits save lives.
And many bus drivers DLCs
As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.
Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice
That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result in
fatalities?
Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this discussion
"dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?
the bus driver had to brake so sharply because some cyclist pulled out in
front of him/her. *The deceleration was so rapid that one passenger
suffered a broken arm and one died from hitting her head. *It could be
said that the design of the bus seating arrangements is unsafe since
passengers can be unseated simply by the brakes of the vehicle, however,
hard braking would not have been needed if the cyclist had not made a
serious error.
*I would have run the cyclist down rather than braked so hard.
We also do not know if the passengers were seated, or perhaps one collided
with another.
even if they were standing, the cause remains with the cyclist.

So if a driver has to brake suddenly for any reason whatsoever, which
kills his passenger, then the cause of his sudden stop is to blame,
not the driver?

Yes Doug, that is how blame works.
If the bus driver just stopped suddenly just for the hell of it, it
would probably be his fault.
But as the cyclist (from what we know) caused the bus driver to stop
suddenly, then it is the cyclists fault.

Have you forgotten the Highway Code already or perhaps have never read
it?

"126
Stopping Distances

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear. You should

* leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that
you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe
rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see
Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
* allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in
front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where
visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads
and increased still further on icy roads
* remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance
to stop..."

Lets try the train analogy, if the train hits a vehicle on a level
crossing (which is closed in favour of the train) & a rail passenger
dies, is it the train drivers fault?

False analogy Railways are not public highways and trains have very
long stopping distances.


I have read many justifications for killer drivers, particularly on
this newsgroup, but this one has to cap them all.

You may have read things, but you have failed to understand them.

What is it about killer drivers you imagine I don't understand?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 30 May, 09:27, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 18:34, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have
needed to brake so hard, and therefore the poor person may still be
alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

Let me get this straight. A vulnerable road user is blamed for the
death of a vulnerable victim so that the killer driver is absolved
from blame twice over? I wonder if this could also happen with a trio,
or more, of vulnerable road users/victims and one killer driver?
Difficult to envisage but maybe someone can come up with a likely
scenario.

There are many people to blame he from the road engineer to the bus
designer, through the old lady, via the bus driver. * BUT if the cyclist had
not done some rather silly the effect would be that the old ladies would
still be ok. *So the root cause of the incident is still the cyclist, no
matter how much you wriggle and whine.

Go read the Highway Code before posting more of your nonsense.

"126
Stopping Distances

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

I suppose the next excuse used by the motorists here is that the bus
driver didn't see the cyclist and so cannot be to blame. In that case
maybe they should be using blind bus drivers just to be on the safe
side regarding blame.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 18:34, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have
needed to brake so hard, and therefore the poor person may still be
alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

Let me get this straight. A vulnerable road user is blamed for the
death of a vulnerable victim so that the killer driver is absolved
from blame twice over? I wonder if this could also happen with a
trio, or more, of vulnerable road users/victims and one killer
driver? Difficult to envisage but maybe someone can come up with a
likely scenario.

There are many people to blame he from the road engineer to the
bus designer, through the old lady, via the bus driver. BUT if the
cyclist had not done some rather silly the effect would be that the
old ladies would still be ok. So the root cause of the incident is
still the cyclist, no matter how much you wriggle and whine.

Go read the Highway Code before posting more of your nonsense.

"126
Stopping Distances

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

I suppose the next excuse used by the motorists here is that the bus
driver didn't see the cyclist and so cannot be to blame. In that case
maybe they should be using blind bus drivers just to be on the safe
side regarding blame.

There will always be scenarios where some prat comes out from behind
something or wanders across in front causing the driver or rider to take
avoiding action. I am sure it has happened to every driver at some time,
including Doug. There is no speed low enough to allow for every
possibility. The accident under discussion may well have occurred at
walking pace, but would not have happened but for the stupid action of the
cyclist who I believe has still not come forward despite appeals.

Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 09:00, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 23:24, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...
Mrcheerful wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message
...
On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 10:17 pm, Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm
With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to
brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.
I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view
may be unpopular.
Lower speed limits save lives.
And many bus drivers DLCs
As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.
Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice
That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result in
fatalities?
Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this discussion
"dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?
the bus driver had to brake so sharply because some cyclist pulled out in
front of him/her. The deceleration was so rapid that one passenger
suffered a broken arm and one died from hitting her head. It could be
said that the design of the bus seating arrangements is unsafe since
passengers can be unseated simply by the brakes of the vehicle, however,
hard braking would not have been needed if the cyclist had not made a
serious error.
I would have run the cyclist down rather than braked so hard.
We also do not know if the passengers were seated, or perhaps one collided
with another.
even if they were standing, the cause remains with the cyclist.
So if a driver has to brake suddenly for any reason whatsoever, which
kills his passenger, then the cause of his sudden stop is to blame,
not the driver?
Yes Doug, that is how blame works.
If the bus driver just stopped suddenly just for the hell of it, it
would probably be his fault.
But as the cyclist (from what we know) caused the bus driver to stop
suddenly, then it is the cyclists fault.

Have you forgotten the Highway Code already or perhaps have never read
it?

"126
Stopping Distances

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear. You should

Correct, but if something drives/runs/cycles in front of you you are
still adhering to this rule.


* leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that
you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

There would appear not to be a vehicle in front, it would seem that the
cyclist was careless.

The safe
rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see
Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
* allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in
front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where
visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads
and increased still further on icy roads
* remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance
to stop..."

Lets try the train analogy, if the train hits a vehicle on a level
crossing (which is closed in favour of the train) & a rail passenger
dies, is it the train drivers fault?

False analogy Railways are not public highways and trains have very
long stopping distances.

Not false at all, I just changed the vehicles.


I have read many justifications for killer drivers, particularly on
this newsgroup, but this one has to cap them all.
You may have read things, but you have failed to understand them.

What is it about killer drivers you imagine I don't understand?

Obviously quite a lot.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


By the way the rule you quoted must have applied in the accident you had
a while ago, why did you not adhere to it?

--
Tony Dragon

Mrcheerful wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 22:57, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...
On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:



On May 29, 10:17 pm, Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner"
wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm
With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed
to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.
I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame
and this view
may be unpopular.
Lower speed limits save lives.
And many bus drivers DLCs
As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at
the time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would
have been a more appropriate speed, considering you have a
complete understanding of the area and circumstances.
Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice
That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result
in fatalities?
Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this
discussion "dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?

the bus driver had to brake so sharply because some cyclist pulled
out in front of him/her.
The bus driver had to brake so sharply because he was travelling too
fast for the conditions. The cyclist pulled out because he misread the
busdriver's speed. The primary cause was the unexpected speed of the
busdriver.

I would have run the cyclist down rather than braked so hard.
So, conscious of driving dangerously, you would compound the offence?

Or is it just your usual fantasy?

this incident may well have occurred at just walking speed (for the bus) but
would NOT have occurred except for the cyclists mistake/deliberate action.
So what speed would be appropriate for the bus?



Give up, he is using the usual cyclists mantra 'the cyclist can never be
at fault'

--
Tony Dragon

On May 30, 7:32*am, Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 18:34, "mileburner" wrote:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

Let me get this straight. A vulnerable road user is blamed for the
death of a vulnerable victim so that the killer driver is absolved
from blame twice over? I wonder if this could also happen with a trio,
or more, of vulnerable road users/victims and one killer driver?
Difficult to envisage but maybe someone can come up with a likely
scenario.


Now let me get this right Doug.

A few weeks ago, a bus swerved to avoid a car that pulled in front of
it in Oxford Street and hit a bus stop, killing a cyclist. That was
the car driver's fault according to you.

This time a cyclist pulls out in front of a bus, causing it to brake
suddenly and killing a passenger on board, and according to you it's
the bus driver's fault!

Slight case of double standards I think!