dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:39:24 +0100, Mr. Benn wrote:

I don't understand the term POB either and it would be useful if you
could explain.

It's elitist crap.

--
Alex

On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.

Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.

have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.


I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.

If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.

Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'

Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.

"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" wrote in message
...
Paul - xxx wrote:
Actually you're right, you asked "if the bus was ..." My bad, sorry,
a genuine typo .. but the statement implies you think it was
travelling too fast.

Thank you, apology accepted. The bus probably *was* travelling too fast.
They usually do. I am not saying in this case it *was*, it just would not
come as any great shock if it was IYSWIM.

Some of the bus drivers around here drive like lunatics not that I have
been on a bus in my area. I was in Plymouth last year using a bus and was
amazed at how quickly the driver thought he could drive down a relatively
narrow street with cars parked both sides. I would never drive that fast,
it would be so easy for something to go wrong if someone emerged into the
road between parked cars.

They drive in the basis that anything with any sense will get out of their
way. They are right, anything with any sense will get out of their way, but
that leaves those without any sense likely to get squished.

"Alex Potter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:39:24 +0100, Mr. Benn wrote:

I don't understand the term POB either and it would be useful if you
could explain.

It's elitist crap.

Pretty much so.

I despise it, personally.

Marie wrote:
On May 30, 4:57 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.

Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own
vehicle are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was
going too fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.

have you seen the picture of the incident? the cycle is at 90
degrees to the bus and just a few feet in front.


I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.

If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.

Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'

Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.

That is why this is so much fun, they cannot admit any cycle rider to be at
fault, then they drop to abuse.

On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:
On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:



Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.

Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.

have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.

I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.

If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.

Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'

Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.

Firstly it was no euphemistic accident and secondly cyclists are much
less dangerous than drivers. Indeed, cyclists are vulnerable road
users who are much more likely to be killed than kill.

Considerable latitude is given to drivers who place others at serious
risk with their dangerous machines but reading this newsgroup would
make lurkers think that cyclists are the most dangerous of all road
users, despite their vulnerability.

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

On May 30, 7:57*pm, Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:

On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.

Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.

have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.

I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.

If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.

Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'

Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.

Firstly it was no euphemistic accident

If it was not an accident then it was delibrate, so who was it who
delibratly killed the passanger, was the bus driver a murderer, the
cyclist?

and secondly cyclists are much
less dangerous than drivers.

But not in this case it would seem.

Indeed, cyclists are vulnerable road
users who are much more likely to be killed than kill.

See above


Considerable latitude is given to drivers who place others at serious
risk with their dangerous machines but reading this newsgroup would
make lurkers think that cyclists are the most dangerous of all road
users, despite their vulnerability.

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

Well there is a shock, this was all caused by a driver, the cyclist
had nothing to do with it.

On 30 May, 18:36, "Mr. Benn" wrote:
"mileburner" wrote in message

...

Paul - xxx wrote:
Actually you're right, you asked "if the bus was ..." *My bad, sorry,
a genuine typo *.. but the statement implies you think it was
travelling too fast.

Thank you, apology accepted. The bus probably *was* travelling too fast..
They usually do. I am not saying in this case it *was*, it just would not
come as any great shock if it was IYSWIM.

Some of the bus drivers around here drive like lunatics not that I have been
on a bus in my area. *I was in Plymouth last year using a bus and was amazed
at how quickly the driver thought he could drive down a relatively narrow
street with cars parked both sides. *I would never drive that fast, it would
be so easy for something to go wrong if someone emerged into the road
between parked cars.

Yes, but it would be the pedestrian's fault, so you'd not be blamed.

On 30 May, 20:24, Marie wrote:
On May 30, 7:57*pm, Doug wrote:



On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:

On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.

Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.

have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.

I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.

If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.

Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'

Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.

Firstly it was no euphemistic accident

If it was not an accident then it was delibrate, so who was it who
delibratly killed the passanger, was the bus driver a murderer, the
cyclist?

No a crash or collision does not have to be deliberate, despite not
being euphemistic accidents which automatically negate blame. You will
catch on eventually.

and secondly cyclists are much
less dangerous than drivers.

But not in this case it would seem.

Wrong. The cyclist didn't crash and the bus driver was obviously
driving too fast to brake gently.

Indeed, cyclists are vulnerable road
users who are much more likely to be killed than kill.

See above

See what?


Considerable latitude is given to drivers who place others at serious
risk with their dangerous machines but reading this newsgroup would
make lurkers think that cyclists are the most dangerous of all road
users, despite their vulnerability.

Well there is a shock, this was all caused by a driver, the cyclist
had nothing to do with it.

Bus drivers should show some regard for the safety of their passengers
by driving carefully. Suppose it was a pedestrian instead of a cyclist
or a car that caused him to brake suddenly?

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

Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 20:24, Marie wrote:
On May 30, 7:57 pm, Doug wrote:



On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:
On May 30, 4:57 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
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.
What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.
Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.
have you seen the picture of the incident? the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.
I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.
If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.
Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'
Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.
Firstly it was no euphemistic accident
If it was not an accident then it was delibrate, so who was it who
delibratly killed the passanger, was the bus driver a murderer, the
cyclist?

No a crash or collision does not have to be deliberate,

Therefore it is accidental, so no one is a murderer then?

despite not
being euphemistic accidents which automatically negate blame.

So anybody who has an accident is not to blame?

You will
catch on eventually.

Doubt it.

and secondly cyclists are much
less dangerous than drivers.
But not in this case it would seem.

Wrong. The cyclist didn't crash

Nor did the bus.

and the bus driver was obviously
driving too fast to brake gently.

If he had braked gently he may have hit the cyclist.

Indeed, cyclists are vulnerable road
users who are much more likely to be killed than kill.
See above

See what?

That the cyclist may have cause an accident when somebody was killed, if
he did he was a 'killer cyclist'


Considerable latitude is given to drivers who place others at serious
risk with their dangerous machines but reading this newsgroup would
make lurkers think that cyclists are the most dangerous of all road
users, despite their vulnerability.
Well there is a shock, this was all caused by a driver, the cyclist
had nothing to do with it.

Bus drivers should show some regard for the safety of their passengers
by driving carefully.

All road user should show regard for all other road users, it seems that
the cyclist did not do this.

Suppose it was a pedestrian instead of a cyclist
or a car that caused him to brake suddenly?

Then the pedestrian or motorist, would most likely be to blame for the
death.

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


--
Tony Dragon