Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bristol bus driver 'used vehicle as a weapon' to ram cyclist off road.

1246

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    corktina wrote: »
    think you are trolling.

    Really? I suspected the same of you some posts back.

    Nothing the cyclist did made him deserve the assault. The only thing that he could have done to "deserve it" would have been to assault the bus driver or his passengers and for the bus driver to act in self-defense. Even if he had broken the windscreen wipers, the bus driver still had a legal recourse and the only punishment the cyclist would have deserved in that instance would have been meted out by the legal system, even if it meant he escaped unpunished. We have no right to take the law into our own hands, ever!

    This is the sort of thing that happens when people think that they can seek revenge or mete out street justice.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    corktina wrote: »
    think you are trolling.
    I did say that I hadn't much sympathy for his broken legs, but that was because he didn't have to put himself in the position of being in front of a bus driven by an irate madman. The guy with the taxi was much more sensible. He had several opportunities to escalte the incident but chose to stay calm and out of the guys way.

    You're accusing others of trolling when you for some reason can't answer a question asked more than a few times now. The question is again:

    If a cyclist gets annoyed with a motorist and then pulls the motorist out of their car or bus or whatever and beats the living daylights out of them, would your view still be "it takes two to tango", OR would the driver be "partly to blame", OR would the driver have been "involved in provoking" the cyclist?

    Why can't you answer that question?

    Vic_08 wrote: »
    What utter stupid rubbish. If you go around acting agressively and violently to others then you are instigating a confrontation, if that confrontation ends up in you being badly assaulted then you are far from blameless.

    Up until the point where he was knocked off the bicycle it was the cyclist who was in the wrong, he had clearly been abusive and antagonistic for a protracted period of time which is in itself illegal. He was purposely blocking the bus as part of a road rage incident in order to antagonise the bus driver, he succeded in antagonising him but got a reaction he was obviously not expecting.

    Was the bus driver wrong; yes. Was it right that he got a custodial sentence for it; yes.
    Was the cyclist's actions a contributory factor; yes. Was it right that he got away without having to answer for his irresponsible and criminal behaviour leading up to the assault; No.

    Have you read anything on this thread bar maybe the last few posts?

    What criminal behaviour? Pulling at window wipers and shouting at somebody who had just nearly knocked him down? Not great behaviour, but tiny offences which are irrelevant to the overreaction of the bus driver.

    As I said: The likes of pulling wipers and "getting in the way" is irrelevant to the overreaction of using a bus as a weapon and massing swinging it in the direction of a person. Just as, in other cases, beeping at a cyclist is irrelevant to the cyclist's overreaction of damaging a bus and assaulting a driver. Just as punching somebody once is irrelevant to the overreaction of stabbing or shooting them... etc etc etc

    Your thinly veiled defence of the bus driver isn't fooling anybody.

    Vic_08 wrote: »
    The cyclist did not make mistakes or errors, his actions were deliberate and calculated. He was not only in the wrong but incredibly stupid. If you go around provoking people you will eventually get someone who will bite back in a big way. In this case he provoked someone who was able to kill him with a flick of his wrist and he was relying on the bus driver not reacting to his provocation.

    The fact that he ended up getting assaulted does not absolve him of his actions which were clearly wrong up to that point.

    Your turn:

    If a cyclist gets annoyed with a motorist and then pulls the motorist out of their car or bus or whatever and beats the living daylights out of them, would your view still be "if go around provoking people you will eventually get someone who will bite back in a big way"?

    Also: Cycling in the middle of the lane is back by the UK Department of Transport's cycling training. He was doing nothing wrong, and I would love to see you cycling with a bus aggressively up your ass and still talk about "deliberate and calculated". :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    monument wrote: »
    You're accusing others of trolling when you for some reason can't answer a question asked more than a few times now. The question is again:

    If a cyclist gets annoyed with a motorist and then pulls the motorist out of their car or bus or whatever and beats the living daylights out of them, would your view still be "it takes two to tango", OR would the driver be "partly to blame", OR would the driver have been "involved in provoking" the cyclist?

    Why can't you answer that question?



    why would I answer a irrelevant question like that?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    corktina wrote: »
    why would I answer a irrelevant question like that?

    Why won't you? What harm would come of answering it?

    It's very relevant given the moral judgements you are making. If you have a problem understanding it, I'd be only delighted to rephrase it again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭damoz


    The scary thing in this thread is i have the share the road with some of you. As a car diver and a cyclist, all i want to do when i am out cycling is get home alive to my wife and kids. And all i do when i encounter a cyclist when im driving is give them the space required to ensure they do too.

    Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    monument wrote: »
    Why won't you? What harm would come of answering it?

    It's very relevant given the moral judgements you are making. If you have a problem understanding it, I'd be only delighted to rephrase it again.

    no thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Originally Posted by corktina
    Bite me

    Hey, lets keep this clean. There's plenty of other forums where you can explore your fetishes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    no need to misquote me:D


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Grow up and answer the question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    ve have vays of making you talk!

    thread now gone beyond all sense.time to call it a day


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    corktina wrote: »
    ve have vays of making you talk!

    thread now gone beyond all sense.time to call it a day

    You not being able to answer a simple question does actually sound gone beyond all sense.

    Your inability to answer the simple question clearly shows you want one rule for cyclists and another for everybody else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,825 ✭✭✭Patser


    I can't believe this thread is still going and with so much division. I'm a bus driver and it's quite simple, the bus driver was wrong. Beyond being wrong, he was way, way, way out of line. This was a case of road rage, pure and simple and is indefensible. Regardless of any perceived incitements or whatever, you do not try and kill some-one. And this makes no difference if you're a bus driver, cyclist, motorist, pedestrian whatever, you just don't do it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,035 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    What he said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    Yes, indirectly you are.
    No. I am directly saying the bus driver was in the wrong. I never disputed that.

    What's up for debate is whether the cyclist was acting the bolix or not.
    monument wrote: »
    What did the gardai say and do?
    Advised him to ignore her, but warned him that she could make trouble. Told him to call them if she did.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    I guess many drivers would conclude from this video that the cyclist is 'acting the maggot'.

    So have a look at the detailed analysis;

    http://youtu.be/v1y41At_m9o
    Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,035 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I guess many drivers would conclude from this video that the cyclist is 'acting the maggot'.

    So have a look at the detailed analysis;

    http://youtu.be/v1y41At_m9o
    Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.
    If u were driving ypu would probavly lean on the horn to wake offending driver up. Cyclists clearly don't have that option and when you are on a bike the imminent threat to life and limb is personified far beyond anything you will experience in a car. In such instances a slap on the bodywork can wake someone up who genuinely hasnt seen you. Its not ideal but if it prevents further movement into your safe space as a cyclist so be it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    coolbeans wrote: »
    In such instances a slap on the bodywork can wake someone up who genuinely hasnt seen you.
    Of course it would, but I wouldn't be expecting it to put the owner of the vehicle in a good mood, as thumping the car would be viewed as an aggressive reaction.

    In this case the taxi approached from behind so was already aware of the cyclist, so I doubt he would have been run over in any case. Indeed things would have probably worked out better for him as he wouldn't have an eejit taxi driver shouting in his face.

    His follow up video has an element of cyclist persecution complex to it though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    n97 mini wrote: »

    His follow up video has an element of cyclist persecution complex to it though.
    I wonder what might cause that particular complex to develop?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.

    If you were driving and found yourself in that situation would you blow the horn at the taxi driver? The Rules of the Road suggest you do so to make others aware of your presence when necessary and this is a situation that seems to qualify. You'd expect that blowing your horn would not be taken by the other party as an aggressive action on your part, right?

    While driving my car on a roundabout a while back another car drove onto the roundabout in front of me. I hit the brakes and blew the horn. Turns out he was taking the same exit at me. It also turns out he took grave offense at my blowing the horn 'cos on the next roundabout a few hundred metres further along, where he was directly in front of me, he slammed on the brakes, hopped out of his car (essentially parking his car on the roundabout), and stormed towards my car to take issue with me. Apparently, in his mind my blowing the horn at him was something that warranted a violent response.

    The moral of the story is that it is impossible to predict what will trigger an aggressive reaction in people with issues. That bus driver has issues. The taxi driver in the other clip has issues. The driver I encountered above has issues. You might like to believe that there are very cleanly delineated categories of things that are somehow acceptable to do while on the road, and things that constitute "acting the bollox" which apparently deserve some form of punishment, but you'd be wrong. Things are rarely as black and white as that. The cyclist reacted to apparent dangerous driving on the part of the bus driver (the incident not captured in the video clip), the bus driver's response was completely out of proportion and that cannot be blamed on the cyclist. You might take issue with the way in which the cyclist reacted, but in the heat of the moment any of us might well react in a way that we wouldn't with a cooler head. You also can't possibly know how little or how much that reaction by the cyclist affected the bus driver, the actions taken by bus driver demonstrate that he was unstable and in different circumstances perhaps even a car blowing its horn at him would have caused him to target the source of annoyance. This incident is less about a cyclist versus a bus driver and more about a very dangerous individual (who happens to be a bus driver) and the target of his aggression on the day (who happens to be a cyclist).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    doozerie wrote: »
    You'd expect that blowing your horn would not be taken by the other party as an aggressive action on your part, right?
    Thumping someone's car and blowing the horn are not the same thing.

    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,851 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

    "Thumping" is a rather subjective judgement. One person's knocking on a door could be another person's thumping on a door. Slapping on a car's body has the same effect as knocking on someone's door or blowing your horn, it makes a noise that gets someone's attention. As long as someone doesn't hit it so hard as to cause damage...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Thumping someone's car and blowing the horn are not the same thing.

    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

    If someone in a moving car has contrived to drive in a manner that they are within arms reach of an unprotected human being then, by that fact, it suggests that some form of dangerous or inconsiderate driving has taken place. In these situations adrenalin tends to take over - thats what its for.

    I recall a woman in a car trying to come up inside me and turn with me as I was turning to the right - out of a side road. The apparent intent of her manouevre was to place me in a situation where I would be on the wrong side of the road when finished. I banged on her side window with my left-hand - I did not have to move my elbow much past 90 degrees to do so.

    I reported the incident to the Garda.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Thumping someone's car and blowing the horn are not the same thing.

    They are to some people, that's entirely my point. Unstable people are, well, unstable, the clue is in the name.
    n97 mini wrote:
    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

    Well if the choice is between thumping the other car to attract their attention to a potential collision, or simply letting the collision happen without making any effort to alert them, then sure you could choose the latter option. In that situation it's your choice, so it's obviously your prerogative to make no effort to warn the other driver, but it'll probably mean that you are held at least partly culpable for the accident and any costs or penalties incurred may be shared by you and the other party. Some people would call that choice irresponsible and/or silly though.

    Not to mention that you are obliged to ensure that your horn is in working order or that will add to your culpability as your vehicle may be deemed unsafe to drive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    doozerie wrote: »
    They are to some people, that's entirely my point.
    In that case some people are wrong.
    doozerie wrote: »
    Well if the choice is between thumping the other car to attract their attention to a potential collision,
    Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.
    doozerie wrote: »
    As long as someone doesn't hit it so hard as to cause damage...
    And the only way for the owner to inspect for damage is to stop the car and get out, right?

    Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    n97 mini wrote: »
    In that case some people are wrong.


    Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.


    And the only way for the owner to inspect for damage is to stop the car and get out, right?

    Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.

    I think it's safe to say that you've never cycled in traffic.

    Ive never 'thumped' a car myself, but in a situation like the video above, where a multi-ton vehicle is trying to crush me into the side of the road Id have absolutely no hesitation in doing whatever was necessary to get the attention of the driver. Its also an instinctive reaction when something tries to squash you - you push back, its not aggressive.

    If anything, you're doing the driver a service - warning him that they are driving dangerously and on the verge of committing an act of criminal negligence which could easily result in a manslaughter charge..


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    In that case some people are wrong.

    Yes, and you are one of them when you hold the cyclist in any way responsible for someone driving a bus at him.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.

    If I follow your logic correctly - it would be ok to wave a loaded gun in someone's face provided you don't actually pull the trigger? If someone feels threatened by that behaviour then thats their problem?
    n97 mini wrote: »
    Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.

    So again if I understand your logic correctly, the fact that a car is private property entitles the owner to engage in threatening behaviour on the basis that the law protects personal property rights above the personal safety of others?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    If I follow your logic correctly - it would be ok to wave a loaded gun in someone's face provided you don't actually pull the trigger? If someone feels threatened by that behaviour then thats their problem?
    No-one had any guns. Seriously people, can we stick to the facts and stop trying to invent hypothetical situations to prove points.
    So again if I understand your logic correctly, the fact that a car is private property entitles the owner to engage in threatening behaviour
    No, you clearly do not understand.

    I'll put it as simply as possible for you: Just as no-one is entitled to use threatening behaviour, no-one has the right to interfere with anyone else's property.

    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,851 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    n97 mini wrote: »
    No-one had any guns. Seriously people, can we stick to the facts and stop trying to invent hypothetical situations to prove points.


    No, you clearly do not understand.

    I'll put it as simply as possible for you: Just as no-one is entitled to use threatening behaviour, no-one has the right to interfere with anyone else's property.

    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.

    Merely touching someone's property doesn't constitute interference. Turning violent because someone touched your property makes you a psycho.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.

    In this thread you interfere with logic, which probably annoys several people. If any of those people were to drive an Internet bus through your monitor would you feel in any way responsible for their actions?


Advertisement