Bristol bus driver 'used vehicle as weapon'

Diarmuid

gbee wrote: »

I've had to look again. ... a collision was inevitable anyway, from what I can see.

Should have gone to SpecSavers

gbee

Diarmuid wrote: »

Should have gone to SpecSavers

That makes three people at least, me the cyclist and the bus driver.

When I first looked at the video, I did not see the cyclist in front of the bus, nonetheless, his actions were inflammatory and he met a driver who exploded.

Going to SpecSavers is a good idea too though, they have a sale on currently.

coolbeans

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

An attitude that appears to be backed up by popular opinion. This was post of the day a couple of days ago.

The fact that that got post of the day scares me, in fact it scares me a hell of a lot.
Driver education as to the status of cyclists is very badly needed. ****in' RSA with their bull**** about yellow jackets precluding the real issues.

Dermot Illogical

gbee wrote: »

I've had to look again. The cyclist was in front of the bus as you say, but then the bus changed lanes ~ was it supposed to? and as he does so, the cyclist veeres in front of the bus [again] ~ a collision was inevitable anyway, from what I can see.

Admittedly the driver just lost his cool and ensured a collision took place, the judge, in his light sentencing, suspects mitigating circumstances.

But for me to make my mid up any further, I'd need to know where the bus should have been and where the cyclist should have been. And I don't know that.

Do you drive? I'm hoping the answer is no if you're having this much trouble understanding something so straightforward. :pac:

gbee

RT66 wrote: »

Do you drive? I'm hoping the answer is no if you're having this much trouble understanding something so straightforward. :pac:

To me, at one point is looked like the driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist. Then the cyclist engaged the bus in a duel.

Stark

torturedsoul wrote: »

Now I am by no means excusing the Bus driver, but to be fair the Cyclist should not have deliberately ridden his bike in the middle of the road intentionally slowing up all the traffic behind.

I thought so too but he could easily have been trying to take the right turn that was just coming up. (He should have indicated, but then if I ran everyone who didn't indicate off the road...).

rich.d.berry

gbee wrote: »

To me, at one point is looked like the driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist. Then the cyclist engaged the bus in a duel.

The reason the bus driver swerved is because he got too close to the cyclist. He should never have been that close to the cyclist before attempting the pass. The aggressive driving is from the bus driver.

The cyclist never left his lane. He did make a move to his right, but so what? I've often had motorists make moves on me when passing, to indicate that they want me out of their way. That would not give me any justification if I caught up with them again and smashed their wing mirror or kicked their door. Retaliation should never be justified.

seamus

gbee wrote: »

To me, at one point is looked like the driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist. Then the cyclist engaged the bus in a duel.

Actually it looks fairly straightforward in the video. There was an argument and then the cyclist hops on his bike and cycles away down the centre of the left-hand lane. Petty? Maybe. But then if I'd just had a row with a bus driver, I wouldn't be inclined to put myself in a position where he could overtake me closely and squish me into the kerb; especially in this scenario when there's another lane the bus can use to overtake.

The bus driver then follows him and drives right up behind him. Realising that it's not having the desired effect he then indicates right as if to move into the right-hand lane and overtake, but before he's completed the manouver he swerves left and uses 10 tonnes of metal send the cyclist flying about 5m across the road.

At best you could say that the cyclist moved marginally right in his lane when the bus started to overtake, but I don't see any swerving from the cyclist in the video.

gbee

rich.d.berry wrote: »

Retaliation should never be justified.

You know what, tell that to the judge. 17 months for this offence is getting off pretty lightly. The judge has spoken.

There are so many other factors that I don't know, like how many times this cyclist annoyed this bus driver over the years. And many more questions that the judge probably heard in evidence.

Dermot Illogical

gbee wrote: »

To me, at one point is looked like the driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist. Then the cyclist engaged the bus in a duel.

At no point did he have to swerve to avoid anyone. The cyclist is in front of him until the bus overtakes. Remove the blinkers perhaps?
Some of the reports I've read about the incident reference the previous altercation being as a result of the bus passing too close earlier on. If this is true, then the cyclist was correct in trying to hold the road.

AstraMonti

gbee wrote: »

You know what, tell that to the judge. 17 months for this offence is getting off pretty lightly. The judge has spoken.

There are so many other factors that I don't know, like how many times this cyclist annoyed this bus driver over the years. And many more questions that the judge probably heard in evidence.

What are you on about? Since when "annoyment" justifies anything like that?

droidus

seamus wrote: »

Actually it looks fairly straightforward in the video. There was an argument and then the cyclist hops on his bike and cycles away down the centre of the left-hand lane. Petty? Maybe. But then if I'd just had a row with a bus driver, I wouldn't be inclined to put myself in a position where he could overtake me closely and squish me into the kerb; especially in this scenario when there's another lane the bus can use to overtake.

The bus driver then follows him and drives right up behind him. Realising that it's not having the desired effect he then indicates right as if to move into the right-hand lane and overtake, but before he's completed the manouver he swerves left and uses 10 tonnes of metal send the cyclist flying about 5m across the road.

At best you could say that the cyclist moved marginally right in his lane when the bus started to overtake, but I don't see any swerving from the cyclist in the video.

:rolleyes: Its clear by the cyclists minuscule movement to the right that he was recklessly challenging the bus driver to a duel to the death. He was a detonator and the bus driver was a pound of semtex, who knows how often the cyclist had mercilessly taunted bus drivers in the past... etc... etc...

rich.d.berry

Stark wrote: »

I thought so too but he could easily have been trying to take the right turn that was just coming up. (He should have indicated, but then if I ran everyone who didn't indicate off the road...).

Do you really think that there is sufficient space in the lane for the bus to pass the cyclist without changing lane?

My opinion, supported by many training programs such as BikeSafe and also agrees with advice given by BikeRadar, is that the cyclist was correctly positioned in primary position because there was insufficient space to be passed safely in lane.

Had the cyclist entered the bus stop area on his left he would have been in trouble re-entering the lane slightly further ahead, especially as he would have to compete with all the other traffic behind the bus as well.

It is entirely possible that the cyclist had the altercation with the bus driver because he'd been previously squeezed and the lane position he holds thereafter is to stop it from happening again. This would also explain why he would move to the right to prevent an in-lane pass from happening again.

Dermot Illogical

gbee wrote: »

You know what, tell that to the judge. 17 months for this offence is getting off pretty lightly. The judge has spoken.

There are so many other factors that I don't know, like how many times this cyclist annoyed this bus driver over the years. And many more questions that the judge probably heard in evidence.

While I agree with you on the getting off lightly thing, it's probably more to do with leniency of sentencing in general rather than a result of any mitigating circumstances.
That said, for a first offence committed by an otherwise upstanding citizen, it's quite a stiff sentence.

Surveyor11

Weylin wrote: »

the total wanker on the bike had a previous altercation with the bus driver, so decide to cycle directly in front of the bus and force it go slow/stop.he got what he deserved,total bollix. (the driver should have waited another few meters and mashed the scumbag against the concrete bollards.)

Nice, so am I right in thinking in your trodlodtye world that an altercation gives free reign to amost murder someone with a bus? Get yerself checked out man

Chips Lovell

@Surveyor11. That post has already been dealt with by the mods. No need to keep it going.

Rob A. Bank

According to a Bristol news source http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Road-rage-bus-driver-used-vehicle-weapon-jailed/story-15246838-detail/story.html

"Gavin Hill got into a heated exchange with rider Phillip Mead after cutting in front of him onto St James Barton roundabout.

After an altercation in which the cyclist parked his bike against the front of the bus and tugged at one of its windscreen wipers, Hill pulled out to overtake the bike before lurching sharp left, knocking Mr Mead into the road."

So the bus driver was taking a second cut at the cyclist when he maimed him !

A very lenient sentence IMHO.

le petit braquet

gbee wrote: »

You know what, tell that to the judge. 17 months for this offence is getting off pretty lightly. The judge has spoken.

There are so many other factors that I don't know, like how many times this cyclist annoyed this bus driver over the years. And many more questions that the judge probably heard in evidence.

The judge also said that the bus driver used his bus as a weapon so why not also accept his opinion on that. Also the "light" sentence was also a result of an early guilty plea - even the bus driver fessed up to it being a deliberate action on his part.

doozerie

I'm not sure what's worse, the bus driver doing what he did or the attempts by some people to mitigate, or in the worst cases to actually justify, what he did by arguing that he had reasonable grounds for it. If we all reacted to conflict in the extremely malevolent way that bus driver did then the roads (and anywhere for that matter) would be an extremely dangerous place to be for everyone, not just for cyclists - good luck to those who seem determined to argue in favour of such a scenario 'cos you'll be right there in that firing line too alongside the rest of us.

droidus

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056551764

robinph

They were showing a clip from the opposite side of the roundabout on the Bristol news this morning which is where the incident started. Wasn't quite as clear what was going on in that shot. But from knowing that roundabout, which is a big 3 lane one, where I think they joined it has a shared bike/ bus/ taxi lane that is separated from two other traffic lanes at that entrance. The descriptions of what happened seem to suggest that is where the cyclist was leaning and arguing with the bus due to some prior incident along the shared lane.

The CCTV of the actual incident is the other side of the roundabout and the bike would have easily got across there quicker than the bus, there is the main bus station to the left there as well (right in the CCTV). I can't remember exactly that set of traffic lights but I think it is for the exit of the bus station. Seems to me that the bike was just riding defensively and making sure he wasn't squashed off the side of the road along there, the bus would not have been turning right, but that road is plenty wide enough to overtake. Except there would most likely have been a queue of traffic just out of shot so an overtake would be utterly pointless.

The cyclist is lucky that the hospital is within spitting distance of the incident though, the camera is probably on the wall of it.

07Lapierre

Imagine if the bus driver had got off the bus, pulled out a gun and shot the Cyclist!. I suspect everyone would condemn the drivers actions as being totally O.T.T. and would accuse him of "Attempted Murder". (And Rightly so)

In my mind, It doesn't matter if there is "history" between the bus driver and the cyclist over some earlier incident. Using a bus to deliberately run someone off the road is totally O.T.T.!

gbee

doozerie wrote: »

I'm not sure what's worse, .

It's a sample of life. This episode should be taken as a lesson to all. You cannot cycle like he did and expect no consequences.

In this case the bus driver flipped out. It does happen, it does not excuse it, it is life.

monument

gbee wrote: »

It's a sample of life. This episode should be taken as a lesson to all. You cannot cycle like he did and expect no consequences.

In this case the bus driver flipped out. It does happen, it does not excuse it, it is life.

So, if it happened this way: Bristol cyclist gets annoyed by driver going too close to him so he pulls him out of the bus and assaults him.

Should that be taken as a "lesson to all" that you cannot drive as you want and expect no consequences?

07Lapierre

gbee wrote: »

It's a sample of life. This episode should be taken as a lesson to all. You cannot cycle or Drive a bus like they did and expect no consequences.
.

There...that's better

gbee

monument wrote: »

So, if it happened this way:

Twist it if you must. It's a case where a judgement has been made in a court of law.

I could bet you there are tens or maybe hundreds of cycle fatalities over the years that are identical but not caught on camera.

Just be careful out there and we all know there are madmen everywhere, but no matter what, the cyclist is coming off the worst in any altercation with traffic, let alone an insane bus driver.

Given the fact that the bus was not turning right as per a post above by robinph, then it seems the actions of the cyclist are even more profound.

gbee

07Lapierre wrote: »

There...that's better

One little point here, the bus driver lost his cool and rammed the cyclist, he is in prison. Assuming the bus driver had all the evaluation tests and driving tests done, his actions would have been almost impossible to comprehend.

nbooradley

Weylin wrote: »

the total wanker on the bike had a previous altercation with the bus driver, so decide to cycle directly in front of the bus and force it go slow/stop.he got what he deserved,total bollix. (the driver should have waited another few meters and mashed the scumbag against the concrete bollards.)

Yep and then got done for murder! regardless of argument using a public transport vehicle to settle the dispute is NOT wise, WILL get you arrested and in this case WILL get you sent down. If the man on the bike was causing him trouble by blocking the road. the correct thing to do would have been to call the police and report him. It is not the right response to ram/smash/rage anyone or anything on the road and even more so if you are paid to drive on the road. Not only did he endanger the live of the cyclist he endangered the life of the passengers on his bus. very very very foolish and lucky to get what he got!

monument

gbee wrote: »

Twist it if you must. It's a case where a judgement has been made in a court of law.

What on earth are you talking about? What did I twist?

You said that this was a "lesson to all" that "You cannot cycle like he did and expect no consequences". How is what I said twisting anything?

gbee wrote: »

Just be careful out there and we all know there are madmen everywhere, but no matter what, the cyclist is coming off the worst in any altercation with traffic, let alone an insane bus driver.

That's clearly not the case, the cyclist could:

• With the support of the gardai, have a criminal case taken against the driver
• Take a civil case against the driver
• Be a madman like the bus driver and physically attack the driver -- be careful bicycles often are the fastest way around, the criminal madman or woman on a bike could catch up with you. This is not a joke, bad and crazy people use bicycle too -- At least two shooting were committed in the last year or so by cyclists in Dublin.

doozerie

gbee wrote: »

It's a sample of life. This episode should be taken as a lesson to all. You cannot cycle like he did and expect no consequences.

Perhaps it's not really your intention but you are basically condoning what the driver did as if it were a logical and normal conclusion of the situation. It really wasn't. Assault can clearly be argued as justifiable when it is in self defence, but assault on the basis that someone annoyed you is also clearly a different matter entirely. And even the self defence argument looks suspect when the degree of force used is out of proportion with the supposed threat posed - ploughing into someone with a bus is not on a par with having words thrown at you or being slowed down when you are in a hurry.

Should the cyclist have taken issue with the bus driver in the first place? If you were to ask him now whether he should have done then I'd guess he'd say no, but I've been in situations where I've felt compelled to point out someone's dangerous driving to them so I can understand why the cyclist took that option in this case. It's not always the best option by any means (but it can be a good option when the driver is made aware of something they were doing without realising the dangers they posed in doing it), but it's also not an open invitation to be assaulted either.

gbee wrote:

In this case the bus driver flipped out. It does happen, it does not excuse it, it is life.

"it is life" sounds a lot like an excuse, to me. To me, reacting with unwarranted violence is not "life", it is immature at best and criminal at worst. Some of the local politicians in my area occasionally come calling to our door to peddle their bigoted and prejudiced views. I despise their views, so I choose not to be talked at by them. If I were instead to whack them with my track pump could I just say "well, that's life" and expect people to understand? ...The answer is no, by the way, 'cos "life" is about dealing with things sanely and maturely.