If a bus tries to run you off the road...

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 2:44pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

we've been through this. the OP was in the cycle lane - there were two provided.

Maybe a better way of explaining cycle lanes is to state that the only lanes that are NOT cycle lanes are on Motorways!

Lewotsil · 23-08-2018 3:02pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

green123 wrote: »

Most people don't need statistics to figure out things that are very obvious.

Do you really think both options are equally safe ?

you have no idea what the cycle lane provided was like. you're assuming it's safer than the bus lane. many cycle lanes in ireland are not fit for purpose or safe, one of the reasons they've removed the requirements for cyclists to use them.

so again, citation required.

Fully agreed @magicbastarder ..... three times I have been knocked off my bike this year .....all whilst cycling on the N11 cycle lane......... to try and predict behaviour of a pedestrian with headphones in is nigh impossible......... ogh and the driver of the car that came out of his driveway and wiped me was in fairness very apologetic.
Cyclists are entitled to cycle in 'bus lane' end of. I have had multiple experiences similar to OP on the N11.
All you can do is report them........... they will kill someone someday ....Dublin bus drivers have told me (invariably at the next red light) that cyclists cannot be in the bus lane .....muppets.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 3:04pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

gk5000 - I used to be a bus driver. I know what's it's like. In the OP's scenario, the driver appears to have bullied the cyclist by making a close pass yet you think the cyclist is at fault even though the cyclist has done nothing illegal.

Would the driver do that during a bus driving test?

It was reasonable for the bus driver to beep - and would have been reasonable for the OP to get our of the way of the bus.

Thereafter we only have the OP's side of the story - which on the face of it looks dodgy to me - and he hasn't answered a few queries on it yet - so how far ahead was the bus when he pulled in?

The was overtaking himself - bombing along - and seems to have expected everybody to dance around him - and is indignant when that did not happen.

My reason for posting is for people to look at the other side - and to avoid this self entitled attitude which seems to be very pervasive in cycling and is doing cyclists no favors. How many cyclists agree with at least some of what I'm saying but still are trying to defend the OP - who's actions are at least questionable - contrary to his own opinion (though lets wait for his answers).

mrcheez · 23-08-2018 3:04pm

Lewotsil wrote: »

Dublin bus drivers have told me (invariably at the next red light) that cyclists cannot be in the bus lane .....muppets.

Serious question: do they not take a course on the rules of the road as part of their training?

mrcheez · 23-08-2018 3:06pm

gk5000 wrote: »

It was reasonable for the bus driver to beep - and would have been reasonable for the OP to get our of the way of the bus.

The bus driver beeped.

2 seconds later he was by my side.

So I can only assume he beeped WHILE overtaking without giving me a chance to pass the group that had taken up the cycle lane to the LHS so I could move in.

gk5000 wrote: »

My reason for posting is for people to look at the other side - and to avoid this self entitled attitude which seems to be very pervasive in cycling and is doing cyclists no favors.

Again, victim blaming. Funny that

Wishbone Ash · 23-08-2018 3:13pm

gk5000 wrote: »

It was reasonable for the bus driver to beep - and would have been reasonable for the OP to get our of the way of the bus....

You really need to familiarise yourself with the road traffic regulations before getting into a debate.

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 3:13pm

gk5000 wrote: »

My reason for posting is for people to look at the other side - and to avoid this self entitled attitude which seems to be very pervasive in cycling and is doing cyclists no favors. How many cyclists agree with at least some of what I'm saying but still are trying to defend the OP - who's actions are at least questionable - contrary to his own opinion (though lets wait for his answers).

1. Most cyclist are also Motorists so we can see it from both side and have experienced similar situations to the one described by the OP

2. I do not agree... the only questionable actions are the actions of the Bus driver.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 3:15pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Hmm where did I say I pulled out to overtake? I was maintaining a steady position in the bus lane as the cycle lane was full of slower cyclists.

If you are suggesting I keep swerving in and out of the bike lane as I overtake each cyclist then *that* is considered dangerous.

Again think of the analogy of the two cars. One car is in the lane (the bike in this instance), the other car (bus) overtakes when it is safe to do so and only moves left in the lane after having passed the first car. They don't move left WHILE in the overtake, thus pushing the first car left.

They really should make cycling-proficiency a requirement for learner drivers as it makes you a much better driver.

OP - you were overtaking. Your mincing of words .."steady position" makes you less believable to me - disingenuous.

Yes, you should pass and then pull in, then check if the road is clear ahead and behind before you consider your next maneuver.

You were obviously going faster than the road conditions with the other cyclists allowed - sequentially passing them - and instead tried to pass everybody - blocking upto 70 other people in a bus trying to get home - even after the bus beeped at you.

I'm guessing from your responses above that you kept pedal to metal to prevent the bus pulling in - so again a bit disingenuous to say the bus swerved in to "kill you" or "attempted murder" or whatever hyperbole you posted.

And your cycling friends are lapping this up and egging you on.

seamus · 23-08-2018 3:19pm

gk5000 wrote: »

OP - you were overtaking. Your mincing of words .."steady position" makes you less believable to me - disingenuous.

Yes, you should pass and then pull in, then check if the road is clear ahead and behind before you consider your next maneuver.

Ignoring the fact that OP never said he was overtaking, the legislation doesn't explicitly require any vehicle to move from the right lane to the left lane before they begin a new overtaking maneuver. Multiple overtakes are perfectly legal while the conditions allow.

even after the bus beeped at you.

Irrelevant. A beep is an alert to a vehicle's presence. It confers no right of way on the beeper, nor obligation on the beepee.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 3:26pm

seamus wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that OP never said he was overtaking, the legislation doesn't explicitly require any vehicle to move from the right lane to the left lane before they begin a new overtaking maneuver. Multiple overtakes are perfectly legal while the conditions allow.
Irrelevant. A beep is an alert to a vehicle's presence. It confers no right of way on the beeper, nor obligation on the beepee.

He said he was in the bus lane because the cycle lane was packed with slower cyclists - so he was overtaking even if he and you for some reason do not accept that.
Conditions did not allow multiple overtakes, as he was impeding the bus - being inconsiderate to other road users - just because he was in a hurry or training.
Yes agree on the beep, but with the alert - the op should should have completed his manouver and pulled in .. to the space that he had previously ascertained was available to him.
If there was no space available to him then he was overtaking recklessly.

Weepsie · 23-08-2018 3:30pm

seamus wrote: »

Irrelevant. A beep is an alert to a vehicle's presence. It confers no right of way on the beeper, nor obligation on the beepee.

Even then, it's only supposed to be used to warn of danger I'm sure it's buried somewhere in the legislation. It isn't to to alert of a presence. I bloody well know when a bus is behind me in a lane.

green123 · 23-08-2018 3:35pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Absolute rubbish! the bus driver did not have to deliberately try to push the cyclist out of the bus lane.

I have already said the bus driver was wrong. That's obvious.

Again using my examples of iphones and bikes getting robbed you have to take responsibility and choose a way of conducting yourself to minimise these risks.

Cycling in a dedicated cycling only lane with no motor vehicles is safer than cycling on the road.

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 3:39pm

gk5000 wrote: »

He said he was in the bus lane because the cycle lane was packed with slower cyclists - so he was overtaking even if he and you for some reason do not accept that.
Conditions did not allow multiple overtakes, as he was impeding the bus - being inconsiderate to other road users - just because he was in a hurry or training.
Yes agree on the beep, but with the alert - the op should should have completed his manouver and pulled in .. to the space that he had previously ascertained was available to him.
If there was no space available to him then he was overtaking recklessly.

I don't agree that the cyclist was impeding the bus as the bus DID overtake? but if the cycle lane was crowded...where do you suggest the cyclist move to?

seamus · 23-08-2018 3:43pm

gk5000 wrote: »

He said he was in the bus lane because the cycle lane was packed with slower cyclists - so he was overtaking even if he and you for some reason do not accept that.
Conditions did not allow multiple overtakes, as he was impeding the bus - being inconsiderate to other road users - just because he was in a hurry or training.
Yes agree on the beep, but with the alert - the op should should have completed his manouver and pulled in .. to the space that he had previously ascertained was available to him.
If there was no space available to him then he was overtaking recklessly.

So by your logic, if I'm in the right hand lane of a motorway, overtaking a completely packed left-hand lane, and a guy comes flying up behind me and beeps, then I'm obliged to pull in and let him past?

The answer is no, I am not. I am only obliged to pull in when I have finished overtaking.

In any case, it's also kind of irrelevant, since there is no obligation to use or enter a cycle lane. So even the overtaking analogy is incorrect.

The OP was in the leftmost traffic lane, the obligation is on the bus to wait for a suitable gap to overtake, not on the cyclist to make room.

magicbastarder · 23-08-2018 3:44pm

green123 wrote: »

Cycling in a dedicated cycling only lane with no motor vehicles is safer than cycling on the road.

you keep repeating this. because it's 'common sense' apparently.

those off-road cycle lanes take you out of the motorist's mental radar, so junctions become more dangerous.
many irish cycle paths reduce the danger to cyclists where it's least dangerous, and increase the danger where it's most dangerous.

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 3:44pm

green123 wrote: »

you have to take responsibility and choose a way of conducting yourself to minimise these risks.

Agreed...the bus driver was never in any danger and once he manovered his bus alongside the cyclist, he should have waited until he was clear of the cyclist before pulling into the left.

the cyclist was cycling in the bus lane...no issue there... IMO he should have been in the middle of the bus lane and he should have only moved to the left and allowed the bus to overtake when he felt it was safe to do so....come to think of it...maybe he did! maybe it was safe for the overtake, but the bloody bus driver decided to be a gob****e?

magicbastarder · 23-08-2018 3:48pm

gk5000 wrote: »

It was reasonable for the bus driver to beep - and would have been reasonable for the OP to get our of the way of the bus.

from the ROTR:
"Remember, the horn does not give you the right of way."

you are only supposed to use your horn to warn other road users of impending danger, or make them aware of your presence for safety reasons. in the above scenario, that leaves us with the irony that the bus driver was acknowledging that he himself was creating the danger for the cyclist.

mrcheez · 23-08-2018 3:58pm

gk5000 has bedded down in their stated position and they're not going to change their mind in order to try to save face, despite being completely in the wrong in the discussion, so no point arguing.

Anyway interesting topic and my original question has been answered, thanks.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 4:06pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

I don't agree that the cyclist was impeding the bus as the bus DID overtake? but if the cycle lane was crowded...where do you suggest the cyclist move to?

The cyclist was overtaking recklessly in that he should have waited until there was space to pull in before beginning his overtaking.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 4:11pm

seamus wrote: »

So by your logic, if I'm in the right hand lane of a motorway, overtaking a completely packed left-hand lane, and a guy comes flying up behind me and beeps, then I'm obliged to pull in and let him past?

The answer is no, I am not. I am only obliged to pull in when I have finished overtaking.

In any case, it's also kind of irrelevant, since there is no obligation to use or enter a cycle lane. So even the overtaking analogy is incorrect.

The OP was in the leftmost traffic lane, the obligation is on the bus to wait for a suitable gap to overtake, not on the cyclist to make room.

No - I agreed previously with you on beeping that it does not confer rights - just to alert the other person.

So you don't accept that the cyclist was overtaking recklessly in this case - though you and the OP don't seem to like to admit that that the cyclist was even doing an incorrect overtaking manouver.

Weepsie · 23-08-2018 4:11pm

gk5000 wrote: »

The cyclist was overtaking recklessly in that he should have waited until there was space to pull in before beginning his overtaking.

gk5000 wrote: »

So you don't accept that the cyclist was overtaking recklessly in this case - though you and the OP don't seem to like to admit that that the cyclist was even doing an incorrect overtaking manouver.

Recklessly really? They said they were cycling in the bus lane, alongside the cycle lane. They never said when they they moved out from the cycle lane, or if they were ever in the cycle lane. You have assumed that position. For all you know they've been in this lane for 2-3 kms.

The way I, and most others have read it is this. Takes bus lane as they know the cycle lane is busy. Shortly afterwards a bus catches up and starts beeping. That's what it reads more like.

The horn (or audible warning device) is not legally allowed to be used because the driver is annoyed.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 4:16pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

from the ROTR:
"Remember, the horn does not give you the right of way."

you are only supposed to use your horn to warn other road users of impending danger, or make them aware of your presence for safety reasons. in the above scenario, that leaves us with the irony that the bus driver was acknowledging that he himself was creating the danger for the cyclist.

No the cyclist was overtaking (the other slower cyclists) recklessly without having ascertained a space to pull into and also impeding other road users ( the bus) - cycling without due consideration to other road users.
So correct - the horn does not give rights but I believe it was reasonable for the driver to alert the cyclist in this case.

In truth - the cyclist wished to allocate himself his own space and bomb along without considering anyone else.

CramCycle · 23-08-2018 4:18pm

MOD VOICE: @GK5000 It is clear people have engaged with your points but you seem not to want to look at any other viewpoint than your own. Going forward, any posting by you that is clearly exaggerating the OP or simply filling in blanks that fit your narrative will be met with a card.

Just to clarify, as a MOD, with the story as given so far. The OP was allowed to use the bus lane. He was not legally required to pull into the cycle lane. The bus driver has committed several offences both in regards the RTA and the non fatal offences against a person act.

If you feel I have missed something, drop me a message via PM, not in thread.

White Clover · 23-08-2018 4:19pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Hmm last I checked, both bikes and buses are permitted in the bus lane

Only taxis are "allowed" to use it, but the lane is designated for bikes/buses.

sounds like a good ol' case of victim blaming there sir

There is a bus lane and an adjacent cycle lane.
Does that not mean that cyclists use the cycle lane and buses use the bus lane? Or, am I complicating it?

Chips Lovell · 23-08-2018 4:23pm

Kinda. As a cyclist, you can use the cycle lane, the bus, or a regular traffic lane.

CramCycle · 23-08-2018 4:25pm

White Clover wrote: »

There is a bus lane and an adjacent cycle lane.
Does that not mean that cyclists use the cycle lane and buses use the bus lane? Or, am I complicating it?

This sign means that the lane is a Bus and Bike lane but referred to as a Bus lane.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 4:25pm

Weepsie wrote: »

Recklessly really? They said they were cycling in the bus lane, alongside the cycle lane. They never said when they they moved out from the cycle lane, or if they were ever in the cycle lane. You have assumed that position. For all you know they've been in this lane for 2-3 kms.

The way I, and most others have read it is this. Takes bus lane as they know the cycle lane is busy. Shortly afterwards a bus catches up and starts beeping. That's what it reads more like.

The horn (or audible warning device) is not legally allowed to be used because the driver is annoyed.

He was overtaking other cyclists recklessly. Cyclists same as other road users must keep on the left, and then check/signal/manouver....
He may have been in the bus lane, but he should not be if there was space on the left, and he should not leave the space on the left unless it is safe to do so. So whatever way you look at it he was being reckless and inconsiderate.

The driver was alerting to his recklessness etc.

seamus · 23-08-2018 4:28pm

gk5000 wrote: »

He may have been in the bus lane, but he should not be if there was space on the left, and he should not leave the space on the left unless it is safe to do so. So whatever way you look at it he was being reckless and inconsiderate.

But when he moved out, whenever that was, it was safe to do so.

So whatever way you look at it, he's done nothing wrong.

ED E · 23-08-2018 4:29pm

Dublin Bus get reports and do nothing, many cases of it documented over the last few years. They say "internally dealt with" but we've no evidence of that.

If Dublin Bus do something dangerous please report it to the gardai and not Dublin Bus. They've had enough chances.

defrule · 23-08-2018 4:56pm

Are we allowed to create a YouTube channel dedicated to posting videos of dangerous drivers? Or do we need to block out othe licence plates?

benjamin d · 23-08-2018 5:00pm

gk5000 wrote: »

He was overtaking other cyclists recklessly. Cyclists same as other road users must keep on the left, and then check/signal/manouver....
He may have been in the bus lane, but he should not be if there was space on the left, and he should not leave the space on the left unless it is safe to do so. So whatever way you look at it he was being reckless and inconsiderate.

The driver was alerting to his recklessness etc.

There is absolutely nothing reckless about cycling in a bus (and cycle) lane.

There is absolutely no obligation to use the cycle lane described.

The cyclist has full permission in law to cycle taking the whole of the bus lane if required/desired.

Beeping the horn does not grant right of way or oblige anyone to do anything.

The cyclist was not "overtaking", he was "taking" the lane - not only legal but recommended when an overtake is not safe or possible for following traffic.

For clarity, even if there is a cycle lane to the left of the cyclist, they may treat the bus lane as their "driving lane". They may also treat the general traffic lane as their driving lane, leaving two lanes free to their left (by your logic).

Continue to troll if you like though.

Amirani · 23-08-2018 5:01pm

gk5000 wrote: »

He was overtaking other cyclists recklessly. Cyclists same as other road users must keep on the left, and then check/signal/manouver....
He may have been in the bus lane, but he should not be if there was space on the left, and he should not leave the space on the left unless it is safe to do so. So whatever way you look at it he was being reckless and inconsiderate.

The driver was alerting to his recklessness etc.

He had kept to the left.

You have know idea what you're talking about. Fine if you want to give an opinion on how things should be, but what you're saying is factually incorrect. It's not like the law is grey here, it's completely clear that the cyclist was not doing anything illegal.

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 5:09pm

gk5000 wrote: »

The cyclist was overtaking recklessly in that he should have waited until there was space to pull in before beginning his overtaking.

https://goo.gl/images/f89eao

magicbastarder · 23-08-2018 5:26pm

White Clover wrote: »

There is a bus lane and an adjacent cycle lane.
Does that not mean that cyclists use the cycle lane and buses use the bus lane? Or, am I complicating it?

for example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3642957,-6.2301681,3a,75.2y,248.68h,76.17t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s1Rojbf7p1w-MNdJ_okI3gA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1Rojbf7p1w-MNdJ_okI3gA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.4946%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

the sign refers to the road lane, it has nothing to do with the off-road cycle path. so it means cyclists can use the cycle path *or* the 'bus' lane (or the adjacent lane too, for that matter, but that's outside the scope of the sign itself).

Fian · 23-08-2018 6:20pm

seamus wrote: »

A murder charge requires that the accused intended to kill or cause serious injury.

Manslaughter arises from a death out of a deliberate act, where the act itself did not include intent to cause death or serious injury, but from which death or serious injury was a reasonably likely/foreseeable outcome and the accused was negligent in their act.

The bus driver's defence in this regard would be that they didn't intend to hurt the cyclist, merely to scare or intimidate them.

So clearly "attempted murder" would fail. "Attempted manslaughter", I'm not sure has ever been used as a charge, because by definition it's not really manslaughter unless someone is killed. This is why we have things like "criminal negligence", or the vehicular equivalent of dangerous driving, and death by dangerous driving.

What's described in the OP is dangerous driving, unless he has evidence that the bus driver was actually intending to run him over.

agree with all this but teh charge that would apply (if you could prove the driver deliberately tried to push you into the cycle lane) would be reckless endangerment. Section 13 of the non-fatal offences against the person act 1997.

13.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence who intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13

Wishbone Ash · 23-08-2018 8:25pm

White Clover wrote: »

There is a bus lane and an adjacent cycle lane.
Does that not mean that cyclists use the cycle lane and buses use the bus lane? Or, am I complicating it?

Take a busy route like Drumcondra inbound.

At the Archbishop's Palace, there is a segregated cycle track but the bus lane signage also shows a bus and cycle (i.e. it's perfectly legal to continue cycling on the bus lane). I've had to point out these signs this to several dim bus and taxi drivers over the years.

tomasrojo · 23-08-2018 10:13pm

Yeah, the only bus lanes you're not allowed to use are the bus contraflows. Those signs don't have a bike on them

I remember there was a period where Dublin City Council was putting up standard bus lane signs, but putting a small blue patch over the cyclist symbol, trying to create an extra-legal no-cycling bus lane. Monument put paid to that, IIRC.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 10:22pm

mrcheez wrote: »

gk5000 has bedded down in their stated position and they're not going to change their mind in order to try to save face, despite being completely in the wrong in the discussion, so no point arguing.

Anyway interesting topic and my original question has been answered, thanks.

GK5000 is a commuting cyclist - 20km daily so is not a "they". There is no point in you arguing further because you are completely in the wrong.

Unfortunately you have loads of company - or all the sport cyclists - who also seem to be unaware of the cycling laws - and flame anyone who dares state it.

The law states http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

There are further laws on keeping left, and checking before you overtake as per common sense and normal traffic laws for cars and bikes.

I personally would give the bus driver the full benefit of the doubt.

Edit to add - Given the above and that you were not following the rules of the road it is fair to say you were cycling recklessly - reckless to yourself, the cyclists to your left, the bus and passengers...

23-08-2018 10:35pm

Adhering to the keeping left one to the letter will get you in serious bother on some roads. Taking the lane is the only way to keep safe in many situations. RSA recommend .75m from the left for cyclists and in a lot of cases thats fine in others though you really do need to ride in the middle of the road to stop idiots from being idiots and keep yourself safe.

tomasrojo · 23-08-2018 10:37pm

gk5000 wrote: »

GK5000 is a commuting cyclist - 20km daily so is not a "they".

Singular they has been in use since the 1300s.

The law you quote is about not cycling two abreast if it inconveniences other road users. What's it got to do with bus lanes?

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 10:40pm

gk5000 wrote: »

GK5000 is a commuting cyclist - 20km daily so is not a "they". There is no point in you arguing further because you are completely in the wrong.

Unfortunately you have loads of company - or all the sport cyclists - who also seem to be unaware of the cycling laws - and flame anyone who dares state it.

The law states http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

There are further laws on keeping left, and checking before you overtake as per common sense and normal traffic laws for cars and bikes.

I personally would give the bus driver the full benefit of the doubt.

Edit to add - Given the above and that you were not following the rules of the road it is fair to say you were cycling recklessly - reckless to yourself, the cyclists to your left, the bus and passengers...

Can you post a link to the law that states a bus driver can use his bus to intimidate another road user in such a way that could potentially injure ot kill that road user?

magicbastarder · 23-08-2018 10:50pm

gk5000 wrote: »

GK5000 is a commuting cyclist - 20km daily so is not a "they"
...
The law states http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

two things.
'they' is used in a gender neutral sense, to avoid assuming you're a he, or a she. it's simply a stylistic approach to acknowledging that we don't know which you are (or identify as).

secondly, your repeated fallback to 'the law' (albeit applied in a cackhanded fashion) is quite bemusing given that you don't feel the law applies to you when it comes to red lights.

is a bus driver actually engaged in an overtaking manouevre if a bus - in a bus lane - passes a cyclist in an offroad cycle path? by your logic, they are - even though there is no legal or sensible requirement for them to leave their own lane to complete the 'overtake'.
by your reasoning, anyone in a bus lane passing cyclists on an offroad cycle path is performing an overtake, and thus should indicate to warn other road users of this - even though their positioning and lane use does not change.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 10:56pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Can you post a link to the law that states a bus driver can use his bus to intimidate another road user in such a way that could potentially injure ot kill that road user?

We have statements from one side - who as it turns out was not following the law and cycling recklessly. We have no information from the bus driver, but as I stated - I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Professional bus drivers generally do not run people off the road or attempt to kill people. I personally find them to be predictable.

Weepsie · 23-08-2018 11:00pm

gk5000 wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

...

You're embarrassing yourself here with your very, very wrong interpretation of this bit of legislation.

By this logic, the cyclists in the lane are all breaking the law as they are obstructing the faster moving cyclist.

Why are you so up on this law (and wrongly interpreting it), but so for going through red lights last week?

Again, the OP had the lane long before the bus was behind them anyway, so the bus has to treat them as regular, albeit slower moving traffic. I'd let it go if I were you, as you're just wrong.

07Lapierre · 23-08-2018 11:00pm

gk5000 wrote: »

We have statements from one side - who as it turns out was not following the law and cycling recklessly. We have no information from the bus driver, but as I stated - I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Professional bus drivers generally do not run people off the road or attempt to kill people. I personally find them to be predictable.

I'm watching the movie "Martian" at the moment....appropriate as your clearly on a different planet to the rest of us!

Weepsie · 23-08-2018 11:02pm

gk5000 wrote: »

We have statements from one side - who as it turns out was not following the law and cycling recklessly. We have no information from the bus driver, but as I stated - I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Professional bus drivers generally do not run people off the road or attempt to kill people. I personally find them to be predictable.

Why are you so insistent that he pulled out dangerously in front of a bus. That's never been suggested.

There is nothing reckless if they took the lane in a safe manner, held the lane, maintained their pace, did their usual checks. You've made up your mind and gone away with some mad idea.

Weepsie · 23-08-2018 11:06pm

gk5000 wrote: »

He was overtaking other cyclists recklessly. Cyclists same as other road users must keep on the left, and then check/signal/manouver....
He may have been in the bus lane, but he should not be if there was space on the left, and he should not leave the space on the left unless it is safe to do so. So whatever way you look at it he was being reckless and inconsiderate.

The driver was alerting to his recklessness etc.

Okay I missed this. Again, you've no idea of this. They just said they were cycling in the bus lane. They never said when they entered it. They may very well have gone into the bus lane when it was clear and safe to enter.

I've bolded a bit, as it's both wrong, and portrays an ignorance reserved for people who insist cyclists should pay "road tax"

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 11:19pm

Weepsie wrote: »

Why are you so insistent that he pulled out dangerously in front of a bus. That's never been suggested.

There is nothing reckless if they took the lane in a safe manner, held the lane, maintained their pace, did their usual checks. You've made up your mind and gone away with some mad idea.

I never said he pulled out - just the "inconvenience or obstruct other traffic"as per the law. He was overtaking other cyclists.

Weepsie · 23-08-2018 11:30pm

Ahem:

gk5000 wrote: »

No the cyclist was overtaking (the other slower cyclists) recklessly without having ascertained a space to pull into and also impeding other road users ( the bus) - cycling without due consideration to other road users.
.

What you don't get either is, s/he is traffic. IF anything the bus is reckless. It should see the slower moving traffic ahead, and reduce speed accordingly. Beeping the horn is wrong in every respect here as you are too by my reckoning.

gk5000 · 23-08-2018 11:36pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

two things.
'they' is used in a gender neutral sense, to avoid assuming you're a he, or a she. it's simply a stylistic approach to acknowledging that we don't know which you are (or identify as).

secondly, your repeated fallback to 'the law' (albeit applied in a cackhanded fashion) is quite bemusing given that you don't feel the law applies to you when it comes to red lights.

is a bus driver actually engaged in an overtaking manouevre if a bus - in a bus lane - passes a cyclist in an offroad cycle path? by your logic, they are - even though there is no legal or sensible requirement for them to leave their own lane to complete the 'overtake'.
by your reasoning, anyone in a bus lane passing cyclists on an offroad cycle path is performing an overtake, and thus should indicate to warn other road users of this - even though their positioning and lane use does not change.

I interpreted "they" the usual ad-hominess slur from the gang here like Weepsies "an ignorance reserved for people who insist cyclists should pay "road tax" - and just pointed out that I am a commuting cyclist (and further note the usual MOD inaction)

I would not post a thread about being nearly run down by a driver/cyclist going through a green light while I was running a red ( BTW, I do not run reds - but yield on them) - and blame everybody else. I object to and am trying to highlight the incorrect sense of entitlement and incessant whingeing which I believe are not in the best interests of cyclists.

The law quoted is for cyclists, not buses obviously.

If a bus tries to run you off the road...

Comments