Accident With Bus Passenger

Pete Biggs said:

Aidan Hemsworth said:

and I couldn't have seen the passenger: as I said, I hit him as he stepped out

You "hit him" - with front of front wheel? So he didn't blunder into the side of you/bike but
stepped out in front of you?

Thank you for spotting a neat contradiction here. I notice, reviewing the articles, that the initial
accident where Mr. Hemsworth ploughed into the victim head-on has at times mysteriously changed into
one where the victim hit him broadside.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Aidan Hemsworth said:

David Damerell <[email hidden]>:

Is it not possible that bus stops are so closely spaced that everywhere is near one?

This exchange is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100 yards away from a bus stop is not
'just before'.

It's close enough that I'd expect passengers to be standing up and moving towards the doors; hence,
if the bus is unexpectedly stopped, there'd be every expectation that they would want to disembark.
That's what matters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, careless cycling is illegal. The decision to undertake was legal, but by doing so
carelessly you committed a crime.

The 'careless' element of committing a crime is not, in itself, a crime.

I have no idea what you're saying here. "Careless cycling" is itself a criminal offence. If you do
something which is otherwise legal in a careless fashion, you may be guilty of it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As it happens, while I do not ride in central London more than once or twice a month, I do
regularly undertake buses (which it may surprise you to learn are much the same in the rest of the
country) - and I have never come even close to hitting a passenger as a result.

This is probably the first time that Aidan has even come close to hitting a passenger. You may just
have been lucky,

Good observation and caution has nothing to do with luck. Some accidents are caused by poor luck -
things really can happen with no warning, mechanical failures can happen even to a well-maintained
machine - but this isn't one of them.

Quoted message said:

although I'm sure that you'll put it down to your uebermenschlich skill.

This is another bogus rhetorical technique; since you don't want to admit what I'm actually saying -
that any ordinarily competent cyclist can avoid this accident - you pretend I am saying something
else, that I am possessed of extraordinary competence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Car doors? When going up the inside of a bus?

He probably means that he's watching out for a lot of risks. Passengers getting off buses away from
bus stops would be pretty low down his list of risks.

When going up the inside of a bus? I should think it's about number 2 on the list for anyone
sensible - there's not a lot else that can happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, that's my point; if you can't keep an adequate view of the doors owing to lighting, approach
speed, or poor eyesight, you need to slow down.

He wasn't going quickly.

Sure, that's how he buckled his wheel and trashed a helmet.

[But if he really was going at walking pace - if his estimate of stopping distance is correct, which
I don't believe - and the conditions were so amazingly poor as to preclude observation of a bus door
that was being approached at walking pace - then it's probably best not to undertake.

On the other hand, conditions that poor would imply pitch darkness with no lights, very thick fog,
horizontal sleet... perhaps a more likely explanation is that he was going much faster than
walking pace?]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But later in this article you say that the passenger should have looked back to see you.

Yes, but the passenger can stick his head out to look around.

Are you seriously saying it's a reasonable expectation that bus passengers (including the elderly
and infirm) are going to hang onto bars and lean their heads out of buses?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's true, but irrelevant, since I would be warned by the doors opening.

Well, you obviously are an uebermensch who couldn't possibly be distracted by anything else and has
perfect hearing, able to identify an opening bus door in traffic.

Once again, you are lying about what I'm writing. You know perfectly well I am advocating visual
observation, which anyone is capable of - so why try this ridiculous claim?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You hit someone when you need not have been undertaking,

See, you think he should have been behind the bus (with you)

This is also not true. Please confine yourself to discussing what I actually write - to wit, that
_if_ the OP's observational skills are as abysmal as he suggests he would be best not to undertake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

inattention to the vehicle they were in, and failure to consider a very common practice on the
part of bus drivers.

Not all that common

You don't actually travel by bus much, do you?

Quoted message said:

and the failure of the driver to check is even less common as is the failure of the passenger
to check.

We don't know that the driver did not check to the best of his ability; rear visibility is poor from
buses, as I have already mentioned. As for the passenger, we have already been told that there was
no line of sight between them and the rider.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not what it says - and the implication, that you are competent to avoid accidents, is very
definitely untrue.

Your opinion, with which I disagree.

You may believe that the OP can avoid accidents if you please, but reality says otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the sense that you charged

He wasn't charging

Sure, that's how he buckled a wheel and destroyed a helmet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up the inside of the bus without watching it,

He hasn't said he wasn't watching

Bus doors are about 7' by 2' - not small. If, like some motorists, one can look at an object that
size but not have it register, that's not "watching".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whereas the passenger who _by your own admission_ could not have seen you,

Neither has he said this

He's said he couldn't see the passenger - since the heads would be the most visible parts of both
people, if he couldn't see the passenger, the passenger couldn't see him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You're trying to change the subject here. You say there was nothing else you could have done;
>that is patently false, because you could have waited behind the bus.
No I'm not

You are; you are not defending your untrue claim that there was nothing else you could have done.

He was there. Only he can say whether there was anything else he could have done beyond staying
behind the bus

What's that got to do with it? He could have stayed behind the bus; therefore, it is untrue that
there was nothing else he could have done besides undertake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If they had stepped off into a pedestrian it would also be their fault no that of the passer-by.

Pedestrians on the pavement do not have the same responsibilities as those undertaking.

It's not the responsibilities of the pavement pedestrians which are at issue.

In fact, Adrian mentions them just above.

Quoted message said:

David, I sincerely hope that you never have an accident but I honestly believe that you are
tempting fate with your self-righteous pronouncements.

Don't be ridiculous. It is people like you who believe that a cyclist can do no wrong merely because
they are a cyclist who help to make the roads dangerous.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Smith
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

You should also be able to stop safely if something emerges into your path from a hidden position,
so seeing that the road is clear isn't enough. You need to know that it will remain clear.

This seems like rubbish to me. As an example, there is no road with hedges along the sides where it
would be possible to drive at anything like a decent speed and fulfil this requirement. Drivers and
cyclists both operate within a system which demands that the participants behave according to a set
of rules that work together to avoid problems.

This means that it is reasonable to expect other vehicles to do things like giving way at give way
lines and stopping at traffic lights. It is also reasonable to expect that bus drivers will not let
passengers alight in dangerous positions and that passengers alighting from buses away from bus
stops will look for pedestrians and cyclists when doing so. The increased vulnerability of cyclists
probably makes them a bit more wary of the potential actions of other road users but you really
don't see (m)any who slow down or move away from the kerb every time they see a car waiting to
emerge from a side road.

Can you honestly say that you drive down every road at such a speed that allows you to avoid
everything that could possibly emerge into your path from a hidden position? If you do then there's
no point having a car. You're moving so slowly you might as well walk everywhere. Even a bike would
be too fast.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Sir Winston Churchill
--
Michael MacClancy

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Aidan Hemsworth <[email hidden]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[email hidden]>:
Is it not possible that bus stops are so closely spaced that everywhere is near one?

This exchange is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100 yards away from a bus stop is not 'just
before'.

It's close enough that I'd expect passengers to be standing up and moving towards the doors; hence,
if the bus is unexpectedly stopped, there'd be every expectation that they would want to disembark.
That's what matters.

We don't know that he knew there was a stop 100 yards up the road. We have to assume that he knew
that the bus wasn't at a stop. Otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to undertake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, careless cycling is illegal. The decision to undertake was legal, but by doing so
carelessly you committed a crime.

The 'careless' element of committing a crime is not, in itself, a crime.

I have no idea what you're saying here. "Careless cycling" is itself a criminal offence. If you do
something which is otherwise legal in a careless fashion, you may be guilty of it.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your phrasing. I read it as meaning that he carelessly committed a crime
instead of he carelessly cycled. I see what you mean now although I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As it happens, while I do not ride in central London more than once or twice a month, I do
regularly undertake buses (which it may surprise you to learn are much the same in the rest of
the country) - and I have never come even close to hitting a passenger as a result.

This is probably the first time that Aidan has even come close to hitting a passenger. You may
just have been lucky,

Good observation and caution has nothing to do with luck. Some accidents are caused by poor luck -
things really can happen with no warning, mechanical failures can happen even to a well-maintained
machine - but this isn't one of them.

Again, I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

although I'm sure that you'll put it down to your uebermenschlich skill.

This is another bogus rhetorical technique; since you don't want to admit what I'm actually saying
- that any ordinarily competent cyclist can avoid this accident - you pretend I am saying something
else, that I am possessed of extraordinary competence.

No, from what I have read I don't agree that any ordinarily competent cyclist can avoid this
accident. Neither could a more than ordinarily competent cyclist avoid this accident. Only an
uebermensch could.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Car doors? When going up the inside of a bus?

He probably means that he's watching out for a lot of risks. Passengers getting off buses away
from bus stops would be pretty low down his list of risks.

When going up the inside of a bus? I should think it's about number 2 on the list for anyone
sensible - there's not a lot else that can happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, that's my point; if you can't keep an adequate view of the doors owing to lighting,
approach speed, or poor eyesight, you need to slow down.

He wasn't going quickly.

Sure, that's how he buckled his wheel and trashed a helmet.

I think these things can happen more easily than you allow, given the right set of circumstances.

Quoted message said:

[But if he really was going at walking pace - if his estimate of stopping distance is correct,
which I don't believe - and the conditions were so amazingly poor as to preclude observation of a
bus door that was being approached at walking pace - then it's probably best not to undertake.

On the other hand, conditions that poor would imply pitch darkness with no lights, very thick fog,
horizontal sleet... perhaps a more likely explanation is that he was going much faster than
walking pace?]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But later in this article you say that the passenger should have looked back to see you.

Yes, but the passenger can stick his head out to look around.

Are you seriously saying it's a reasonable expectation that bus passengers (including the elderly
and infirm) are going to hang onto bars and lean their heads out of buses?

Yes, when thinking of alighting away from bus stops. Otherwise they shouldn't do it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's true, but irrelevant, since I would be warned by the doors opening.

Well, you obviously are an uebermensch who couldn't possibly be distracted by anything else and
has perfect hearing, able to identify an opening bus door in traffic.

Once again, you are lying about what I'm writing. You know perfectly well I am advocating visual
observation, which anyone is capable of - so why try this ridiculous claim?

David, I don't think you would have you eyes on the doors all the time you were undertaking. You
might hit something on the road or coming from the left. And BTW I don't lie.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You hit someone when you need not have been undertaking,

See, you think he should have been behind the bus (with you)

This is also not true. Please confine yourself to discussing what I actually write - to wit, that
_if_ the OP's observational skills are as abysmal as he suggests he would be best not to undertake.

In that case you would have written, "you hit someone when you *should* not have been undertaking".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

inattention to the vehicle they were in, and failure to consider a very common practice on the
part of bus drivers.

Not all that common

You don't actually travel by bus much, do you?

I see you've adopted the Guy Chapman style of abuse. I have travelled and do travel by bus enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the failure of the driver to check is even less common as is the failure of the passenger
to check.

We don't know that the driver did not check to the best of his ability; rear visibility is poor
from buses, as I have already mentioned.

Visibility along the side is more of an issue here.

Quoted message said:

As for the passenger, we have already been told that there was no line of sight between them and
the rider.

Yes, but passengers have necks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not what it says - and the implication, that you are competent to avoid accidents, is very
definitely untrue.

Your opinion, with which I disagree.

You may believe that the OP can avoid accidents if you please, but reality says otherwise.

I suspect that he has avoided more accidents than you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the sense that you charged

He wasn't charging

Sure, that's how he buckled a wheel and destroyed a helmet.

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up the inside of the bus without watching it,

He hasn't said he wasn't watching

Bus doors are about 7' by 2' - not small. If, like some motorists, one can look at an object that
size but not have it register, that's not "watching".

See above regarding looking where you're going.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whereas the passenger who _by your own admission_ could not have seen you,

Neither has he said this

He's said he couldn't see the passenger - since the heads would be the most visible parts of both
people, if he couldn't see the passenger, the passenger couldn't see him.

OK, so if he couldn't see the passenger then the passenger couldn't have looked.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>You're trying to change the subject here. You say there was nothing else you could have done;
>>that is patently false, because you could have waited behind the bus.
>No I'm not
You are; you are not defending your untrue claim that there was nothing else you could have done.

He was there. Only he can say whether there was anything else he could have done beyond staying
behind the bus

What's that got to do with it? He could have stayed behind the bus; therefore, it is untrue that
there was nothing else he could have done besides undertake.

Yes, but there's nothing wrong with undertaking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>If they had stepped off into a pedestrian it would also be their fault no that of the passer-by.
Pedestrians on the pavement do not have the same responsibilities as those undertaking.

It's not the responsibilities of the pavement pedestrians which are at issue.

In fact, Adrian mentions them just above.

Yes, he says it's not the fault of the passer-by.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David, I sincerely hope that you never have an accident but I honestly believe that you are
tempting fate with your self-righteous pronouncements.

Don't be ridiculous. It is people like you who believe that a cyclist can do no wrong merely
because they are a cyclist who help to make the roads dangerous.

You're accusing me of holding beliefs that have never entered my mind. On this NG I have read plenty
of posts about irresponsible cycling on pavements, through red lights etc. etc. and I condone none
of it. I have criticised the people who do such things and the record demonstrates this. In this
case I believe that, Aidan not being an uebermensch, most of the fault (probably all) lies with the
bus driver and the passenger and that Aidan was not doing anything irresponsible or, indeed,
anything that most other law-abiding, reasonable cyclists would not have done. His original post
concerned liability and the opportunity to get compensation from the bus company. I think he has a
case. Extremely cautious or pointlessly argumentative cyclists seem to think not. But what's the
harm in writing a letter?

--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

the side of this discussion that's not blaming you says you should have another go at the
bus company

Looking back at the thread, you could substitute "bus" for "speed camera" and transplant it whole to
uk.tosspot. Must be the [censored] weather making us all curmudgeonly.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Michael MacClancy said:

On this NG I have read plenty of posts about irresponsible cycling on pavements, through red
lights etc. etc. and I condone none of it. I have criticised the people who do such things and the
record demonstrates this. In this case I believe that, Aidan not being an uebermensch, most of the
fault (probably all) lies with the bus driver and the passenger and that Aidan was not doing
anything irresponsible or, indeed, anything that most other law-abiding, reasonable cyclists would
not have done. His original post concerned liability and the opportunity to get compensation from
the bus company. I think he has a case. Extremely cautious or pointlessly argumentative cyclists
seem to think not.

There are places for extreme caution. Overtaking a stationary bus on the inside right next to the
bloody doors is one of them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cycling on the pavement, jumping red lights, doing all sorts of other illegal and so-called
"irresponsible" things is often far less dangerous and less likely to result in injuring an
innocent person.

There is point to my arguments: people's safety and cyclists' honesty.

~PB

Michael MacClancy said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Smith
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

You should also be able to stop safely if something emerges into your path from a hidden
position, so seeing that the road is clear isn't enough. You need to know that it will
remain clear.

This seems like rubbish to me. As an example, there is no road with hedges along the sides where
it would be possible to drive at anything like a decent speed and fulfil this requirement. Drivers
and cyclists both operate within a system which demands that the participants behave according to
a set of rules that work together to avoid problems.

This means that it is reasonable to expect other vehicles to do things like giving way at give way
lines and stopping at traffic lights. It is also reasonable to expect that bus drivers will not
let passengers alight in dangerous positions and that passengers alighting from buses away from
bus stops will look for pedestrians and cyclists when doing so.

You also have a duty to avoid special dangers whenever reasonably possible. The road user has an
extra duty of care when overtaking - especially on the left. The law may be vague about this (?) but
the Highway Code isn't. See www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml . Most of the HC's advice is reasonable
and it sometimes used by magistrates, I understand.

Quoted message said:

The increased vulnerability of cyclists probably makes them a bit more wary of the potential
actions of other road users but you really don't see (m)any who slow down or move away from the
kerb every time they see a car waiting to emerge from a side road.

Speaking for myself on a bike, I do - unless I'm already a good distance away.

Quoted message said:

Can you honestly say that you drive down every road at such a speed that allows you to avoid
everything that could possibly emerge into your path from a hidden position?

I _try_ to make sure that I could avoid* everything that is _likely_ to emerge into my path.
Passengers are likely to get off stationary buses away from bus stops.
* Or at least take action that could mitigate any incident.

Quoted message said:

If you do then there's no point having a car.

A what?

I think your above points show the difference between an average motorist and a reasonable cyclist.
The AM thinks it's okay to endanger innocent people's lives just because he is "in the right". The
RC goes out of his way (literally) to to keep himself and innocent people safe.

~PB

Michael MacClancy said:

And BTW I don't lie.

Here are some samples from my articles;

"if you can't keep an adequate view of the doors owing to lighting, approach speed, or
poor eyesight"

"charged up the inside of the bus without watching it"

"I take care to watch the doors of buses."

"my eyesight and alertness is sufficient to see 7' tall plates in the side of the bus moving."

Somehow, you turned this into;

"Well, you obviously are an uebermensch who couldn't possibly be distracted by anything else and has
perfect hearing, able to identify an opening bus door in traffic."

Now quite frankly I don't care if it is poor reading comprehension or simple mendacity that caused
this transformation of eyesight into hearing; but, in either case, when you - as you do - reply not
to what I write but to a convenient fantasy about what I might have written, it becomes impossible
to carry out a meaningful discussion.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?