Bus vs. Bicyclist

[pimpdave]

It's common sense that a person on a bike should give leeway to a large vehicle that can kill you.

I don't expect everyone to possess that common sense though.

how exactly do you give leeway to a bus? Go on the fast lane?

Getting out of the middle of the road is a place to start...

I don't expect......whatevs

You might want to check the law on that. You demand cyclists follow the law strictly, which requires they behave as a car. So they belong in the center of the lane when there's no bicycle lane. So I guess we know where your bias lies. I suppose you think the bus driver did nothing wrong either and that the cyclist had it coming?

[Lootifer]

It's common sense that a person on a bike should give leeway to a large vehicle that can kill you.

I don't expect everyone to possess that common sense though.

how exactly do you give leeway to a bus? Go on the fast lane?

Getting out of the middle of the road is a place to start...

I don't expect......whatevs

You might want to check the law on that. You demand cyclists follow the law strictly, which requires they behave as a car. So they belong in the center of the lane when there's no bicycle lane. So I guess we know where your bias lies. I suppose you think the bus driver did nothing wrong either and that the cyclist had it coming?

Yeah, but isnt that a problem with the law?

I get annoyed at cyclists often, but treat them with the utmost respect on the road, and give them the space they need. However some cyclists certainly exploit this fact (yes mr cyclist i love going 35kph down a hill because you think hills instantly give you rights to take up the WHOLE road...).

I dont think it's a matter of motorists being cunts or cyclists being cunts, its a matter of some road users are cunts, regardless of what they use for transport. From my PoV in the video there was one moderate cunt, and one extreme super angry dickhead cunt.

[pimpdave]

Okay, got it, you think he deserved that broken wrist, sprained ankle and concussion and the bus driver is all good.

[Phatscotty]

It's common sense that a person on a bike should give leeway to a large vehicle that can kill you.

I don't expect everyone to possess that common sense though.

how exactly do you give leeway to a bus? Go on the fast lane?

Getting out of the middle of the road is a place to start...

I don't expect......whatevs

You might want to check the law on that. You demand cyclists follow the law strictly, which requires they behave as a car. So they belong in the center of the lane when there's no bicycle lane. So I guess we know where your bias lies. I suppose you think the bus driver did nothing wrong either and that the cyclist had it coming?

Yes. I know what the law is. I guess I will have to explain why the law still does not make it a good idea to drive your bike in the middle of the street. Hint - A large vehicle might accidentally kill you!

x 1 billion

[pimpdave]

That was no accident.

[Phatscotty]

It's common sense that a person on a bike should give leeway to a large vehicle that can kill you.

I don't expect everyone to possess that common sense though.

how exactly do you give leeway to a bus? Go on the fast lane?

Getting out of the middle of the road is a place to start...

I don't expect......whatevs

You might want to check the law on that. You demand cyclists follow the law strictly, which requires they behave as a car. So they belong in the center of the lane when there's no bicycle lane. So I guess we know where your bias lies. I suppose you think the bus driver did nothing wrong either and that the cyclist had it coming?

Yeah, but isnt that a problem with the law?

I get annoyed at cyclists often, but treat them with the utmost respect on the road, and give them the space they need. However some cyclists certainly exploit this fact (yes mr cyclist i love going 35kph down a hill because you think hills instantly give you rights to take up the WHOLE road...).

I dont think it's a matter of motorists being cunts or cyclists being cunts, its a matter of some road users are cunts, regardless of what they use for transport. From my PoV in the video there was one moderate cunt, and one extreme super angry dickhead cunt.

That's a good point. The bicyclist in this video, however, was being a cunt. Then, the bus driver lost control and became a cunt as well. Road rage conditions have not been genetically modified from the crops yet, but the biker could have and should have yielded to the side. Not because of any law or any biker rights, but because he is the smallest, most vulnerable to injury, most difficult to see/expect, does not have blinkers (the biker was weaving in his lane big time) or lights....I could go on and on. I tried at first however to point out it's just common sense to be safe.

[pimpdave]

So bicyclists are cunts for strictly obeying the law?

[Phatscotty]

So bicyclists are cunts for strictly obeying the law?

You see, this is a classic thread running through many progressives today. They think that simply because there is a law about something, that they are 100% protected, the problem is solved, and they can defy common sense.

The bicyclist was clearly aggravating the bus driver, and the entire lane of traffic behind him. There were at least 8 cars behind the bus doing less than half the speed limit. The biker was holding up traffic around the block! Watch the first cars in the video in the other lane, they are moving much faster. It also looks possible some words were exchanged at about 32-40 seconds.

The biker screwed up when he tried to cut the bus off, as the biker swerves almost into the next lane just as the bus was about to pass him.

And David, you are forgetting other laws, such as "maintaining the flow of traffic". The biker clearly decided he did not need to follow that law either.

[thegreekdog]

Cars should yield to cyclists the same way they are required to yield to pedestrians. That being said, the cyclists shouldn't be morons.

In Philadelphia, for example, there are really no bike lanes (which is bad thing) and bicycles cannot be ridden on the sidewalk. I've seen, twice, cyclists hit pedestrians (once while the cyclist was on the sidewalk and once while the cyclist blew through a red light). If I leave early from work, I sometimes get behind a cyclist who rides in the lane (like a car) and does not yield to me (who is behind her). I don't know if this makes me a dick, but if I can get ahead of her, I do and I pull as close as possible to parked cars so she can't go around me... which is another issue I have. If you're riding your bike in the street and you act like a car (i.e. you take up the lane), you should not be permitted to go around a car. Not only is that annoying, it's also very dangerous.

[Lootifer]

Okay, got it, you think he deserved that broken wrist, sprained ankle and concussion and the bus driver is all good.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, got it, you think he deserved that broken wrist, sprained ankle and concussion and the bus driver is all good.

[Orwell]

That was a deliberate, and potentially deadly, maneuver by the bus driver. I see a whole lotta room to pass safely and the cyclist has a right to use the road.

Case closed.

[Phatscotty]

That was a deliberate, and potentially deadly, maneuver by the bus driver. I see a whole lotta room to pass safely and the cyclist has a right to use the road.

Case closed.

There is plenty of room to go around for everyone involved, including the 8 cars behind the bus. Looks like they all needed to be in that lane, and it looks like they are all going to be late for work.

The bus has a right to use the road.

case closed

[Orwell]

That was a deliberate, and potentially deadly, maneuver by the bus driver. I see a whole lotta room to pass safely and the cyclist has a right to use the road.

Case closed.

There is plenty of room to go around for everyone involved, including the 8 cars behind the bus. Looks like they all needed to be in that lane, and it looks like they are all going to be late for work.

The bus has a right to use the road.

case closed

Pure conjecture.

The bus must obey the law which includes giving safe distance when passing cyclists - or waiting until he/she can.
However, there is no denying this bus driver ASSAULTED the cyclist.

[Phatscotty]

That was a deliberate, and potentially deadly, maneuver by the bus driver. I see a whole lotta room to pass safely and the cyclist has a right to use the road.

Case closed.

There is plenty of room to go around for everyone involved, including the 8 cars behind the bus. Looks like they all needed to be in that lane, and it looks like they are all going to be late for work.

The bus has a right to use the road.

case closed

Pure conjecture.

The bus must obey the law which includes giving safe distance when passing cyclists - or waiting until he/she can.
However, there is no denying this bus driver ASSAULTED the cyclist.

And the cyclist must obey the law which maintains the flow of traffic. They do not have the right to hold up the business of the entire city. The guy on the bike was being a complete asshole, and that is crystal clear.

The bus driver assaulted the cyclist, that much is obvious and does not need to be repeated over and over again. However, the cyclist instigated the situation and initiated the road rage. He took pleasure in holding up traffic and being a doosh. He even swerved in front of the bus to challenge the bus. The cyclist was exposing himself to danger, repeatedly. Sure he can be on the road, that has nothing to do with it though and does not give a biker the right to endanger everyone else's safety. The bicyclist is the source of the road rage. That does not excuse the road rage, it just states the biker started it. Most of is know what road rage is, and most of us can put ourselves in that bus drivers shoes. Most of us would not have done what this guy did, but then again, most of us can still lose control at times and do stupid things.

Bottom line, the cyclists was playing with fire, and got burned. Has nothing to do with who's fault it was or who was bigger or who had the right to do what. The biker was being dumb and it bit him in the ass.

He, and you along with others, have replaced basic common sense concerning safety with the protection of laws. I am not surprised it is you who came into this discussion though. Should have expected YOU!

[Orwell]

That was a deliberate, and potentially deadly, maneuver by the bus driver. I see a whole lotta room to pass safely and the cyclist has a right to use the road.

Case closed.

There is plenty of room to go around for everyone involved, including the 8 cars behind the bus. Looks like they all needed to be in that lane, and it looks like they are all going to be late for work.

The bus has a right to use the road.

case closed

Pure conjecture.

The bus must obey the law which includes giving safe distance when passing cyclists - or waiting until he/she can.
However, there is no denying this bus driver ASSAULTED the cyclist.

And the cyclist must obey the law which maintains the flow of traffic. They do not have the right to hold up the business of the entire city. The guy on the bike was being a complete asshole, and that is crystal clear.

The bus driver assaulted the cyclist, that much is obvious and does not need to be repeated over and over again. However, the cyclist instigated the situation and initiated the road rage. He took pleasure in holding up traffic and being a doosh. He even swerved in front of the bus to challenge the bus. The cyclist was exposing himself to danger, repeatedly. Sure he can be on the road, that has nothing to do with it though and does not give a biker the right to endanger everyone else's safety. The bicyclist is the source of the road rage. That does not excuse the road rage, it just states the biker started it. Most of is know what road rage is, and most of us can put ourselves in that bus drivers shoes. Most of us would not have done what this guy did, but then again, most of us can still lose control at times and do stupid things.

Bottom line, the cyclists was playing with fire, and got burned. Has nothing to do with who's fault it was or who was bigger or who had the right to do what. The biker was being dumb and it bit him in the ass.

He, and you along with others, have replaced basic common sense concerning safety with the protection of laws. I am not surprised it is you who came into this discussion though. Should have expected YOU!

Wow, your logic is astounding - and not in a good way. For you to assume the cyclist took pleasure in holding up traffic - or asked for being assaulted - is asinine conjecture. The ONLY source of the road rage is the bus driver.

The cyclist has a right to the road. The bus driver must obey the law. The ONLY person who endangered the lives of others was the bus driver - most immediately, the life of the cyclist, the passengers on the bus, and other drivers on the road.

Last, common sense says you do not use your bus as a weapon. Let's be crystal clear: the only person who rejected common sense and acted unsafely was the bus driver - and as this example illustrates perfectly, there is good reason as to why the law is written to protect cyclists rights on the road.

[Orwell]

Oh, and let's just settle this with the facts:
• The bus driver was fired.
• He was charged with dangerous driving and to causing grievous bodily harm.
• He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 17 months in prison.

The judge said in his sentencing: "This was not an accident, it was an assault, deliberate dangerous driving.
You used that vehicle as a weapon to bully and intimidate the cyclist who, in the end, was struck by that bus.”

Case closed.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, and let's just settle this with the facts:
• The bus driver was fired.
• He was charged with dangerous driving and to causing grievous bodily harm.
• He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 17 months in prison.

The judge said in his sentencing: "This was not an accident, it was an assault, deliberate dangerous driving.
You used that vehicle as a weapon to bully and intimidate the cyclist who, in the end, was struck by that bus.”

Case closed.

of course the bus driver was fired! Nobody ever said he wasn't dangerous driving and to causing grievous bodily harm. Nobody thinks it was an accident.

The cyclist still started everything

[Phatscotty]

That was a deliberate, and potentially deadly, maneuver by the bus driver. I see a whole lotta room to pass safely and the cyclist has a right to use the road.

Case closed.

There is plenty of room to go around for everyone involved, including the 8 cars behind the bus. Looks like they all needed to be in that lane, and it looks like they are all going to be late for work.

The bus has a right to use the road.

case closed

Pure conjecture.

The bus must obey the law which includes giving safe distance when passing cyclists - or waiting until he/she can.
However, there is no denying this bus driver ASSAULTED the cyclist.

And the cyclist must obey the law which maintains the flow of traffic. They do not have the right to hold up the business of the entire city. The guy on the bike was being a complete asshole, and that is crystal clear.

The bus driver assaulted the cyclist, that much is obvious and does not need to be repeated over and over again. However, the cyclist instigated the situation and initiated the road rage. He took pleasure in holding up traffic and being a doosh. He even swerved in front of the bus to challenge the bus. The cyclist was exposing himself to danger, repeatedly. Sure he can be on the road, that has nothing to do with it though and does not give a biker the right to endanger everyone else's safety. The bicyclist is the source of the road rage. That does not excuse the road rage, it just states the biker started it. Most of is know what road rage is, and most of us can put ourselves in that bus drivers shoes. Most of us would not have done what this guy did, but then again, most of us can still lose control at times and do stupid things.

Bottom line, the cyclists was playing with fire, and got burned. Has nothing to do with who's fault it was or who was bigger or who had the right to do what. The biker was being dumb and it bit him in the ass.

He, and you along with others, have replaced basic common sense concerning safety with the protection of laws. I am not surprised it is you who came into this discussion though. Should have expected YOU!

Wow, your logic is astounding - and not in a good way. For you to assume the cyclist took pleasure in holding up traffic - or asked for being assaulted - is asinine conjecture. The ONLY source of the road rage is the bus driver.

The cyclist has a right to the road. The bus driver must obey the law. The ONLY person who endangered the lives of others was the bus driver - most immediately, the life of the cyclist, the passengers on the bus, and other drivers on the road.

Last, common sense says you do not use your bus as a weapon. Let's be crystal clear: the only person who rejected common sense and acted unsafely was the bus driver - and as this example illustrates perfectly, there is good reason as to why the law is written to protect cyclists rights on the road.

assume? watch the video... The bike is swerving back and forth, taking up the entire lane. and as I have pointed out, he even swerved into the other lane in front of the bus just as it tried to pass. its at about 36 seconds. What I see with my own eyes is not an assumption, it's an observation. The cyclist has a right to the road and must obey the law. The bus driver has a right to the road and must obey they law. again, nothing new here.

Common sense says you do not use a bus as a weapon, and common sense also says you do not ride a bike like a jackass in the middle of traffic that can kill you.

[Orwell]

Nothing justifies or excuses the reaction of the bus driver.
The cyclist was the victim of an assault. It begins and ends there.

[Phatscotty]

Nothing justifies or excuses the reaction of the bus driver.
The cyclist was the victim of an assault. It begins and ends there.

of course not. I don't know why you keep stating the obvious over and over again, I have an idea why you are unable to admit the cyclist was a doosh and started it all tho

[BigBallinStalin]

Nothing justifies or excuses the reaction of the bus driver.
The cyclist was the victim of an assault. It begins and ends there.

of course not. I don't know why you keep stating the obvious over and over again, I have an idea why you are unable to admit the cyclist was a doosh and started it all tho

Where's your evidence for this claim?

[AAFitz]

Pedestrians: hate drivers and cyclists
Cyclists: hate pedestrians and drivers
Drivers: hate pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers

Most of us swap roles often.

I dont hate other drivers. I only hate the assholes that drive slower and hold me up, and the crazies that speed right past me.

[AAFitz]

Cyclists are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they stop at the traffic light, it takes time to get up to speed and Tea Party motorists get enraged. If cyclists maintain momentum by carefully gliding through an intersection despite there being a red light, yet plenty of time to cross before traffic reaches them, Tea Party motorists get enraged because they don't strictly obey traffic laws.

Motorists are fatsos. They should all have to ride a bicycle for one full week in traffic before ever being given a license. Then maybe they'll understand why it's important to share the road.

I carefully glided through a green light at an intersection and a pickup pulled in front of me. Ouch. Both eyes going back and forth in my head...at different speeds. Plenty of puking that night, few stitches, demolished bike. I did absolutely crush his quarter panel though. Had he not stopped, Id have hit his A or B pillar, and I would be quite dead.

I don't think there is enough shown in this video to suggest the bike is doing anything wrong, or even purposefully annoying at all. The bus driver is a psychopath to do that to anyone driving anything smaller than another bus, let alone a bike.

Also, accidents are weird things. It really is possible that guy was getting into the left lane and was looking in his mirror. Then, he saw that he was about to hit a car, and swerved quickly to avoid the car, and didn't realize the bike was there at all. He stopped after he heard the impact. The video doesn't make that seem like whats happened, but its at least a very real possibility.

[Orwell]

Nothing justifies or excuses the reaction of the bus driver.
The cyclist was the victim of an assault. It begins and ends there.

of course not. I don't know why you keep stating the obvious over and over again,

And I do not know why you keep making excuses for the bus driver's assault on the cyclist.

I have an idea why you are unable to admit the cyclist was a doosh (sic) and started it all tho

The actions of the bus driver trumps all previous douche behavior. Let's review:
The cyclist was using the roadway.
The bus drove too close.
The cyclist exchanged heated words with the bus driver.
The cyclist pedaled off.
The bus driver overtook the cyclist and used his bus to swat the cyclist off the road, fracturing the cyclist's left leg and wrist.

The first four facts of this case happen on a daily basis - it doesn't matter who is right, or who started it, or who was the bigger douche - the point of escalation begins and ends with the bus driver assaulting the cyclist. And it is this common sense, coupled with our legal system, that sees the bus driver sentenced to 17 months in prison with his admission of guilt.