Accident With Bus Passenger

[Graeme]

John B <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>> All it needs is "and within the posted limit" and it would be perfect.
>
> Guy, that is a deliberate red rag. Leave the nutter in peace.

Guy's got 40 days worth of PS baiting to catch up on. Normal service will no doubt return soon

Have fun!

Graeme

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:14:38 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why would you wish to introduce such an imprecise condition which has no bearing on primary safety?

1. There is nothing imprecise about the posted limit, or its legal interpretation.

2. The assertion that it has "no bearing" on primary safety is yours, and is at odds with that of
other people of varying degrees of authority. The fact that you choose to ignore the reasonable
explanations advanced as to why speed limits are a factor for safety is your problem, not mine.

3. You don't ride a bike, do you?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:21:33 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:

>Guy, that is a deliberate red rag.

You noticed ;-)

>Meanwhile, how's the cycle-training coming on?

First date set for June.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (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.

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:02:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Why would you wish to introduce such an imprecise condition which has no bearing on
>>primary safety?

>1. There is nothing imprecise about the posted limit, or its legal interpretation.

No. It's just massively imprecise as an arbiter of safety.

>2. The assertion that it has "no bearing" on primary safety is yours, and is at odds with that of
> other people of varying degrees of authority. The fact that you choose to ignore the reasonable
> explanations advanced as to why speed limits are a factor for safety is your problem, not mine.

Actually I do think the speed limit has an important bearing on primary safety. But it has no
bearing on the safety offered by following the safe speed rule.

>3. You don't ride a bike, do you?

Who cares?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Anonymous]

Aidan Hemsworth wrote:

> I was cycling along the inside of stationary traffic coming up to a junction when the bus driver
> let off a passenger approximately 100 yards before the bus stop with no warning. It was dark and
> he stepped out the side of the bus in front of me so I hit him quite hard, buckling my wheel and
> cracking my helmet.
>
> The bus company have just told me that the bus driver is claiming they let him off at a "safe
> spot" and have no liability as I didn't collide with the bus.
>
> The bus was not at a bus stop and the driver opened the door and let them off. There was no one
> else on the bus so no witnesses except the child and mother who disappeared instantly.

Seems like there's two problems here .. The Bus driver for stopping to let passengers disembark when
not at a stop, and a cyclist for undertaking a vehicle, particularly one likely to disgorge
passengers ..

I wouldn't push any claims too far.

--

Completed 1611 Seti work units in 12319 hours http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

 

[Pete Biggs]

> In any case, passing a bus on the left, stationary or not, is most unwise.

Just a bit OTT, I think. I _safely_ undertake buses on many of my rides, and must have done it many
thousands of times in my life. Often, there's a gap of several feet between bus and kerb, or it's
certain that the bus ain't going anywhere for ages. Being very watchful of movement and aware of the
potential dangers and of how buses, bus drivers and passengers behave enables me to read the
situation undertake safely sometimes (plenty of times, actually).

I wouldn't encourage anyone to undertake if they don't feel able or the need (and I stress that this
post is not meant as advice), but if you don't do it in busy inner London, for example, either your
journey time will siginficantly increase or you'll /sometimes/ face greater danger from oncoming or
crossing traffic and pedestrians when overtaking on the outside instead. But outside overtaking is
often just plain impossible because vehicles are so close to centre of road and other side is
chocked up as well or there are barriers/street furniture in the way.

Undertaking near a moving or could-move-any-sec vehicle on a left bend, however, IS only for
bufoooooons!

~PB

 

[John B]

Paul Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:02:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >3. You don't ride a bike, do you?
>
> Who cares?

I'm sure nearly everyone on this ng would be interested.

But you won't answer because you don't ride one do you.

John B

 

[Greg66]

"Aidan Hemsworth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone knows what the legal standing is w.r.t. my accident:
>
> I was cycling along the inside of stationary traffic coming up to a junction when the bus driver
> let off a passenger approximately 100 yards before the bus stop with no warning. It was dark and
> he stepped out the side of the bus in front of me so I hit him quite hard, buckling my wheel and
> cracking my helmet.
>
> The bus company have just told me that the bus driver is claiming they let him off at a "safe
> spot" and have no liability as I didn't collide with the bus.
>
> The bus was not at a bus stop and the driver opened the door and let them off. There was no one
> else on the bus so no witnesses except the child and mother who disappeared instantly.
>
> Help!
>
> Cheers, Aidan.

Despite the naysaying of previous posters to the effect that you should keep your head down, thank
your lucky stars that you were arrested, etc etc, I think that (as between you and the bus company),
the driver is primarily at fault, but you share some of the responsibility.

I take it from the way in which you describe the accident that the bus was not a Routemaster with an
open platform at the rear nearside, but a driver operated bus with exit doors that open inwards at
the mid nearside.

If you had been undertaking a stationery line of car traffic, and a car passenger had opened his
door and wiped you out, I doubt that there'd be much argument as to who was primarily responsible
for the accident. I can't see much difference in substance between that example and what took place.

That said, personal injury cases rarely result in a finding that one party was 100% to blame. There
are various factors that previous posters have pointed to that suggest that in part, you were to
blame. So, overall, a court would I think be likely to conclude that you were x% responsible for the
accident, and reduce your claim accordingly.

You could get a solicitor to take a look at it, and write an angry letter to the bus co. However,
given that you've said that the extent of your claim is a new front wheel and a new helmet, I doubt
that pursuing this claim beyond "Gimme some money"; "NO!" is remotely cost-effective.

 

[Wafflycathcsdir]

>If you had been undertaking a stationery line of car traffic, and a car passenger had opened his
>door and wiped you out, I doubt that there'd be much argument as to who was primarily responsible
>for the accident.

As described in original posting, no - cyclist would be. Undertaking is a no-no
- it is *dangerous* and stupid to undertake.

To quote the guru Franklin, "Never overtake a moving vehicle on the left side within the same
traffic lane" I would add that I think overtaking on the left - undertaking - is particularly
dangerous *period*.

Then to quote our very own guru, Myra, "The Highway Code is clear (paragraph
197) about this. Its advice to cyclists is "Do not overtake on the left of vehicles slowing down to
turn left"

Then, if you look at the HC online, the following is stated for rules 57 & 58 "On the left. When
approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into
the side road. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners.
They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the
manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted
to ride in the space between them and the kerb."

And rule 129, " ... not change lanes to the left to overtake. "

All of which, suggests to me it's a pretty stupid thing to undertake.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

[James Annan]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:

> As described in original posting, no - cyclist would be. Undertaking is a no-no
> - it is *dangerous* and stupid to undertake.
>
> To quote the guru Franklin, "Never overtake a moving vehicle on the left side within the same
> traffic lane" I would add that I think overtaking on the left - undertaking - is particularly
> dangerous *period*.

That's your opinion, but doesn't appear to be shared by Franklin or the HC as you demonstrate below.

>
> Then to quote our very own guru, Myra, "The Highway Code is clear (paragraph
> 197) about this. Its advice to cyclists is "Do not overtake on the left of vehicles slowing down
> to turn left"

Which the bus was not doing. It was stationary in a queue of traffic, precisely the situation in
which it is normal and reasonable to pass on either side, assuming there is adequate room.

> Then, if you look at the HC online, the following is stated for rules 57 & 58 "On the left. When
> approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into
> the side road. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Which the bus was (presumably) not doing. I guess it might have been signalling due to the bus stop
ahead, in which case the undertake was a bit reckless but the bus driver and passenger are also
still at fault.

> Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners.
> They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed
> the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be
> tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb."
>
> And rule 129, " ... not change lanes to the left to overtake. "
>
> All of which, suggests to me it's a pretty stupid thing to undertake.

All of which quite clearly does not refer to the situation as described by the OP.

James

 

[Pete Biggs]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:

> As described in original posting, no - cyclist would be. Undertaking is a no-no
> - it is *dangerous* and stupid to undertake.

That is an unfair gross generalisation, in my opinion. There are plenty of occasions when it is
reasonably safe to undertake.

> To quote the guru Franklin, "Never overtake a moving vehicle on the left side within the same
> traffic lane" I would add that I think overtaking on the left - undertaking - is particularly
> dangerous *period*.

Even if the lane is wide with the vehicle to the right of it, and the vehicle is stationary or
crawling in a traffic jam, and you cycle slowly and carefully? That's not just some convoluted case
for the sake of argument. That's how it is a lot of the time on British roads.

> Then to quote our very own guru, Myra, "The Highway Code is clear (paragraph 197) about this. Its
> advice to cyclists is "Do not overtake on the left of vehicles slowing down to turn left"
>
> Then, if you look at the HC online, the following is stated for rules 57 & 58 "On the left. When
> approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into
> the side road. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
>
> Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners.
> They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed
> the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be
> tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb."
>
> And rule 129, " ... not change lanes to the left to overtake. "
>
> All of which, suggests to me it's a pretty stupid thing to undertake.

Most of the above are special cases (turning left, etc) and shouldn't be used to make a general
statement that all undertaking is stupid.

I suspect those who don't regularly do a lot of cycling in cities don't realise or forget how
utterly impractical it would be avoid all undertaking. The practice is not _perfectly_ safe but is
not _necessarily_ any more dangerous than anything else done on a bike.

Waiting stopped behind, as well as wasting a lot of time, you could still get shunted or squashed,
or get cancer from the fumes. Overtaking on outside, you could possibly get killed as something
coming the other way runs into you or crosses your path. One has to make a rational balanced
decision at each individual situation based on one's own sense and experience. That's what I do, so
sometimes I undertake, sometimes I overtake, sometimes I wait (very often wait behind buses and long
vehicles, by the way! ...but not always).

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

>> To quote the guru Franklin, "Never overtake a moving vehicle on the left side within the same
>> traffic lane" I would add that I think overtaking on the left - undertaking - is particularly
>> dangerous *period*.
>
> Even if the lane is wide with the vehicle to the right of it [........]?

By "to the right of it", I mean within the lane but off-centre, towards the right-hand side of it.

~PB

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> writes
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:44:59 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>For example <snip> between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
>
>Stationary = at a stop, in at least one interpretation.

Yes, I realised the ambiguity of the statement myself but concluded they would have written 'when it
is stopped' had they wished to say that.
>
>In any case, passing a bus on the left, stationary or not, is most unwise.

But not illegal or anything like that.

>
>Guy
>===
>** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (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

 

[W K]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:02:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >3. You don't ride a bike, do you?
> >
> > Who cares?
>
> I'm sure nearly everyone on this ng would be interested.
>
> But you won't answer because you don't ride one do you.

Its interesting that he goes on and on about how someone in ukt doesn't have a car.

PS states emergency braking is uncomfortable. Never found it to be so on a bike, but then the only
trick I learnt as a kid was endoing, which I found useful shortly after getting my first v-brakes

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:47:50 -0000, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:

>Guy's got 40 days worth of PS baiting to catch up on. Normal service will no doubt return soon

Sad but true. Not that I missed the ravings of Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith, but I had forgotten
the extent to which he misrepresents the tenets of the Chursh of the Speeding Death Greenhouse
as fact :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 20:17:15 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>1. There is nothing imprecise about the posted limit, or its legal interpretation.

>No. It's just massively imprecise as an arbiter of safety.

You would not think so if you rode a bike.

>Actually I do think the speed limit has an important bearing on primary safety. But it has no
>bearing on the safety offered by following the safe speed rule.

That's because the "safe speed rule" is part of a speed apologist website campaigning against speed
limit enforcement, rather than being part of a genuine road safety advoicacy site.

>>3. You don't ride a bike, do you?

>Who cares?

It seems that rather a large number of poeple in this group do - which might just have something to
do with it being a cycling newsgroup. Non-cyclists posting opinionated content in cycling newsgroups
would appear on the face of it merely to be trolling. Are you a cyclist or a troll?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (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.

 

[David Damerell]

Pete Biggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In any case, passing a bus on the left, stationary or not, is most unwise.
>Just a bit OTT, I think. I _safely_ undertake buses on many of my rides, and must have done it many
>thousands of times in my life.

So do I. But I imagine you watch the doors to see if they open, like I do?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <7XD*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> writes
>Pete Biggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In any case, passing a bus on the left, stationary or not, is most unwise.
>>Just a bit OTT, I think. I _safely_ undertake buses on many of my rides, and must have done it
>>many thousands of times in my life.
>
>So do I. But I imagine you watch the doors to see if they open, like I do?

I'm glad to see that you share Pete's opinion that passing a bus on the left is relatively safe.
I am sure that he, like you, watches the doors to see if they open. And I'm sure that the OP
does likewise.

But throwing mud isn't the point of this thread, is it? The issue is whether the OP is entitled to
compensation for the 'accident' he was involved in. Just because he may have failed to see the doors
opening (perhaps momentarily distracted by some other occurrence) doesn't mean that he is completely
to blame for this incident. Your pithy comment can easily be interpreted as an attempt to place all
of the blame on the OP's shoulders.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Pete Biggs]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> I'm glad to see that you share Pete's opinion that passing a bus on the left is relatively safe. I
> am sure that he, like you, watches the doors to see if they open.

I do.

> And I'm sure that the OP does likewise.

Probably didn't watchout or keep speed or distance safe in this particular incident, I would guess.

> But throwing mud isn't the point of this thread, is it? The issue is whether the OP is entitled to
> compensation for the 'accident' he was involved in. Just because he may have failed to see the
> doors opening (perhaps momentarily distracted by some other occurrence) doesn't mean that he is
> completely to blame for this incident. Your pithy comment can easily be interpreted as an attempt
> to place all of the blame on the OP's shoulders.

I agree, but what are the blame percentages? And it is worth pursuing any legal action if one is at
least 50% to blame in this sort of case?

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> I don't think that the OP could possibly be more than 50% to blame. After all, it should be the
> driver's responsibility to determine whether it is safe to open the doors anywhere other than a
> designated stop. The cyclist can only be blamed if the actions of the driver are reasonably
> foreseeable. Buses do not normally disgorge passengers at random points so the cyclist's fault in
> this case must be moderate.

It's not all that uncommon so I think the cyclist is more than 20% to blame (possibly a lot more
depending on the nature of the location).

> The passenger is also not blameless.

Indeed. I think the passenger shares a considerable chunk of the blame - providing they were aware
that they were not at a bus stop. It's not a very different situation from a car passenger opening a
door into a cyclist's face.

~PB