In message <6Bv*
[email protected]>, David Damerell
<
[email protected]> writes
>Michael MacClancy <
[email protected]> wrote:
>><
[email protected]> writes
>>>Aidan Hemsworth <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>David Damerell <
[email protected]>:
>>>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.
>
>>>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.
>>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>>>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.
>
>[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?]
>
>>>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.
>
>>>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.
>
>>>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".
>
>>>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.
>
>>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.
>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.
>
>>>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.
>
>>>In the sense that you charged
>>He wasn't charging
>
>Sure, that's how he buckled a wheel and destroyed a helmet.
See above.
>
>>>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.
>>>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.
>>>>>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.
>>>>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.
>
>>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
