You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

So your question which started this subthread was a non-sequitur was
it? Quite how raising the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely
lawless works as a non-sequitur when it fails as a justification fro
dangerous behaviour by bus drivers escapes me just at the moment.

bus drivers [...] the comparison simply doesn't stand up.

Well, it's a comparison of your own making, so it's nothing to do with
me.

It is either a comparison of your own making, as per the start of this
subthread, or your first post here was a non-sequitur, as above.
Neither puts you in a particularly strong position.

I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver
disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no
less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and
nehaving in a dangerous manner.

Considerably more so, since the bus driver is personally at very
little risk. Which is probably why, despite widespread allegations of
complete lawlessness, the major danger posed by cyclists appears to be
to themselves, and even that apparently to a lesser extent than for
pedestrians, who are far more likely to be at fault in fatal and
serious injury crashes involving them.

Above you suggested - yet again -
that I portray cyclists as "/the/ major threat to life and limb" -
essentially that cyclists are _more_ of a threat. This is a total
fantasy of your own making.

Ah, so your singling them out was an /irrelevant/ non-sequitur. Well
that makes al the difference, doesn't it?

"So now we look at the fatality figures on pedestrian crossings, which
are about equal to those for footways (crossing the road is dangerous,
even when you have priority). Of these fatalities, how many are
caused by cyclists? And the answer is, once again, somewhere below a
quarter of 1% - and once again this is despite your assertion that
cyclists do this all the time, and drivers only rarely. So once
again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists well down
on the "if we get around to it" pile."

1% is meaningless when you can't quantify the number of motor vehicles
compared to the number of bicycles.

Are we not constantly told that the number of bicycles crossing red
lights outweighs by many multiples the number of motor vehicles so
doing? So surely if anything that makes the 1% look even less
significant.

Either way, in numerical terms, your complaint sounds like a man
concerned about splinters while walking the plank.

The range of excuses used by drivers (all road users, in fact) for
their illegal behaviour is legendary. To suggest that this is unique
to cyclists is absurd.

The absurdity, again, is of your own making.

Really? So it was a typo, when you said cyclists; you meant vehicle
users?

One thing I will say is that as a pedestrian I have reached the
experience-based conclusion that cyclists are far less predictable
than drivers.

Not disputed. Strange, really, when you consider that the majority of
road riders are also drivers. Anyone would think that road users were
ignorant or contemptuous of the rules of the road.

If I am using a Pelican crossing - whether waiting for
the traffic signal to go read, or actually on the crossing - I know
that in the vast majority cases approaching motor vehicles will and do
slow and stop. Cyclists, however, are far less prone to do so. In
fact, it is a regular sight for me to see both types approaching a
crossing that his already on red for them, and while the driver will
stop, the cyclist will not, regardless of how crowded the crossing may
be with pedestrians at the time.

And yet the fatalities caused by those cyclists are negligible. Which
just shows that they must /seem/ much more dangerous than they /are/.

This amply
illustrates the extent to which some cyclists think the law does not
apply to them.

Exhibit A: SafeSpeed, a site which is entirely dedicated to the idea
that the law does not apply to drivers. I know of no site advocating
reduced enforcement for cyclists. Once again your targeting mechanism
seems to be a few degrees off.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes

I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver
disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no
less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and
nehaving in a dangerous manner.
O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all
about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. If a
cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road
works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. A
bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more
accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you
think you still have one.
--
Clive.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:30:23 +0100, Clive Coleman
wrote:

A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s.

Bus driver is utilitarianist shock!

Colin

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:30:23 +0100, Clive Coleman
wrote in message
:

O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all
about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene.

You think? I don't care about point scoring, actually, but I do care
about Daily Mail-style scapegoating of cyclists, because that actually
affects my safety as I travel. YMMV.

If a
cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road
works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not.

Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a
pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked"
and seen no "traffic". I invite you to consider the likelihood of a
driver being successfully prosecuted for driving without due care (the
equivalent offence) under the same circumstances.

bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more
accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you
think you still have one.

This argument is about the inherent absurdity of raising cyclist
behaviour as an excuse for the behaviour of other road users.

I rarely have a problem with buses, because I ride in a way which
takes account of their special circumstances. I have seen a driver
run into the back of a bus which did the completely unpredictable
(i.e. stopping at a a bus stop), so I suppose I can see where you are
coming from :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a
pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked"
and seen no "traffic".

Do you have a reference for this, please?

R

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:18:45 +0100, Richard
wrote in message
:

Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a
pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked"
and seen no "traffic".

Do you have a reference for this, please?

Howard does: http://www.motorcarnage.org.uk/motor...e/justice.html
and look for Richard Brady

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes

I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver disgregarding
their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no less
irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and nehaving
in a dangerous manner.

O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all about
point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene.

Yay for usenet!

If a cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights,
road works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not.
A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking,

Is it common to be carrying 70 people who've never been on a bus before?

Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on a
bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it may
well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former (especially
given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm not saying it's
never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as you make out.

Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you
really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over cyclists.
Just thought i'd let you know.

tom

--
Memes don't exist. Tell your friends.

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on
a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it
may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former
(especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm
not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as
you make out.

Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you
really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over
cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know.

tom
You've never driven a bus then, that is obvious, and if you think I'm a
lunatic get me off the roads before other cyclists think they're Gods
gift to London.
--
Clive.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on
a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it
may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former
(especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm
not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as
you make out.

Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you
really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over
cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know.

You've never driven a bus then, that is obvious,

You're a perceptive chap.

and if you think I'm a lunatic get me off the roads before other
cyclists think they're Gods gift to London.

I didn't say i thought you were a lunatic, just that your post made it
sound like it - i assume you're just a bit worked up by the argument. You
need to relax - maybe go for a swim, or have a drink, or, hey, how about a
nice bike ride?



tom

--
I do not think we will have to wait for very long.

Clive Coleman opined the following...
O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all
about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. If a
cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road
works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. A
bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more
accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you
think you still have one.

I presume from your comments that you have taken a PCV test. As you
obviously aware, the safety of your passengers is paramount. Thus, when
approaching an obstruction (Potential or actual) which your higher
driving position would probably allow you to see before a normal driver,
you should already be taking action to avoid it.

When I took my (car) test I was told that you should slow (or certainly
stop accellerating) on approach to a green light on the grounds that it
might change. A light going red should never take you by surprise.

If you do not believe this to be the case, and are a "qualified" bus
driver, I would suggest re-reading the highway code and then asking to
resit your test. You may find it enlightening!

Jon