Near Miss of the Day 1: Bus driver pulls out on cyclist on the A6006 in Nottinghamshire

ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Is it really the case that using a vehicle to kill and maim only officially becomes a terror attack if some other element inflames the driving such as that seen this morning with the driver stating he wanted to kill all muslims.  He has been arrested on suspicion of murder with his actions called a hate crime.

Is it true from a legal perspective that had that same driver simply got out and claimed something as lame as 'I didn't see them' that he would instead have been charged with causing death by careless driving?

I think the line between a 'terror' attack and plain outright dangerous driving is becoming incredibly close.  Surely a close pass resulting from a dangerous driver is also a hate crime against an individual choosing to use a different mode of transport?

In short, can such attacks help the cycling community to argue that the use of vehicles to cause death and injury (irrespective of any reason the driver gives) demands urgent judicial review?

I actually had to commute into York this morning and 'terrorised' isn't far from feeling I got at times. Bike lanes seemed to be there to driven in when it suited and I had a brown trousers movement when a lorry decided it wanted to wander in the bike lane. I'd truly had enough by the time I got the hospital. Thank god it was a one off and my usual commute is B-roads generally quiet enough for people to pass without being held up by me for too long. 

If you commute into a city every day, I can see why you do it given the traffic but the odds of an accident seem quite high. 

ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to...........................

 

I suppose its intent...your average fanatic intends to maim and kill, whereas 'First Bus' buses here in Leeds are just driven by knuckle dragging, thick fcks who couldnt give a damn because cyclists shouldn't even be on the road anyway

Gourmet Shot wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to...........................

 

I suppose its intent...your average fanatic intends to maim and kill, whereas 'First Bus' buses here in Leeds are just driven by knuckle dragging, thick fcks who couldnt give a damn because cyclists shouldn't even be on the road anyway

But these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that? IDK, stopping and searching motorists, interrogating them, barriers everywhere to slow them right down, armed police on every corner waiting to shoot them up as soon as they look like they're going to kill someone (as above), if not, why not as the risk is greater of that happening than these other so called terrorists!

I tried making a comment on the guardian, the article https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/18/britons-have-got-a-... was about the fear that people are feeling regarding 'terrorism' (read control of the plebs) the number in the link was my comment number and as can be seen it's now deleted.

I stated that as a person riding a bike that my life is threatened almost daily, the police aren't interested in protecting me, average punter on the street thinks I deserve all I get and has no sympathy for the attacks I and others in my 'out' group receive. That the 'justice' system is literally bias against any sort of justice for me and others like me, institutionally against me and my ilk. So I said I had no fear at all for the terrorism described in the piece (regarding Manchester/london et al) because I had more chance of being killed/harmed by a terrorist driving a motor pretending to be a normal UK citizen... clearly someone complained about it.

it's pretty clear and representitive of how people on bikes are treated, you can't even make a comment about how people on bikes are treated (just look at the reaction to CTC and people affected by the barriers that are supposedly to prevent attacks by driving terrorists (Which is BS in any case)

You don't even have freedom of speech on one of the broadsheets in which some of the comments are particularly vile, inaccurate and downright disgusting. I was just making a point that is clearly true and was comparable to the fear that some feel after the events described. Even worse in fact because it's there every single fucking day and no-one gives two fucks aside from people whom are relatively serious cyclists.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

Duncann wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

1,800 road deaths, circa 22,500 Serious injuries, okay it's a few shy of 25,000 but that's the numbers given out by the government, your interpretation of my understanding of the word maim is obviously incorrect, it means to injure, disable or disfigure, so my use with respect to the numbers is correct.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point as I'm talking about, I'm talking about the over-reaction to the acts in Manchester and London and failure to do something about other acts that have greater impact on society and at a far greater cost of life and indeed financially too.

I as a person riding a bicycle, or indeed as a pedestrian/motorist have more chance of being killed or seriously injured on the roads than the same injuries/death by 'terrorism'.

That that chance of death as a person on a bike is so remote in itself proves my point about the fear being dragged up by 'terrorism' because we as people riding bikes are attacked on an almost daily basis yet no-one bats an eyelid, a few people are killed/maimed in a couple of attacks and the country goes into meltdown.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Duncann wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

1,800 road deaths, circa 22,500 Serious injuries, okay it's a few shy of 25,000 but that's the numbers given out by the government, your interpretation of my understanding of the word maim is obviously incorrect, it means to injure, disable or disfigure, so my use with respect to the numbers is correct.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point as I'm talking about, I'm talking about the over-reaction to the acts in Manchester and London and failure to do something about other acts that have greater impact on society and at a far greater cost of life and indeed financially too.

I as a person riding a bicycle, or indeed as a pedestrian/motorist have more chance of being killed or seriously injured on the roads than the same injuries/death by 'terrorism'.

That that chance of death as a person on a bike is so remote in itself proves my point about the fear being dragged up by 'terrorism' because we as people riding bikes are attacked on an almost daily basis yet no-one bats an eyelid, a few people are killed/maimed in a couple of attacks and the country goes into meltdown.

I took my understanding of "maim" from the Oxford definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/maim

And my understanding of "serious injuries" from the DfT (since it's their data we are discussing): "An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident".

Some of those would be injuries which "maim" - but I don't think the likes of most fractures, short-term concussion or shock can be classed as such. You are free to take a different view.

I agree that the small number of terrorist acts are overhyped.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Duncann wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

1,800 road deaths, circa 22,500 Serious injuries, okay it's a few shy of 25,000 but that's the numbers given out by the government, your interpretation of my understanding of the word maim is obviously incorrect, it means to injure, disable or disfigure, so my use with respect to the numbers is correct.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point as I'm talking about, I'm talking about the over-reaction to the acts in Manchester and London and failure to do something about other acts that have greater impact on society and at a far greater cost of life and indeed financially too.

I as a person riding a bicycle, or indeed as a pedestrian/motorist have more chance of being killed or seriously injured on the roads than the same injuries/death by 'terrorism'.

That that chance of death as a person on a bike is so remote in itself proves my point about the fear being dragged up by 'terrorism' because we as people riding bikes are attacked on an almost daily basis yet no-one bats an eyelid, a few people are killed/maimed in a couple of attacks and the country goes into meltdown.

I guess that death by road traffic collision isn't as newsworthy as genuine terrorism, and it certainly doesn't help promote the crackdown on civil liberties espoused by our wonderful government...

Give it a few years, when everyone has to ride around in self driving pods for safety's sake and the route and passenger identity are routinely monitored for security's sake, and anyone riding a bike will be seen as some sort of "off the grid" unabomber type...

ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Clearly there is a difference in intent, which is clearly important in legal terms.

You might say that lack of intent isn't much consolation if you're killed on the roads. Which is true.

But what's also true is that lack of intent to kill or injure by virtually all road users means that there is only one fatality on the roads for 500 million kilometres travelled. Or 27 deaths per million population per annum. Indeed, England's roads are the safest in the world on that basis (Denmark is 32, the Netherlands 37, Germany 43, France 52, the USA 119) .

Clearly cyclists are more vulnerable than the average road user, and UK roads could certainly be better for cyclists but there really isn't any sensible comparison between the actions of regular drivers and terrorists.

I'd suggest that the comparison is ridiculous and distateful.

Duncann wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Clearly there is a difference in intent, which is clearly important in legal terms.

You might say that lack of intent isn't much consolation if you're killed on the roads. Which is true.

But what's also true is that lack of intent to kill or injure by virtually all road users means that there is only one fatality on the roads for 500 million kilometres travelled. Or 27 deaths per million population per annum. Indeed, England's roads are the safest in the world on that basis (Denmark is 32, the Netherlands 37, Germany 43, France 52, the USA 119) .

Clearly cyclists are more vulnerable than the average road user, and UK roads could certainly be better for cyclists but there really isn't any sensible comparison between the actions of regular drivers and terrorists.

I'd suggest that the comparison is ridiculous and distateful.

I agree it's not a useful direct comparison.

Though I think 'intent' is sometimes over-rated as a legal and moral issue. In the end, I'm not sure I care if you cause me harm due to reckless habits you have spent years cultivating, or if you 'intended' it.

Plus, you aren't giving the full story. The numbers of deaths need to include those who die prematurely due to both air pollution and the suppression of physical activity caused by the dominance of motor vehicles on public streets.

The latter, I think, is important if you are comparing figures from the UK and the likes of the Netherlands (who live longer than we do and who are far less fat than we are).

Simply comparing pure casualty figures is like saying we are far better at dealing with shark-attacks than Australia is, or have greater expertise at ski-ing than do the Swiss.

Finally, I think there might be some responses to the use of motor vehicles in terror attacks that might also help for safety in general. Namely, doing more to keep motor vehicles away from crowded areas of pedestrians.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Duncann wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Clearly there is a difference in intent, which is clearly important in legal terms.

You might say that lack of intent isn't much consolation if you're killed on the roads. Which is true.

But what's also true is that lack of intent to kill or injure by virtually all road users means that there is only one fatality on the roads for 500 million kilometres travelled. Or 27 deaths per million population per annum. Indeed, England's roads are the safest in the world on that basis (Denmark is 32, the Netherlands 37, Germany 43, France 52, the USA 119) .

Clearly cyclists are more vulnerable than the average road user, and UK roads could certainly be better for cyclists but there really isn't any sensible comparison between the actions of regular drivers and terrorists.

I'd suggest that the comparison is ridiculous and distateful.

I agree it's not a useful direct comparison. Though I think 'intent' is sometimes over-rated as a legal and moral issue. In the end, I'm not sure I care if you cause me harm due to reckless habits you have spent years cultivating, or if you 'intended' it. Plus, you aren't giving the full story. The numbers of deaths need to include those who die prematurely due to both air pollution and the suppression of physical activity caused by the dominance of motor vehicles on public streets. The latter, I think, is important if you are comparing figures from the UK and the likes of the Netherlands (who live longer than we do and who are far less fat than we are). Simply comparing pure casualty figures is like saying we are far better at dealing with shark-attacks than Australia is, or have greater expertise at ski-ing than do the Swiss. Finally, I think there might be some responses to the use of motor vehicles in terror attacks that might also help for safety in general. Namely, doing more to keep motor vehicles away from crowded areas of pedestrians.

I already said that intent wasn't much consolation if you're hit by a truck. But the fact that the vast, vast majority of motorists have no intent to harm you means you are very unlikely to be hit. That's not over-rated - in fact, it's the most important point.

Premature death related to emissions and inactivity are important - but hardly comparable to terrorism. Otherwise you might as well say Tate & Lyle should be ranked alongside so-called ISIS.

I hope you'd concede that there are also benefits to motor vehicles - although that's also off-topic.

Dutch life expectancy is virtually identical to the UK's. They aren't as fat, that's true. But again nothing to do with terrorism. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Mortality_an...

Comparing road casualty figures is nothing like comparing shark attacks or ski injuries. We don't have those in/around the UK. Are you suggesting the Dutch or Danes don't have, or use, roads?

Certainly segregating pedestrians and cars is sometimes sensible.

Duncann wrote:

I already said that intent wasn't much consolation if you're hit by a truck. But the fact that the vast, vast majority of motorists have no intent to harm you means you are very unlikely to be hit. That's not over-rated - in fact, it's the most important point.

Premature death related to emissions and inactivity are important - but hardly comparable to terrorism. Otherwise you might as well say Tate & Lyle should be ranked alongside so-called ISIS.

I hope you'd concede that there are also benefits to motor vehicles - although that's also off-topic.

Dutch life expectancy is virtually identical to the UK's. They aren't as fat, that's true. But again nothing to do with terrorism. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Mortality_an...

Comparing road casualty figures is nothing like comparing shark attacks or ski injuries. We don't have those in/around the UK. Are you suggesting the Dutch or Danes don't have, or use, roads?

Certainly segregating pedestrians and cars is sometimes sensible.

I didn't mention consolation, though, I was talking about the morality of it.

And, true, those issues are not comparable to terrorism, they are a significantly greater problem, especially globally.

And comparing raw road casualties is like comparing shark attacks or ski-injuries. The Dutch cycle on those roads a lot more. You can't just compare raw casualty figures, you have to consider exposure and the extent to which those at risk constrain their behaviour. If you just look at raw figures you end up with the situation such as the council who declared their shared-use scheme to be a success due to having no increase in accidents, even while local organisations for the blind pointed out that their members now entirely avoided the area. In general it's just a poor statistic to use.

FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote=Duncann wrote:

In general it's just a poor statistic to use.

Then give us yours.

We are getting a long way from whether everyday motorists are terrorists (the original post I replied to) but my statistics were merely illustrating that England's roads are very safe by international standards. That's true even if you look at the likes of Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal which have similar levels of daily or regular cycling).

Duncann]</p>

<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Duncann wrote:

In general it's just a poor statistic to use.

Then give us yours.

We are getting a long way from whether everyday motorists are terrorists (the original post I replied to) but my statistics were merely illustrating that England's roads are very safe by international standards. That's true even if you look at the likes of Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal which have similar levels of daily or regular cycling).

If you're going to have a pissing contest with whose statistics are more accurate, would you mind awfully pissing off to the wankfest that is Singletrackworld!

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Looks like a case of I'm not to get hurt so you slow down and let me out. I know hitting the brakes for a second easily averts disaster but it's just annoying. Cyclists really are at the bottom of the pecking order , even pedestrians chance their hand crossing in front of you. Nobody gives a damn really.

Agreed although pedestrians arent chancing their arm infront of me: as they tell me - they have right of way.  The suggestion that they try doing the same with a lorry usualy meets with a confused look....

AST1986 wrote:

"driver saw the cyclist, alright - he flashed his hazards shortly after as if to say "soz pal, but I'm driving a bus so any mistake I make can be rectified with these flashy lights"

Looks like just his left indicator, presumably for the junction up ahead.

Duncann wrote:

AST1986 wrote:

"driver saw the cyclist, alright - he flashed his hazards shortly after as if to say "soz pal, but I'm driving a bus so any mistake I make can be rectified with these flashy lights"

Looks like just his left indicator, presumably for the junction just up ahead.

Very true. Even more worrying then that he didn't see the cyclist at all. 

AST1986 wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what this moron's employer does armed with irrefutable evidence that the he is incapable of driving safely.

Ask them. You can find their phone number / email address easily. Let us know what they say.

simonmb wrote:

AST1986 wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what this moron's employer does armed with irrefutable evidence that the he is incapable of driving safely.

Ask them. You can find their phone number / email address easily. Let us know what they say.

Email sent. Will let you know if/when I get a response from them.