Updated: Police arrest cyclist after bus driver's emergency stop leaves passenger seriously injured

+1 on buses having lots of cameras. Buses are on the road frequently for 15-18 hours a day, and some drivers involved in accidents with buses will dispute fault and circumstances. Upon receiving the accident report, the bus company will review the footage, and not infrequently tell the car driver's insurer "away and boil your heid" or something similar, attaching a CDROM with a video of the accident.

It's always fun telling the policyholders they're at fault though.

I think we need to be careful not to take the cycling view (just like we criticise people for taking the car view).

Without knowing the details and anyone getting injured is not good no matter the circumstances. My comment would be about consistency. Driver squashes cyclist with truck and nothing happens, cyclist swerves could be charged with assault. There should be consistency for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.

It has to be said that in the battle of a bus over bike the bust is going to win....

This is an interesting read:
http://tracksideviews.com/2013/08/06/responsibilities/

Puts the full story across pretty well...

The problem is that what a reader of this web site would consider a "cyclist" - a responsible user of the highway - is not necessarily what the general public consider to be a "cyclist" - anyone sitting on a non motorised two wheel mode of transport.

We therefore have competent riders dumped into the same category as some teen moron riding around on a full suspension BSO with buckled wheels and no brakes! There's nothing to suggest which this rider was, but he abandoned his bike, would you have done that?

in my experience bus drivers can be very aggressive and bullying of other road users. Could the bus driver have done anything to avoid the collision? Was the bus driver speeding?

If a pedestrian had caused the bus to stop suddenly, would he have been charged with assault ? Of course not !
It's the witch hunt against us that's found a new way to manifest itself.

On the modern buses there are actually quite a lot of external cameras.

I was involved in an incident around Clapham Common where a bus started to overtake me and then came into the bus stop before getting past, forcing me into the gutter and to jump onto the pavement.

I then pursued the bus to speak to the driver who refused to open his window. I put myself and the bike in front of the bus to stop him moving and he started edging forward until he hit the bike, at which point I decided to get out of the way, and as he roared off he went over my wheel. It was buckled but still functional so this time I caught him and indicated I was calling the police to report the accident, but he just ignored it and drove off.

The point of the story being that I not only reported it ASAP to the police but also wrote to the bus company, who reviewed the footage themselves and paid for a new wheel.

Then they passed it to the police who brought a charge against the driver. When it got to court the magistrates had a series of still photographs covering the side where I was squeezed off and the front of the bus showing that I had done nothing wrong, plus someone had reviewed the video footage and submitted a report backing up my story.

He was fined and disqualified which I presume means he no longer drove buses.

I was pretty impressed.

..[edit - just read update] sorry to hear about the old man's condition.

And I am pretty much playing a devils advocate with this comment, reversing a fairly typical situation....but

Surely its the passengers fault, (contributory negligence) if he was wearing a helmet he would probably have been fine....

I do indeed wish the gent a speedy recovery

I hope he makes a full recovery, but the age of the injured man is immaterial here. Raises an interesting point though - would the man's case for compensation be against the bus driver/company for failing in their duty of care to their passengers, or against the cyclist? If I was on a bus that was hit by a truck it would be against the truck... so in theory, assuming the bus driver was forced to stop quickly to avoid hitting the cyclist, then the cyclist is at fault.

Look at it the other way: bus driver mows down the cyclist "because he couldn't brake hard or his passengers would have fallen over". Imagine the uproar...

So tired, so very tired..

Thought this would be helpful - it is lifted direct from the CPS website. I picked s.20 GBH to reflect the level of injuries I'm guessing the poor old chap has sustained if his injuries are life threatening. Praying he recovers.

"Unlawful wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Act
This offence is committed when a person unlawfully and maliciously, either:

wounds another person; or
inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another person.
It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Summarily, the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

Wounding means the breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin, or the inner skin within the cheek or lip. It does not include the rupturing of internal blood vessels.

The definition of wounding may encompass injuries that are relatively minor in nature, for example a small cut or laceration. An assault resulting in such minor injuries should more appropriately be charged as Common Assault or, where a sentence of more than 6 months' imprisonment is likely, ABH. An offence contrary to section 20 should be reserved for those wounds considered to be really serious (thus equating the offence with the infliction of grievous, or serious, bodily harm under the other part of the section).

Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is really serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to really serious harm include:

injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement;
broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull, compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
serious psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury
In accordance with the recommendation in R v McCready (1978) 1 WLR 1376, if there is any reliable evidence that a sufficiently serious wound has been inflicted, then the charge under section 20 should be of unlawful wounding, rather than of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Where both a wound and grievous bodily harm have been inflicted, discretion should be used in choosing which part of section 20 more appropriately reflects the true nature of the offence.

The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C 699)."

Google the case law above - e-lawresources.co.uk has the relevant cases. The upshot is "It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. It was sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm will result". "Mens rea" means 'guilty mind'/'intent'

According to the injured man's grandson, the second charge is involuntary GBH, not assault:

https://twitter.com/ChrisGurton/status/364727411276922880

First off, I truly hope the injured gent makes a full recovery.

Is there no longer such a thing as an accident? And it would appear the bus hit the cyclist...if his bike was damaged beyond riding...

But, again, we don't know the facts here...is this where I get all raged up at the injustice of it all?

I used to commute down the tram line in Sheffield. One day a bus began pulling out and I thought he was about to cut me up. I swerved right, after passing the bus I lost control because my back wheel got stuck in the tram track and I was flung over the handlebars and broke my rib.

By the above logic this is assault, right?

oh yeah, bus driver didnt stop

Quote:

when its the cyclist at fault there must be mitigating circumstances etc etc etc etc. No wonder the public get p*ssed off with us. It beggars belief it really does.

Don't really think anyone is saying that, it just seems very strange to charge the cyclist with assault? Unless he actually got on board the bus and twatted the guy after the accident?

No details at all - why did the cyclist swerve? Was it some "chav on a bike" who shot out of a side road, jumped the pavement without looking or was it what most on here would call a "proper cyclist" who moved a foot to the right to avoid a pothole?

If the latter, why was the bus that close to him?
Why was the passenger stood up?

There's just no detail to go on but compare it to the case a few months ago where a cyclist was hit by an opening car door (illegally tinted), went under the wheels of a following bus (too close) and yet it was still the cyclist's fault! You can understand why some people react as they do to hearing that the cyclist has automatically been declared at fault (even though we don't know the full circumstances).

Switch this around and its the cyclist who gets hurt by the bus nearly 90% on here would be up in arms wanting the blood of the driver,

YET,

when its the cyclist at fault there must be mitigating circumstances etc etc etc etc. No wonder the public get p*ssed off with us. It beggars belief it really does.

Quote:

Or is it only assualt if a cyclist does it?

Only if it's a cyclist.

It's a well-known fact that drivers can do no wrong and that the cyclist is at fault simply for thinking about travelling by bike that day and causing the poor innocent hard-done-by driver to crash into him.

If it wasn't for those pesky cyclists there would actually be world peace and harmony.

There's something screwy with this story.

Hope the old guy makes a full recovery.

Yes, buses should have front & rear cameras. If they can fit 9 of the things inside each (London at least) bus, some external ones aren't exactly a stretch. That way we'll also have proof of bad driving by buses when we get hit as drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians.

hmm, too many unknowns, but what was the cyclist doing that the driver wasn't aware of their presence? You are taught to watch for things, to be aware of your surroundings.

18yr old prat on the pavement, well they are always just riding straight off. So yes a bus COULD have to brake, but...

And if we reverse the situation. bus overtakes then suddenly pulls into busstop causing me to have to brake heavily, resulting in me dropping the bike on a wet muddy road? is that assault as well? Or is it only assualt if a cyclist does it?

well I hope they have proper evidence, I was badly tailgated by a bus, I slowed down very gradually as per highway code, the bus driver got too close, panicked and stomped on the brakes, I was about to have words with him but he went to see if the few passengers on the bus were ok snd no doubt blamed me for being in front of his bus...
and...

If this guy has been hit by a bus, why has he ditched his bike and got off? Sounds suspect. But then so does the fact he's been pulled for assault.

Whatever the reasons, or lack thereof, I hope the old boy pulls through for a full recovery.