Cyclists V motorists Vpedestrians part 638

Jules62 wrote:

I have read that he has now been sacked (and rightly so), but what he did was nothing short of dangerous driving and I feel that he should loose his licence in addition to his job...

Sacking fair enough, losing his licence seems a bit harsh. It was dangerous and irresponsible what he did, but no one got hurt so hopefully he will have learned his lesson, no?

No Ed - a commercial licence allows you to drive on the highway using the rules taught you and laid down in law. Driving your 11 ton bus onto the pavement IS dangerous AND irresponsible. There are loads of folks queueing for this nutters job.

Passengers, other road users and pedestrians like need to be protected by a driver likely to lose his rag and drive a double decker bus dangerously.

What he did was not a summary offence that incurs a fixed penalty notice: it would have to be dealt by a Magistrate or at Crown Court.

The bus driver would have to convince the court not to take away his licence.

It's not like he lost control of the vehicle through careless driving: he deliberately mounted the pavement of a Central London street to block two cyclists so he could shout at them. This is what makes it dangerous driving.

"If you are to be prosecuted for dangerous driving you will need to be issued with a Notice of Intended Prosecution unless the charge arises out of an accident. The charge is an “either way” offence which means it can be heard in either the Magistrates or Crown Court. Possible defences for a dangerous driving charge include:

You dispute that your driving was below the standard of the careful and competent motorist. Even if successful, this defence may not prevent a conviction for the lesser offence of driving without due care and attention, which is an alternative verdict to dangerous driving.

Necessity/Duress: if there was pressure upon the defendant that forced them to drive dangerously – usually fleeing from the threat of violence or an actual assault.

If a previously undiscovered mechanical fault caused you to lose control of your vehicle, you may have a defence.

You were suddenly deprived of control of your vehicle by sudden illness and/or a medical condition (e.g. sudden coma, epileptic fit). Bear in mind that loss of control through a known pre-existing condition will not usually provide a defence, and may in fact make matters worse.

You were taking part in an authorised motoring event.

If you are taken to court the punishments could be as follows:

Magistrates Court – Maximum 6 months prison sentence, £5000 fine and disqualification from driving

Crown Court – Maximum 2 years prison sentence, unlimited fine, mandatory disqualification and an extended driving test to regain your licence"

Jules62 wrote:

Passengers, other road users and pedestrians like need to be protected by a driver likely to lose his rag and drive a double decker bus dangerously.
What he did was not a summary offence that incurs a fixed penalty notice: it would have to be dealt by a Magistrate or at Crown Court.

The bus driver would have to convince the court not to take away his licence.

It's not like he lost control of the vehicle through careless driving: he deliberately mounted the pavement of a Central London street to block two cyclists so he could shout at them. This is what makes it dangerous driving.

"If you are to be prosecuted for dangerous driving you will need to be issued with a Notice of Intended Prosecution unless the charge arises out of an accident. The charge is an “either way” offence which means it can be heard in either the Magistrates or Crown Court. Possible defences for a dangerous driving charge include:

You dispute that your driving was below the standard of the careful and competent motorist. Even if successful, this defence may not prevent a conviction for the lesser offence of driving without due care and attention, which is an alternative verdict to dangerous driving.

Necessity/Duress: if there was pressure upon the defendant that forced them to drive dangerously – usually fleeing from the threat of violence or an actual assault.

If a previously undiscovered mechanical fault caused you to lose control of your vehicle, you may have a defence.

You were suddenly deprived of control of your vehicle by sudden illness and/or a medical condition (e.g. sudden coma, epileptic fit). Bear in mind that loss of control through a known pre-existing condition will not usually provide a defence, and may in fact make matters worse.

You were taking part in an authorised motoring event.

If you are taken to court the punishments could be as follows:

Magistrates Court – Maximum 6 months prison sentence, £5000 fine and disqualification from driving

Crown Court – Maximum 2 years prison sentence, unlimited fine, mandatory disqualification and an extended driving test to regain your licence"

Does the above apply to all licence holders, no matter what vehicle they drive? Interestingly, a NSW has made a case for the introduction of cycling licences in Australia.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Does the above apply to all licence holders, no matter what vehicle they drive? Interestingly, a NSW has made a case for the introduction of cycling licences in Australia.

The offence of Dangerous Driving is covered in Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act and applies to all motorists.

Section 28 (Dangerous Cycling) deal with pedal bicycles. The maximum fine for Dangerous Cycling is up to £2500.00, for riding on the pavement when this is not allowed the penalty is £500.00 but is usually settled with a fixed penalty notice of £30.00.
Since cyclists do not require a Driver's Licence, no penalty points are given.

More into here

Jules62 wrote:

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Does the above apply to all licence holders, no matter what vehicle they drive? Interestingly, a NSW has made a case for the introduction of cycling licences in Australia.

The offence of Dangerous Driving is covered in Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act and applies to all motorists.

Section 28 (Dangerous Cycling) deal with pedal bicycles. The maximum fine for Dangerous Cycling is up to £2500.00, for riding on the pavement when this is not allowed the penalty is £500.00 but is usually settled with a fixed penalty notice of £30.00.
Since cyclists do not require a Driver's Licence, no penalty points are given.

More into here

The idea of licences for cyclists makes sense. In Switzerland, if you had a regular driver's licence, you were allowed to ride motorbikes as well. As motorbikes became more popular (unsurprisingly, considering the beautiful routes) you can do in , they changed the law and you has to get a motorbike licence separately, test and and all. If you compares this to the rapidly increasing numbers of cyclists on London roads and the speed at which they go, it makes perfect sense to not only get cyclists to pass a test, both for their own safety and that of others, but also so that offending cyclists can easily be held accountable. If a cyclist doesn't hit me jumping a red light because I jump out of the way, it still is dangerous driving on their behalf and it be punishable.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Jules62 wrote:

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Does the above apply to all licence holders, no matter what vehicle they drive? Interestingly, a NSW has made a case for the introduction of cycling licences in Australia.

The offence of Dangerous Driving is covered in Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act and applies to all motorists.

Section 28 (Dangerous Cycling) deal with pedal bicycles. The maximum fine for Dangerous Cycling is up to £2500.00, for riding on the pavement when this is not allowed the penalty is £500.00 but is usually settled with a fixed penalty notice of £30.00.
Since cyclists do not require a Driver's Licence, no penalty points are given.

More into here

The idea of licences for cyclists makes sense. In Switzerland, if you had a regular driver's licence, you were allowed to ride motorbikes as well. As motorbikes became more popular (unsurprisingly, considering the beautiful routes) you can do in , they changed the law and you has to get a motorbike licence separately, test and and all. If you compares this to the rapidly increasing numbers of cyclists on London roads and the speed at which they go, it makes perfect sense to not only get cyclists to pass a test, both for their own safety and that of others, but also so that offending cyclists can easily be held accountable. If a cyclist doesn't hit me jumping a red light because I jump out of the way, it still is dangerous driving on their behalf and it be punishable.

Just seen something like that, although the cyclist didn't jump lights.
Would you believe Edward about 6 or 7 West Ham fans come out of the Barrowboy and Banker crossing the road
towards the station, bike going at some speed turning left from Duke Street Hill into BHS, he weren't stopping for nobody and went right into a rather large fellow, fortunately the pedestrian and his friends found it funny, as the cyclist was screaming "out the way out the way", could have been different.

Cyclist was probably lucky this didn't happen after the game - don't think the Hammers fans will have found anything funny after losing to Spurs :)

boroughonian wrote:

Just seen something like that, although the cyclist didn't jump lights.
Would you believe Edward about 6 or 7 West Ham fans come out of the Barrowboy and Banker crossing the road
towards the station, bike going at some speed turning left from Duke Street Hill into BHS, he weren't stopping for nobody and went right into a rather large fellow, fortunately the pedestrian and his friends found it funny, as the cyclist was screaming "out the way out the way", could have been different.

It could have been different had it been a van, car or motorcycle hitting that pedestrian at the same speed: the energy of the impact (and the injuries suffered) is proportional to the momentum of the vehicle (ie its mass and velocity).
The greater the weight, the bigger the force.

That's why being hit by a 10 ton bus doing 20mph will have far greater consequences than being struck by a bicycle travelling at the same speed.

This is why the Highway Code treats cyclists differently than car drivers, and HGVs differently than cars: the bigger the mass the greater the chance of not surviving the impact.

I believe this is a Newtonian thing...

Jules62 wrote:

boroughonian wrote:

Just seen something like that, although the cyclist didn't jump lights.
Would you believe Edward about 6 or 7 West Ham fans come out of the Barrowboy and Banker crossing the road
towards the station, bike going at some speed turning left from Duke Street Hill into BHS, he weren't stopping for nobody and went right into a rather large fellow, fortunately the pedestrian and his friends found it funny, as the cyclist was screaming "out the way out the way", could have been different.

It could have been different had it been a van, car or motorcycle hitting that pedestrian at the same speed: the energy of the impact (and the injuries suffered) is proportional to the momentum of the vehicle (ie its mass and velocity).
The greater the weight, the bigger the force.

That's why being hit by a 10 ton bus doing 20mph will have far greater consequences than being struck by a bicycle travelling at the same speed.

This is why the Highway Code treats cyclists differently than car drivers, and HGVs differently than cars: the bigger the mass the greater the chance of not surviving the impact.

I believe this is a Newtonian thing...

I for one appreciate that, but irresponsible, bullying cycling is not Newtonian, it's simply selfish, irresponsible and dangerous, and we should find ways to ensure that the minority of offending cyclists is even further reduced. Or do you think that for pedestrians having to jump out of the way is a solution?