"Breaking" news.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Ricardo
Posts: 51
Joined: 12 Feb 2012, 2:47pm

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby Ricardo » 18 Feb 2012, 1:11pm

What impressed me most about Holland (one of my uncles worked in Amsterdam and lived in the Hague, so i got to see a lot of those cities) is the attitude of the motorists. There were exceptions, but generally I got the feeling that car use was less egotistical, there was far less self-image wrapped up in what is really just another way of moving around. I definitely had the feeling there was much less "them and us" there, more mutual respect, more accomodation. Sadly a change in mentality takes far longer to achieve than a change in planning, or the law!

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16896
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby [XAP]Bob » 18 Feb 2012, 4:14pm

Ricardo wrote:What impressed me most about Holland (one of my uncles worked in Amsterdam and lived in the Hague, so i got to see a lot of those cities) is the attitude of the motorists. There were exceptions, but generally I got the feeling that car use was less egotistical, there was far less self-image wrapped up in what is really just another way of moving around. I definitely had the feeling there was much less "them and us" there, more mutual respect, more accomodation. Sadly a change in mentality takes far longer to achieve than a change in planning, or the law!


Yes - but it CAN be done. Holland is the prime example of that.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

LollyKat
Posts: 2886
Joined: 28 May 2011, 11:25pm
Location: Scotland

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby LollyKat » 18 Feb 2012, 6:31pm

Surely the difference is that in Holland everybody cycles, or at least has cycled, so knows what it is like and are sympathetic to the needs of the cyclist.

Mind you on a recent visit to Amsterdam I found the cyclists had no compunction about jumping red pedestrian crossing lights - I had a few near misses there when I was on foot :evil:

DavidT
Posts: 1216
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 2:05pm
Location: East Midlands (Originally from Devon)

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby DavidT » 18 Feb 2012, 10:02pm

reohn2 wrote: Yep got now.I was looking at the original link.
The cyclist is out of order at the r/about,as [XAP]Bob says a bit of thinkology when the bus moves across(indicating) if the cyclist would have dropped behind he would a free ride,no ticket required,but that doesn't excuse using the bus as a 10ton weapon :? .


+1 for this.

I'm glad the driver is in prison, - that's where he belongs.

I'm also glad several others have raised the issue of the initial incident though as I have felt quite uncomfortable when looking at all the CCTV coverage. It seems the cyclist did not yield to a developing hazard, indeed seems to have accelerated towards it? Advanced driver training for example would not endorse that, - anticipate, avoid and stay safe - even if it is the other party that is a numpty. The cyclist then apparently chose to stop and make a point of confronting and arguing with an unknown quantity, who unfortunately turned out to be not just a numpty, but a complete maniac.

Difficult post to make, because I would hate anyone to think I am defending the driver. I certainly am not. I'm just looking for what we can learn from it.

kwackers
Posts: 13538
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby kwackers » 18 Feb 2012, 10:04pm

DavidT wrote:Difficult post to make, because I would hate anyone to think I am defending the driver. I certainly am not. I'm just looking for what we can learn from it.

The whole backend of this thread is debating the island thing...
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60456&p=513691#p513691

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby thirdcrank » 18 Feb 2012, 10:33pm

DavidT wrote:.... a complete maniac. ....


Again without any intention of defending the driver, I doubt if that's an accurate description. I'd be prepared to bet he's a very normal sort of a person who lost his temper when he should have kept it. I've met quite a lot of people with a very short fuse and they tend to have plenty of convictions for violence of every type.

The length of his prison sentence has been repeatedly raised on here but I cannot really see what would be achieved in keeping him in jail forever. Whether the threat of gaol is a deterrent or not, I'd imagine the deterrent effect on somebody who has completely lost it is limited. The opportunities for reform in prison also seem limited and anger management courses don't depend on somebody being in custody. This particular defendant probably doesn't represent the continuing threat to society that can only be met by preventative detention. More widely, we hear a lot of talk about our prisons being soft. It may be that people who have been in and out of custody from an early age can take it in their stride, but I doubt if this inmate will find it a doddle.

On a practical point, the possibility of a heavy sentence can lead to perverse acquittals if a jury believes the eventual sentence will be too severe. When I did my jury service, almost exactly a year ago, after I had delivered our verdicts of "Guilty" the recorder explained that although sentence would be deferred for an asset confiscation inquiry, our verdicts meant that the minimum sentence prescribed by law was seven years imprisonment, with any flexibilty being more on top of that. (It was a drug dealing case.) There were quite audible gasps and even groans among some of my fellow jurors and I suspect our verdicts might have been different if some of our number had known beforehand what was coming.

User avatar
patricktaylor
Posts: 2299
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 11:20am
Location: Winter Hill
Contact:

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby patricktaylor » 18 Feb 2012, 11:37pm

Good post thirdcrank.

thirdcrank wrote:
DavidT wrote:.... a complete maniac. ....

... I'd be prepared to bet he's a very normal sort of a person who lost his temper when he should have kept it. ...

Me too. A moment of madness and a bus driver has ruined his life (and maybe his family's) for some while at least. I'm pleased the cyclist wasn't more seriously hurt (sorry to hear he was hurt at all, actually) but he was hardly an innocent bystander. It's a sad story all round.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby meic » 19 Feb 2012, 12:01am

The offences the cyclist committed was trying to "stand his ground" against being pushed out of his lane and remonstrating with the bus driver about getting pushed out of his lane.

He didnt start the problem, he just stuck up for himself.
He didnt damage anything he didnt threaten anybodies safety except his own (though not through driving negligence but through failing to spot a momentary nutter).

They say "you only get bullied if you let yourself be bullied".
However in reality those who stand up to bullies get a good kicking.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Phil_Lee
Posts: 726
Joined: 13 Jul 2008, 3:41am
Location: Cambs

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby Phil_Lee » 19 Feb 2012, 6:49am

thirdcrank wrote:I wouldn't get too hung up over which version of GBH was charged. It's almost certainly section 20 (max impt 5 years.) Section 18 is harder to prove because in addition to the normal guilty intention needed with every crime, s 18 includes an intent to cause the GBH. As an aside, the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, is the last survivor of the various landmark statutes passed in 1861. Malicious damage and theft have both been modernised in our time (or at least, in mine, because I had to forget the old stuff and learn the replacement.) The act has all sorts of things which are hard to understand. eg it created two separate offences of common assault (both now obsolete)ie s42 which could only be prosecuted privately by the victim and s 47 which created both indictable common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm both coming in at 5 years, in common with s 20. This act also created the offence of causing injury by furious driving.

The main point here IMO is that an appropriate charge has been used and has lead to conviction. Judges are constrained by sentencing guidelines. And the system does recognise that carrying a weapon implies premeditation. There's always a grey area if somebody has an otherwise innocent item like a jack handle under their car seat. I don't think anybody becomes a bus driver so they are "tooled up" for aggro.


But isn't that exactly what the sales of larger and larger private vehicles is all about?
IMO, the overwhelming majority of urban 4x4s are chosen for precisely that reason - being "tooled up" as you put it, to cope with aggro.

kwackers
Posts: 13538
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby kwackers » 19 Feb 2012, 12:54pm

meic wrote:The offences the cyclist committed was trying to "stand his ground" against being pushed out of his lane and remonstrating with the bus driver about getting pushed out of his lane.

Let's hope he doesn't drive a car also, because if he's prepared to go to those lengths for such a minor thing think what he might do if actually provoked!

Incidentally he wasn't pushed out of his lane - that implies the vehicle actually moved over and forced him out. What actually happened is the bus took up position in front of him and then he chose to try and catch up to make a point.
No wonder he chose not to be interviewed, I suspect even he realised what a dick he'd been.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: "Breaking" news.

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Feb 2012, 3:59pm

Phil_Lee wrote: ... But isn't that exactly what the sales of larger and larger private vehicles is all about?
IMO, the overwhelming majority of urban 4x4s are chosen for precisely that reason - being "tooled up" as you put it, to cope with aggro.


That may be true, but this thread is about a an omnibus being driven by an omnibus driver and the point I was trying to make, in the context of offences being aggravated by premeditation, is that I doubt if people become bus drivers because they cannot afford a Humvee.