magnatom said:
(I can't believe I am being drawn back in

)
You are wrong here cab!! You cannot be looking everywhere all of the time. The driver checked that it was safe to pull out at the start of the manouver and then began the to move off. Only then did the cyclist appear.
Or, in other words, there was a cyclist approaching to pass the bus and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist. Simple mistake that anyone can make because, as you say, we're not perfect, we don't have all round vision especially in a big vehicle. I wouldn't rush to condemn anyone for making a mistake like that, its an innocent error, but I would ask that anyone out on the roads be willing to acknowledge such a mishap, and to at the very least not compound that error.
It is possible that the driver missed the cyclist, yes. It is equally possible that the cyclist came from an unexpected angle. Doesn't matter at this stage. The driver has to react as best they determine to avoid an accident. There are numerous occasions where it is best to continue (or sometimes accelerate) out of the way to avoid an accident. It is entirely possible that this was such an occasion.
The bus driver came out in such a way as to impede the traffic. Mistake. Genuine error, forgiveable, but you have to accept when you've made a mistake if you're going to learn from it.
According to Nethalus the cyclist continued, so the bike is now trying to overtake the bus. Presumably thats because the cyclist doesn't see where else to go, but we can't know whats happening. Now, if you check the highway code:
"168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you."
Clearly the correct course of action is to allow the other guy past; its easy to get stubborn and decide that the other bloke shouldn't be going past you so you're not going to let them, and as a
cyclist we can easily be tempted to do so. But make no mistake, if theres an accident caused by you accelerating to stop someone legally trying to overtake then you can't claim to be entirely without blame.
So whether or not the cyclist should have gone past the bus (we all agree that you should let a bus out where its safe and appropriate), we can say that the bus driver made two clear errors.
Can you Cab say that on this occasion that continuing on was not the best course of action? Can you? No you can't because you weren't there and so we will never know.
So, you're overtaking a bus and it has started to pull out. You do the right thing and alert the bus driver to your presence. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the bus to continue to pull out into the road space you're occupying? I ask because, genuinely, I can't construct any set of circumstances where such behaviour is appropriate. In this scenario it no longer matters whether the cyclist was right or not to go past the bus (might have been, might not have been), because either way you've got a bus trying to out-accelrate a bike that has started to
legally go past.
As a cyclist I have avoided collisions by accelerating away from cars who have started to pull out on me. In fact if memory serves me correctly this is suggested as an escape route in cyclecraft.
Yep, as an emergency escape out accelerating trouble can help. But in an analogous situation, if you're pulling out in to traffic and make a car swerve, it isn't then appropriate to keep going to keep the car swerving outside you. If you're pulling out from a junction or a layby and you've missed a car, you don't keep accelerating out in front of it, you back off and let it go if you can. To do otherwise, as Nethalus did, is dangerous and directly against the advice in the highway code.
So for all you know this was the best course of action in this situation.
Now I can't tell you what to do (your a big boy I'm sure..... oo-er) but I'd suggest dropping it. You are no longer flogging a dead horse as the horse has now decomposed and been covered by several layers of sedement. In fact I am sure it is well on its way to becoming a fossil, which future cultures will find and wonder at why a horse would have some many flogging marks on it's bones.
As far as I can see, there are still a few people here who just don't get why Nethalus was in the wrong. I'd be happy to let this lie, but I'd rather let it lie when people demonstrably 'get' what happened here. It appears to me that some contributors do not.