Was this bus driver bad?

[Cab]

What information? And stop picking on BentMikey.

Its all about what happens after you see the cyclist. You know that its a mistake to accelerate if you're being overtaken to prevent someone from overtaking you (thats clear in the highway code). You know that its a mistake to pull out in front of any other vehicle thats moving (like a bike). You also know that in my view its quite likely that'll happen sometimes in a big vehicle, you can be as observant as you like but you can still miss things, such mistakes will happen, can't be helped, what matters is what you do next. I'm pretty sure we agree on that (don't we?).

There are very few circumstances that would make it okay to try to out-accelerate a vehicle thats coming past you to pull in again, which is why I asked you not to do it again, and was glad that you said that you won't. Brock is referring to some kind of situatiuon that would make that the right manoevre, because it isn't obvious that there are any such curcumstances.

 

[Cab]

Most cyclists are quite capable of spotting a bus from a variety of angles, that a bus is starting/about to move, and to then act accordingly. They're large enough to see.

I agree. And..? I mean, the cyclist should see the bus, and in most situations should allow the bus out. What matters, the question under discussion, is whether what the bus driver did when the cyclist stared to come past was correct. As we have no way of knowing where the cyclist came from or why they chose to pass, we just can't reasonably make any assertions there. We know that the bus driver didn't see the cyclist until later than either of them would have liked; what matters here, what we're discussing, is what the bus driver did next.

 

[Brock]

Well sudden braking, even at slow speeds in a B7TL, can jerk passengers about.

Surely there's something between accelerating and braking hard though?

 

[BentMikey]

Its all about what happens after you see the cyclist. You know that its a mistake to accelerate if you're being overtaken to prevent someone from overtaking you (thats clear in the highway code). You know that its a mistake to pull out in front of any other vehicle thats moving (like a bike).

The bold bit is pure assumption on your part.

Where we don't agree is whether continuing to accelerate or not is the right action. Rule 168 specifically refers to drivers overtaking, rather than cyclists. I think this is quite relevant, because motor vehicles have far more acceleration than cyclists, as well as much better braking. On this basis alone, a legal and valid option for safety would be for Nethalus to continue to accelerate and allow the cyclist to drop in behind her. Assuming that the cyclist has popped out after Nethalus committed to pulling out, I would expect that there will be little relative speed between them, and no easy way for the cyclist to continue to overtake unless Nethalus braked hard. That's not good for her passengers, and it's very likely not good for the cyclist either, who can't stop as quickly as the bus. It's also a good option because the cyclist can't accelerate well relative to the bus.

I know that if an overtake I'm making goes wrong for whatever reason whilst I'm alongside, I want to maximise the relative speed between the vehicle I'm overtaking and myself, in either direction, so that I can quickly return to my side of the road.

Oh, and straw man - it seems like you're using the term incorrectly to me. It's you who debates dishonestly here.

 

[Cab]

The bold bit is pure assumption on your part.

Where we don't agree is whether continuing to accelerate or not is the right action. Rule 168 specifically refers to drivers overtaking, rather than cyclists.

You believe its okay to out-accelerate a cyclist who is half way around overtaking a bus or a car?

Sorry, but no, you're now just being ridiculous. You know it too.

 

[Tynan]

that's you told BM

 

[domd1979]

You're placing rather a lot of emphasis on Highway Code rule 168, the spirit of which probably isn't aimed at the type of situation that occurred.

You ignore preceding rules which arguably the cyclist should have taken note of:
164 - "make sure that you have enough room to complete your overtaking manoeuvre before committing yourself. It takes longer to pass a large vehicle. If in doubt do not overtake"

166 - "DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt"

167 - "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example....when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled"

I make that three rules the cyclist ignored: there wasn't the room to overtake, there was doubt, the bus was indicating - there was a risk of conflict.

You believe its okay to out-accelerate a cyclist who is half way around overtaking a bus or a car?

Sorry, but no, you're now just being ridiculous. You know it too.

 

[Cab]

You're placing rather a lot of emphasis on Highway Code rule 168, the spirit of which probably isn't aimed at the type of situation that occurred.

You ignore preceding rules which arguably the cyclist should have taken note of:

No, I don't, and this is just the same straw man that BM kept coming back with a little while ago.

Whether or not the cyclist was in error there (and its just so hard for us to say because we've got no information) doesn't change whether or not the bus driver is in error in trying to out-accelerate a vehicle that is overtaking.

 

[Brock]

domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember? The clue is in the subject title.

Nethalus, just out of interest, how fast do you think you were going when you first noticed the cyclist?

Also, would you have driven differently at that point if you weren't in the state of irritation that you describe?

Also, did you first notice the cyclist as a result of her shout?

 

[BentMikey]

Cab, you clearly don't understand what a straw man is.

Secondly you're wrong in suggesting that the cyclist was half-way along the bus when overtaking. Go and read the OP, where you'll see that the cyclist had just got level with the rear of the bus. You're the one who's making straw men.

I think the cyclist hadn't actually committed to the overtake and could still easily bail out of it. Nethalus's comment about the cyclist being level with the rear of the bus makes it even more clear that the bus should have continued to accelerate in this specific situation.

 

[BentMikey]

that's you told BM

LOL, it's quite entertaining isn't it! I should probably stop poking Cab with a stick, I'm just amazed how much effort and vitriol he's put into debating such a tiny and minor incident.

 

[Tynan]

'domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember?'

that's convenient, so it all about how bad the bus driver was and the cyclist is irrelevant?

 

[domd1979]

No, I don't.

The actions of the cyclist are relevant - you can't choose to ignore them just because the cyclist didn't act in a particularly sensible manner.

domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember? The clue is in the subject title.

 

[gambatte]

I can also think of many situations in which continuing with something you've started is the best move.

Think this might be one of 'em!

 

[domd1979]

Rubbish.

Its easy to deduce the cyclist was in error - there's nothing "hard" about it and its porky pies to say there's "no information". If he'd paid attention to the very Highway Code you've mentioned many times, then he wouldn't have got to the point of even trying to attempt to begin an overtake, nor shouting at the bus.

Whether or not the cyclist was in error there (and its just so hard for us to say because we've got no information) doesn't change whether or not the bus driver is in error in trying to out-accelerate a vehicle that is overtaking.