taken out on bike by idiot bus driver opening doors
- Thread starter ringo
- Start date
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
quite.
if the traffic's stationary, and there's at least a meter's room, and you're going slowly, and the pavement doesn't have a barrier on it, then it's ok - I reckon
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
That's just like the attitude I got! I was just left screaming "have you any idea how it feels to have a double decker bus suddenly turn directly across your path?" He just didn't see that anything was wrong.
We should all make a pact here and now to report every incident like this from now on. It seems like they either don't have adequate training or they just don't give a shit.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
I don't - it's the ones who come up from behind and then turn sharply in front of me that put the heeby-jeebys up me!
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
She's done all that. Apparently because she didn't actually see the exact moment when the little shit knocked her scooter over, they can't do anything. Despite it being 4am, not a single other soul on the street and the two of them laughing and shouting about what they'd done
So I guess they've done all they can. A word with the parents - or a stern talking to for them - wouldn't have gone a miss though - they were about 17 I think and have been doing it on a weekly basis.Aye, this is true enough, generally people were always facing out the back of the bus to get off so could see bikes etc coming up the road.
Yup. That's a lack of evidence situation - unless they admitted it, no case (for a start you'd have to prove which one of the two or a specific joint enterprise (agreement) to damage them).
There's not really a place for that in the system any more, which is a pity. There are equivalents (Youth Offender Teams send warning letters, etc.) but they're not quite the same and they rely on there being sufficient evidence of an offence (otherwise people complain that their being warned about something they didn't do (or, at least, can't be proven)). It's an example of how the system protects the "rights" of suspects to an arguably excessive extent. Do we really need a criminal standard of proof to send warning letters to both in the situation you describe?
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
I totally understand the reaons why...it's just very disappointing as it's so so so obvious it's them who've been doing it but as you say, these things are in place to protect everyone.
With any luck, the fact that they were actually caught will be enough to stop them doing it again. Of course that relies on them being decent kids in the first place....only time will tell!
With any luck, the fact that they were actually caught will be enough to stop them doing it again. Of course that relies on them being decent kids in the first place....only time will tell!
Private Storm
Smell The Glove
Signed
I think it is important to differentiate where the "fault" or problem lies though - if we as a matter of course simply blame "the police" for everything as your initial post did, as most people's comments in such a situation do) then we will not get anywhere. In fact, by blaming the police for not getting the little shits on the sheet for something we are actually adding to the pressure on the police to fit them up with some "better" evidence next time. It is very important to make sure that we identify where the fault or problem lies and address those responsible for that.
Structaural
in Chatsubo
Interestingly, I was in London a month ago and I got one of those new buses that seem to take the old 196 route down Railton Road. It got stuck in traffic next to Kellet Road so I asked the driver to let me off and he said he couldn't (we'd been sitting there for about 3 mins), I was like 'c'mon, man open the door!' and he's like 'I can't, but you can' and pointed to the open button on the passengers side and I let myself off (checking for bikes of course).
I guess in that situation the driver isn't liable.
I guess in that situation the driver isn't liable.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
OK well it was just very disappointing that nothing could be done when someone has continually had their property damaged and had caught the person responsible. I understand the issues - really I do - but it doesn't help the fact tnat she's now paid out more in repairs than her scooter is worth and there is nothing she can do about it. Not the fault of the police as such but it doesn't give me much faith in any kind of action being taken against a bus driver who swerves in front of you if no action could be taken in the scooter case.
If you'd done it yourself - no (well, theoretically yes, as the driver, but certainly way less so). As he suggested it to you - yes! (But he'd probably deny that and blame you)
You can't compare the two - evidence is required however serious the incident - if it is there, it is there, if it isn't it isn't. It doesn't matter how serious or non-serious. There are murder cases in which charges are not laid due to there being insufficient evidence every day. And there are people prosecuted for being drunk and disorderly every day. You cannot compare the two in relation to the evidential requirement.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
Yes I know.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Glad everyone in the situation was ok, but disagree it was the busdriver's fault - It's a case of bloody dopey pedestrians as usual. It's bullshit being trapped in a bus when there's a huge traffic jam and you're in a hurry. (just press the emergency buttons and look left and right if the driver is a cock about it.) Also buses and lorries are number 1 on my list of things trying to accidentally kill me when I'm on my bike (just above suicidal peds). I think Ringo was either going too fast as he undertook the bus, or he needs better brakes.
Private Storm
Smell The Glove
ringo
Macaroni cheese controller
I wasn't going that fast and my new bike had very good brakes.
I think the giveaway was when the copper told the bus driver it was all his fault and that he was being prosecuted for endangering life, dangerous driving and negligence of his duty of care to his passengers and other road users.
So you're wrong on all counts, good effort.
Just so you don't get your expectations built up too high - the offence he is likely to be prosecuted by the police for (if they find sufficient evidence) is dangerous driving. "Endangering life" is not an offence - if the officer used those words I guess he must have been describing the effect the act of opening the doors had had. As for "negligence of his duty of care" that is not a criminal offence and it is not something the police would be able to do anything about - it is a civil law wrong and it is what you would sue him for if you were injured / your bike damaged. In practice it would be the basis of a claim against his insurers. Again I guess that if the officer used those words he was explaining that the driver had a civil liability for any damage / injury caused.
You need to make a claim against his insurers a.s.a.p. The police should have provided you with sufficient detail - if not hassle them for the details as soon as possible.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Well I call bullshit. I've been in many similar situations in my 8+ years of cycling in London. There's always a delay before the doors open and someone steps out, not to mention an audible hiss on the doors. If you didn't notice that, then perhaps you should have been paying more attention.
D
Well-Known Member
ringo!I got into a little spat with a bus driver the other day who nearly ran me off the road doing a stupid swervy maneuver about 30 feet from the intersection. I saw him, adjusted accordingly, and then pulled up next to him at the light. I knocked on the bus and said, "You almost hit me. You need to look before you switch lanes. You didn't even glance at where you were going."
"Well, you'd better be careful, darling," was his reply. puke! fume! etc!
"I am very careful. That's the only reason you didn't kill me. Don't tell me to be careful. You be careful, open your eyes and learn how to drive properly."
If he had just said, "Sorry, my mistake. Glad I didn't hit you." and even then if he had added, "Be careful" I would have been less irritated. But he was so stupidly patronizing.
ringo
Macaroni cheese controller
dream_girl
waiting for my ban
And you need to get a life. I don't understand why this website isn't renamed "Ask DetectiveBoy" or "The world according to detective boy".
ringo
Macaroni cheese controller
Got a call from the pleece. 15 pleece and it seems not one of them got the name of the woman who stepped off the bus or a single witness. It's my word against the bus drivers for some reason, and the cps will never put that forward for prosecution. They're not sure if they can be bothered to check the cctv. Told them about the security guard stood watching and the bus accident inspector who talked to the woman but they weren't sure they could be bothered to find out about them.
Apprently the statements me and the driver gave to them at the time and signed are not admissable in court, only the questionaire they've just sent me is. So the driver might not admit to what he did again.
They now say this will not be pursued. I told them I'd be taking civil action for damages to myself and the bike, they agreed that was best.
This is just a way for them to do nothing and spend no money and make me do it for them. Useless twats.
Apprently the statements me and the driver gave to them at the time and signed are not admissable in court, only the questionaire they've just sent me is. So the driver might not admit to what he did again.
They now say this will not be pursued. I told them I'd be taking civil action for damages to myself and the bike, they agreed that was best.
This is just a way for them to do nothing and spend no money and make me do it for them. Useless twats.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Sounds fair enough since the responsibility is 50/50 between you and the driver.
He shouldn't have opened the doors and you shouldn't have been "charging" along the inside of queuing traffic.
It sounds like they're bullshitting. What is admissible in Court is evidence either given verbally or in writing. If it's to be used in writing it must be on a statement which complies with the Criminal Justice Act 1967. That is a purely administrative matter. A written statement will only ever be used in place of oral evidence if the defence have no challenge to make to it.
Admissions by the bus driver are perfectly admissible in evidence, in the form of the account of anyone who heard them (police or public).
If the police cannot be arsed watching the CCTV, you are perfectly entitled to make an application under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the footage to be provided to you as it is needed in connection with civil proceedings. There is no reason why thw bus company should not comply with this request from you, but it will have more power coming from your insurers or a solicitor. YOU should immediately write to them and put them on notice that it will be required though - it is not kept long and by the time insurers / solicitors get round to it, it's usually gone.
If they cannot be bothered tracing witnesses (assuming you have more detail than "a security guard" or "a passenger") then that is a failure to provide a satisfactory service. There is nothing to stop you making contact if you know who they are and asking them to provide a written account of whatever they recall.
It sounds like the police have failed to properly investigate and deal with this matter. You should consider a formal complaint.
There is often a problem with proving traffic offences to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) where there is only one account against another. That is not a reason to avoid trying to find other evidence which may help reach that standard. Whatever the evidence, it is far easier to prove a case in civil law as that only has to be to a lesser standard, the balance of probabilities.
Even if the police DID prosecute, you would still have to pursue a civil case seperately - the two are NOT linked at all, though a criminal prosecution, and especailly a conviction, would usually make the civil case a formality.
(ETA: For the information of Crispy, I am simply posting this because I believe it may be helpful to ringo and not to wind dream girl up. If I thought for one moment she may be able to provide similar detailed advice, with a similar degree of insight, experience and knowledge, I would, of course, have left it to her ... )
dream_girl
waiting for my ban
Next time detective boy or dream girl start slagging each other off, bans will follow. Stop it. It's shit and boring. Thank you
I'm hoping it's him having a go at me
Similar threads
- Poll
