— Forum Discussions —

Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist - video

Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist - video

A bus driver who used his bus like a 'weapon' to knock a cyclist to the ground has been jailed for 17 months, a court official said. Gavin Hill was shown on CCTV in an exchange with cyclist Phillip Mead before he lurched the bus sharply into the cyclist's path, throwing him from his bike


Having been through some close scrapes-- no love for buses here-- it just makes me cringe. Glad to see they threw the asshole in jail.

It is like some drivers just "hate" cyclists. We have a road that connects our town to the adjoining town and it constantly had cyclist traffic on it, which caused a lot of congestion. The town finally got smart, widened the road and added a paved shoulder, it makes a big difference. I think if they did that with the popular roads, it would solve a lot of these problems.

17 Months for deliberately using a vehicle to attack a cyclist, I remember a couple years ago on here there was a case in the US where this old doctor was being charged with attempted murder for doing a similar offense. In the UK the Law is not on the side of the cyclist and it is very rare for the driver of a motor vehicle to face any sort of custodial sentence for causing the death of a cyclist, even if they have been driving dangerously.

I am glad to see cyclists gaining more respect slowly but surely. I actually got a ticket today for double parking (I live in Brooklyn) but I was told by the police officer that I was only getting a ticket because I was blocking the bike lane, if I had parked in the middle of the street, stupidly, I wouldn't even have gotten a ticket!

Having been hit once and a few close calls, it now seems that, per the below, I know who to be on the look out for, though it is certainly not what I would have expected:

Upper class people are more likely to behave selfishly, studies suggest

A raft of studies into unethical behaviour across the social classes has delivered a withering verdict on the upper echelons of society.

Privileged people behaved consistently worse than others in a range of situations, with a greater tendency to lie, cheat, take things meant for others, cut up other road users, not stop for pedestrians on crossings, and endorse unethical behaviour, researchers found...

The researchers next recorded whether drivers stopped for a person who tried to walk across the junction using a pedestrian crossing. Drivers of the cheapest and oldest cars were most likely to slow down and give way, followed by those in average quality cars. But those in the most prestigious cars drove on regardless of the pedestrian around 45% of the time.

Entire article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/27/upper-class-people-behave-...


The Guardian is a left wing news paper that will always slant its stories (as I am sure they all do) to favour its own political agenda.


the numbers are what the numbers are. How you or anyone else chooses to interpret them is an individual choice- am reminded of Homer Simpson quipping that facts were meaningless because they could be used to prove anything.

The studies mentioned were not requested nor paid for by the Guardian. In addition, the study was done in the US, not the UK, which has a very different orientation to and sense of "class"- simply having money does not make you part of the upper class. I am fairly certain that the Queen does not ride a bicycle, which should infer nothing about her other than her non-propensity for traveling via self-propelled bi-wheeled vehicles.


Wow I wasn't expecting a complete broadside,

I have now read the article (your link did not work). The Guardian Newspaper has picked up on the work carried out by the Uni of California and published the bits what they wanted to. Have they carried out a full in depth analysis of the actual studies and published a balanced report? probably not. Or indeed have you? "as the numbers are what the numbers are".

But hey if you believe every thing that you read in a news paper then good for you.

What I can guarantee is that if the Daily telegraph had run the story their analysis of the report would have been slightly different. Their headline might have said " High Fliers Proven to Focus on Getting to the Next Task"

... not going to watch the video. I don't need to be reminded. And I don't need to read studies to tell me that drivers hate me/us. It won't change my opinion that the resentment comes from a seemingly contradictory condition of anti-elitism and the politics of envy. No one likes to see you riding around on a seemingly pricey toy, extolling that you *could* drive, but choose not to. I don't think it has anything to do with being inconvenienced. Drivers (on average) don't react nearly as violently when inconvenienced by other cars. Instead of the outward expression of self improvement motivating others, it leads to resentment of your success upon realizing that in fact, not everyone is equal. ("... some animals are more equal than others." - Orwell) Exercising in your copious spare time - since you're obviously successful enough not to need energy for labor - conveys a sense of privilege that is to be scorned.

You know what I think it is? I ride on a cheap bike, and I still get the same thing. I also get the same thing when I am driving as I always drive the speed limit or just a bit over.

Many people in cars are in a hurry, and they don't like to slow down for anyone. They get impatient following people who are driving the speed limit. They will tailgate, and blow by you giving you the finger on their way by, just because you are "holding them up." I think that is the basic issue. People don't like being impeded.

In our area there are cops everywhere, if you are local, you don't dare speed, or else you get big fines. That is just the way it is, but do I notice I "tick people off" just by driving the speed limit. The cyclists get even worse treatment, I feel really bad for them, I have seen people pass them in our area, giving them a couple inches of space. It makes me really nervous.


Let me put this another way as I wasn't clear initially. The findings of the study are what they are and whether you or anyone else believe them is of little consequence to me. However calling them into question based solely upon the messenger/delivery is ad hominem reasoning which is fallacious. I enjoy a good debate but the character, or lack thereof, of the Guardian is not germane to the study mentioned.

Trisooner/Hamlet Cat:

Agree with both of you. There are times when I swear that I can feel the visceral hatred simply for having the nerve to be on the road.



? Top