"vernon levy" wrote in message
...

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
...
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
into our lane. We *had* to go slightly into the bus lane, as there
was
no other option left open - I wonder whether the reason will show if
the
cameras we saw were working, or whether we'll get £100 fine because we
were in the bus lane....

The bus forced its way onto your side of the road? It's the busses fault
then, I trust you took it's number an made a formal complaint.

Get a life! Re-read the original posting below and justify your above
interpretation.

As I understand it, the bus passed into an oncoming lane of traffic to get
arround a parked car. What it should have done was sat there and waited for
a gap in the oncoming traffic (or a kindly soul that let him through)

Unfortunately, on the other side of the
road, there is no bus lane, and a parked car diverted an oncoming bus
into our lane.

So the parked car (assuming it was illegally parked) was at fault. That
doesn't negate the illegal action of the bus driver, or the illegal action
of Annabel. The only exception would be if the bus pulled out infront of
Anabel before she had time to stop and she had to swerve to avoid collision.
In that case the bus driver is at fault for dangerous driving.

I think you should have a spell as a bus driver and experience the
stresses
and strains of trying to maintain a public service to a timetable in an

We all have stresses and strains in our jobs, we dont all break the law to
cope with those stresses and strains.

If it's justifable to break traffic laws because you have a timetable?
Perhaps we should legalise speeding for taxi drivers. And what about
commuters that are racing to work to provide a public service? If it's OK
for bus drivers to ignore traffic laws, it's ok for anyone. I dont care how
stressed they are, I'm sure the city broker trying to get to work is much
more stressed. It's part of the job.

"Allan" wrote in message
...
continued on his way. I later reported his behavior to the police (
after I had cooled down)

....and bugger all happened. After all bad publicity for Ken's little
darlings? (Assuming london)
--
Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do
with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff.
Posted in his lunch hour too.

Frank X wrote:

Going round on the outside of a bus on some roads can be dangerous as they
can pull out without looking or signalling, forcing you into the path of
oncoming traffic.



You mean like the cyclist killed on Blackfriars Bridge in May
http://www.blagged.pwp.blueyonder.co...ackfriars.html

Tony

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...

We *had* to go slightly into the bus lane, as there was
no other option left open - I wonder whether the reason
will show if the cameras we saw were working, or
whether we'll get £100 fine because we
were in the bus lane....

This is why bus lane cameras should only be fitted to the front of buses and
manually operated by the driver - because if your brief foray into a bus
lane doesn't hold a bus up, you shouldn't be penalised.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...

We *had* to go slightly into the bus lane, as there was
no other option left open - I wonder whether the reason
will show if the cameras we saw were working, or
whether we'll get £100 fine because we
were in the bus lane....

This is why bus lane cameras should only be fitted to the front of
buses and
manually operated by the driver - because if your brief foray into a
bus
lane doesn't hold a bus up, you shouldn't be penalised.

Like if you exceed the speed limit but don't kill anyone you shouldn't
be penalised either, I suppose...

Neil

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:48:05 on Wed, 1 Sep
2004, dwb remarked:

A bike lane marked by a solid white line, that motorised vehicles are
banned from entering. Unlike a one with dashed lines, where they can
if necessary to avoid another vehicle.

Um, the bus lanes that I see in London have solid white lines, so not sure
how that works :/

Quite well, because they are mandatory *bus* lanes. As well as the
signage, the width is a bit of a giveaway. You might have to travel a
bit out from central London to see a bike-only lane.

I think there's one up Tottenham Court Road; there's certainly a bike
lane, but i actually don't remember what sort. I'm positive some of the
route from Angel to Tottenham Court Road is mandatory cycle lane.

ObCyclistNearDeathExperienceStory: yesterday evening and this morning,
going over the Farringdon road. Last night, it was some guy who decided
he'd start by breaking the law about waiting behind the stop line at a red
light, thereby pulling up almost level with yours truly (er, who was also
breaking the law, but that's not important right now - there's a bike box
there, it just hasn't been painted on the road yet ), then thought it
would be fun to try to turn left through me (i was going straight on;
bikes can do that at that point, but cars can't, so perhaps he just wasn't
expecting it). This morning, it was a guy (in a Range Rover, in London,
and who should therefore die a painful death) who decided that it would be
fun to overtake me as i was turning right. Well, or run me over - hard to
tell, really.

I have to say i'm utterly apalled by all the "get over it" comments that
have been made. When people in motor vehicles break traffic laws, PEOPLE
DIE - usually other people, and in particular, people not in motor
vehicles. A car, or a bus or truck, is a lethal weapon - we shouldn't have
any tolerance whatsoever for its misuse.

Also, i can echo an observation made in the story about the psycho bus
driver chasing a cyclist down the road, too. A few months ago, i was hit
by a motorbike: he overtook a taxi, and didn't check to see if there was
anything in front of it; there was, and it was me. Luckily, it was all
pretty low-speed, so i just fell off and whacked my arm, rather than
getting properly hurt. Now, in the ensuing conversation, he rather
forcefully expressed the opinion that it was *my* fault, since there was a
cycle lane on the road which i wasn't using (it's a nice lane, but it's a
contraflow one, and rather hard to get into from the wrong side). He is of
course mistaken - there is no obligation on bikes to use a cycle lane, and
no restriction on them using the main lanes if they'd rather. The psycho
bus driver apparently had the same misapprehension; is this common?

tom

--
I gotta handful of vertebrae and a headful of mad! -- The Doomguy

In message , at 11:46:07 on Thu, 2
Sep 2004, Allan remarked:
This last Saturday I was stopped at light when a bus pulled up behind
me. When the lights change the bus driver pulled out and over took with
reasonable room, unfortunatly he then started to both pull in and brake
to stop at a bus stop ( he was pulling up short to the stop as there was
a bus already stopped at the stop )just as his rear wheel was level with
me. I had to brake hard too avoid being the filling in a kerb/bus
sandwich. As I passed the drivers window I pointed out what he had done
( surprisingly without expletives) then carried on my way.A little way
further on ( before the next bus stop ) I became aware that the bus was
not overtaking me, I looked round and saw the bus behind me and the
driver appeared to be indicating for me to pull over at the next stop.
He then passed me with the passenger door open and started shouting that
I "was an idiot and should not be on the road". He had to stop at the
next bus stop but shouted out of his window as I passed (could not make
that out). He over took me again, again with his door open shouting
something along the lines of " if your not on/a bus you should not be on
the road" and that " I should be on a cycle lane and not on the road" (
the fact that he had never noticed that there are total of 20yrds of
cycle lane on the 3 miles of this road is worrying)At this point all I
shouted back to him was I was reporting him and read out his bus ID
number . I then stopped and took down his license plate number as he
continued on his way. I later reported his behavior to the police (
after I had cooled down)

This is all classic stuff. Should be bottled and sent to traffic
planners everywhere.
--
Roland Perry

Neil Jones wrote:

This is why bus lane cameras should only be fitted to the front of
buses and manually operated by the driver - because if your brief
foray into a bus lane doesn't hold a bus up, you shouldn't be
penalised.

Like if you exceed the speed limit but don't kill anyone you shouldn't
be penalised either, I suppose...

Blimey, that's awfully close to common sense....

In message , at
16:58:31 on Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
there is no obligation on bikes to use a cycle lane, and
no restriction on them using the main lanes if they'd rather. The psycho
bus driver apparently had the same misapprehension; is this common?

Yes, most motorists believe this to be the case.
--
Roland Perry

"dwb" writes:

Neil Jones wrote:

This is why bus lane cameras should only be fitted to the front of
buses and manually operated by the driver - because if your brief
foray into a bus lane doesn't hold a bus up, you shouldn't be
penalised.

Like if you exceed the speed limit but don't kill anyone you shouldn't
be penalised either, I suppose...

Blimey, that's awfully close to common sense....

You know what we think about common sense round here.

The difference with bus lanes is that using one isn't so much of a
stochastic issue over whether you hold up a bus, whereas with breaking
speed limits, the amortised danger is quite high even if it's just 1
offence in many hundreds of thousands that actually ends in causing a
collision. (According to an ad I saw on a bus in Frome, each high
speed crash costs the local hospital £100 000, so the amortized cost
to the taxpayer of each speeding offence is non-negligible)

Of course you have to believe that speeding increases risk to accept
this argument, and I'm not going to try to persuade anyone of
that. Life's too short.

A