Minor collision between Edinburgh tram and bus

[90019]

He obviously doesnt care otherwise he wouldnt have cycled off the pavement in front of a bus!

Some of the ones I encounter on a daily basis at work either have a death wish or are just monumentally stupid with little or no awareness of anything going on around them.

What if the cyclist just wobbled because of wind or a pothole ? Surely then its not the cyclists fault ?

There are no potholes on the pavement there, and there are 3-4 storey buildings on both sides of the road making it pretty sheltered with no crosswind - the cyclist wasn't blown onto the road.

 

[455driver]

If there is evidence that it was a ped or a cyclist stepping out . Or the cyclist wobbling cos of wind or a pothole(this would be no ones fault)

It would still be the cyclists fault because their actions (whether deliberate or accidental) would have still caused the crash.

Just because it wasnt a deliberate act (I still get the feeling it was deliberate ) doesnt mean they are not at fault.

You wont hear a bad word against a cyclist will you!

 

[richw]

It would still be the cyclists fault because their actions (whether deliberate or accidental) would have still caused the crash.

Just because it wasnt a deliberate act (I still get the feeling it was deliberate ) doesnt mean they are not at fault.

Hence being called an "accident". Although I don't think that is in permitted vocabulary these days.

 

[90019]

Hence being called an "accident". Although I don't think that is in permitted vocabulary these days.

It's no longer a road traffic accident, but a road traffic collision.

 

[455driver]

Hence being called an "accident". Although I don't think that is in permitted vocabulary these days.

An accident means that no one is at fault so that phrase is no longer allowed because somebody has to be blamed no matter what the circumstances.

 

[richw]

An accident means that no one is at fault so that phrase is no longer allowed because somebody has to be blamed no matter what the circumstances.

That's not quite true, somebody is not always at fault. Mechanical failure for example. But something is still at fault.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

People seem to care more about whether it's called an RTA or RTC on this forum, than any of the of the professionals I've met.

 

[muz379]

I was under the impression that RTA was not used any longer by the police because it assumes off the bat that nobody is to blame . so they use the phrase RTC merely as a description of what has happened with no indication as to the cause .

It would still be the cyclists fault because their actions (whether deliberate or accidental) would have still caused the crash.

Just because it wasnt a deliberate act (I still get the feeling it was deliberate ) doesnt mean they are not at fault.

You wont hear a bad word against a cyclist will you!

Right so using your logic , If you are driving a train tomorrow , and come across a very distorted rail with no chance of stopping before you reach it . The train derails seriously injuring numerous passengers on board. The RAIB and your employer will say that the accident was your fault as you where the person driving the train at the time .

I think not .

I dont know where your smart alec comment about not allowing any bad word to be said about cyclists has come from .

I was merely asking if it was established if that was what has caused the bus to swerve

If the cyclist or a pedestrian for that matter just stepped or jumped out in front of the bus then yes that party is fully at fault but unfortunately wont end up paying the damage they have caused . If however it was something that was outside of anybodies control like a pothole(which has now been ruled out) or a pedestrian tripping and falling into the road it is not the fault of anyone - fault implies culpability and blame which would suggest someone has intentionally or negligently done something that would place them at fault .

Some of the ones I encounter on a daily basis at work either have a death wish or are just monumentally stupid with little or no awareness of anything going on around them.



There are no potholes on the pavement there, and there are 3-4 storey buildings on both sides of the road making it pretty sheltered with no crosswind - the cyclist wasn't blown onto the road.

Yeah some cyclist do stupid things , gives the rest of them a bad name .

Ahh I see , not knowing the geography of the area I did not know this , was merely pointing out what could have happened .

 

[plymothian]

It will be the bus driver's fault. No matter what he did. That's the way the bus industry works.

The driver will be accused of:
1. not driving professionally
2. being unaware of his surroundings
3. not driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances (this is a default accusation)

Depending in his history he will have a blameworthy mark on his company record and potential for further discipline.

 

[455driver]

That's not quite true, somebody is not always at fault. Mechanical failure for example. But something is still at fault.

So that would be the person that passed the train, bus, lorry as fit then!
Okay a car, bike etc is a bit different but in that case it normally stops with the driver as it is the drivers responsibility to ensure the vehicle is fit to use.

There is always somebody that will carry the can.

 

[carriageline]

Exactly, even if it's a brand new car with a manufacture defect, guess whose head that lies on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[455driver]

Right so using your logic , If you are driving a train tomorrow , and come across a very distorted rail with no chance of stopping before you reach it . The train derails seriously injuring numerous passengers on board. The RAIB and your employer will say that the accident was your fault as you where the person driving the train at the time .

I think not .

Um no, that would have been caused by the broken rail so the maintenance team would probably get the blame for it, or whatever was last used to inspect the line!

I dont know where your smart alec comment about not allowing any bad word to be said about cyclists has come from .

You always jump to the cyclists defence as if they can do no wrong, thats where.

I was merely asking if it was established if that was what has caused the bus to swerve

It has been reported since that it was a cyclist, as it is illegal to ride on the pavement (except in certain situations) then does it really matter?

If the cyclist or a pedestrian for that matter just stepped or jumped out in front of the bus then yes that party is fully at fault but unfortunately wont end up paying the damage they have caused . If however it was something that was outside of anybodies control like a pothole(which has now been ruled out) or a pedestrian tripping and falling into the road it is not the fault of anyone - fault implies culpability and blame which would suggest someone has intentionally or negligently done something that would place them at fault .

If it was a pedestrian tripping on the pavement because of a pothole or paving slab out of line then it would be the Council at fault for not maintaining the pavement in a safe manner.

Keep trying, its quite fun!

Yeah some cyclist do stupid things , gives the rest of them a bad name .

Ah something we finally agree on.

Ahh I see , not knowing the geography of the area I did not know this , was merely pointing out what could have happened .

It could have been a meteor landing in front of him causing him to swerve, its unlikely but it could be.

Why do you try to defend things with all the could have, might have beens etc etc with absolutely no evidence to back them up?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It will be the bus driver's fault. No matter what he did. That's the way the bus industry works.

The driver will be accused of:
1. not driving professionally
2. being unaware of his surroundings
3. not driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances (this is a default accusation)

Depending in his history he will have a blameworthy mark on his company record and potential for further discipline.

Unfortunately this (number 3) is probably the correct answer.

 

[muz379]

Um no, that would have been caused by the broken rail so the maintenance team would probably get the blame for it, or whatever was last used to inspect the line!

You always jump to the cyclists defence as if they can do no wrong, thats where.

It has been reported since that it was a cyclist, as it is illegal to ride on the pavement (except in certain situations) then does it really matter?

If it was a pedestrian tripping on the pavement because of a pothole or paving slab out of line then it would be the Council at fault for not maintaining the pavement in a safe manner.

Keep trying, its quite fun!

Ah something we finally agree on.


It could have been a meteor landing in front of him causing him to swerve, its unlikely but it could be.

Why do you try to defend things with all the could have, might have beens etc etc with absolutely no evidence to back them up?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Unfortunately this (number 3) is probably the correct answer.

So If a cyclists swerves because their bike has just gone into a pothole and they loose control it is also the councils fault for not maintaining the road then in that case ?

I dont always jump to cyclists defence , in fact quite the opposite , in the thread about cyclists on trains I pointed out incidents in which I have had problems with cyclists selfishly asking me to ask other passengers to move and leave the train so they can get their bike on . So I actually think you will find its quite the opposite .As you have yourself just read I acknowledge some cyclists do indeed do wrong . Im a bit confused where that assertion has come form to be honest you must have the wrong person there buddy .

I was pointing out the could have beens because at the time you yourself where also engaging in speculation with no evidence as you had no idea what the facts where .

Now that it has been established it was a cyclist we can indeed conclude that the cyclist is at fault for jumping off the pavement in front of a bus .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Out of interest 455 driver who would be at fault if it was a meteor dropping from the sky ?

 

[bussnapperwm]

So If a cyclists swerves because their bike has just gone into a pothole and they loose control it is also the councils fault for not maintaining the road then in that case ?

I dont always jump to cyclists defence , in fact quite the opposite , in the thread about cyclists on trains I pointed out incidents in which I have had problems with cyclists selfishly asking me to ask other passengers to move and leave the train so they can get their bike on . So I actually think you will find its quite the opposite .As you have yourself just read I acknowledge some cyclists do indeed do wrong . Im a bit confused where that assertion has come form to be honest you must have the wrong person there buddy .

I was pointing out the could have beens because at the time you yourself where also engaging in speculation with no evidence as you had no idea what the facts where .

Now that it has been established it was a cyclist we can indeed conclude that the cyclist is at fault for jumping off the pavement in front of a bus .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Out of interest 455 driver who would be at fault if it was a meteor dropping from the sky ?

That would be an act of God.

 

[455driver]

Out of interest 455 driver who would be at fault if it was a meteor dropping from the sky ?

Oh God above!




Think about it!

 

[muz379]

Oh God above!

I take it this is who you think would be at fault :roll: