Cyclist vs motorist

Watching this video - I reckon the cyclist was out looking for trouble?
http://mobile.news.com.au/travel/wo...s-in-humiliation/story-e6frfqbr-1227465937118

I do not know what the laws are in the UK but in the US the cyclist (motorcycle or bicycle) has the same right to the lane as the motorist.
Having said that one must remember that a big cage will always win in a collision with a two wheeler (there is no advantage to being dead right).

Lol, yeah seen that on reddit this morning, bike sounded electric to me, bit of a righteous prick the cyclist, followed the car to have his say, provoking the guy, who was already wound up by the looks, good ending though, good karma

Yes so it may be the cyclist suffers from grievance sensitivity /querulousness,and behaves inappropriately, but I don't think that means he didn't have a proper grievance, and as for winding up the motorist, (without having seen that bit) what I suspect wound the motorist up most was the latter's (incorrect) thought he'd been treated unjustly by the cyclist-that cyclists ought not to ride a metre from parked cars (wrong...)

I also kind of get the impression the driver tried to scare the cyclist that he'd be hit -twice actually -which is an assault. I really think this whole idea of 'winding up ' someone needs to take account of whether the person has good reason to feel upset or not. Here the cyclist was (at the beginning) the one with good reason.

As for looking for trouble I think some people can let grievances go less easily than others - that means looking for justice not trouble. But I haven't seen the later bit so maybe I'm wrong.

Gonna pick a fight with a car, you want to be in a big truck.

But it can work if you ride the bike in packs. Then when the dufus gets out of the car and assaults you, game on.

oh my
where im from we have a 1 meter rule, vehicle must keep 1m when passing or you dont pass at all (300$ fine if you do)
that 1meter is very relative, some vehicles keep it, others don't and many especially in redneck pickup trucks think the whole road belongs to them, you always seem to get an attitude
but than we have a rule where a bike cannot simply take up a whole lane, and must remain to the right unless there's a perfectly good reason- cyclist do not have a right to the whole lane. In that video its hard to tell the distances but it looks like there was cars parked on both sides- which gives a reason. the cyclist also went a bit far

Reason for taking the whole lane all the time:
There are two 'tracks' that are swept clean by cars and trucks. The debris swept goes to either side of those tracks. This means that when when a two-wheeler is switching between the clean tracks they must pick 'clean' spots to use.

Car and truck drivers can traverse any part of the road without any thought given toward debris and 'tracks'. Car and truck drivers are oblivious to cyclists' need to ride the debris-free tracks. That's one of the reasons they are angered by 'inconsiderate' cyclists who, they assume, are arbitrarily taking up more road than they need. This leads to a conditioned attitude and response toward cyclists such that, even when the cyclist is maintaing the speed of surrounding traffic, the motorists think they need to pass.

I also ride a 100cc enduro at ebike speeds and am treated in a similar fashion. I've noticed that when I ride with a travel bag over my shoulder, motorists give me more consideration. I think they may suspect I may be 'packing'. If it were more convenient, I'd ride with a long gun across my back.

I'm thinking of mounting this sign at my rear as a fold-out with the bottom part being a flip-down when the motorists take exception to the first:


The most constructive thing we can do is educate our fellow road users of the law and why cyclists need the whole lane even when they don't 'appear' to be using it.

"Hard NOT to take up the whole lane. Sorry!"

Legily in the USA by federal DOT regulation a lane that is "too narrow to be safely shared side by side by both an automobile and a cyclist" is normally a lane that is less then 14-feet wide.

How this is calculated:

----- All vehicles are legally entitled to a bare minimum of 4' of width or however wide their vehicle is including all protrusions such as mirrors and such if its wider then 4' wide. This specifically includes cyclists as well.
----- All vulnerable roadway users must be passed with a bare minimum of at least 3' of extra buffer zone, no exceptions except by the vulnerable users own consent. Vulnerable users include cyclists (as well as motorcyclists and pedestrians, etc . . . basically all non-cagers).
----- There are "mutual consent" exceptions to the minimum width and extra buffer zone. Or in other words if you all agree you can ride/drive as close together as you like but there must be "mutual consent" (A Dangerous possibility here to give up your rights or reasonably appear to do so by demonstrating your mutual consent to be passed too closely by cowering in the gutter like its what you expect and thus potentially at least some of your recuperation of damages if you get hurt as a result.)
----- The average normal total width of a US passenger car (yes, specifically defined by the DOT and yes including ALL protrusions such as mirrors) is 7'.

==== U.S. DOT regulations thus specifically state that for safe side by side lane sharing between a passenger car and a cyclist the lane width must normally be at least 14' or the lane cannot be safely shared (4' + 3' + 7' = 14') and it is also clear that not even that 14' lane width is sufficiently wide enough to be safely shared in all situations. Many large trucks, buses, and RVs can reach widths of 10' and wide load tractor trailer rigs can be even wider. On the other hand in a situation where say a motorcycle wants to pass you within the same lane without your willing mutual consent unless the lane is less then 11' wide (4' + 3' + 4') you can't legally "take the lane". The regulations further specify that if the lane is not wide enough to be safely shared all vehicles regardless of how narrow including bicyclists are entitled to the full width of the lane and a safe pass may only be made by making a full lane change. Passing any vehicle in a lane too narrow to safely share without fully changing lanes to do so is a violation.

Some state laws go even further and define even wider minimum buffer zones (several states require 5' for buffer zone either for all or for large trucks, buses, RVs, tractor trailer rigs, etc.) and some states like Oregon define even greater passing distances such that even if the cyclist falls over in the direction of the passing vehicle the pass is sufficiently wide that the cyclist will not fall against or under the passing vehicle which if you take a 6' tall cyclist and put him on top of a typical modern bicycle with its higher mounted pedals that is basically requiring 6.5' passing distance plus any additional distance they falling cyclist may slide or roll so as to not end up against or under your passing vehicle, or in other words fully changing lanes may not even be a wide enough pass to be fully legal.

Then you get into the fact that cyclist "keep to right" is only required when they are traveling at sufficiently slower speeds then the rest of traffic which certainly isn't all of the time especially when we are talking e-bikes which several states (including my own) specifically exempt all motorized bicycles whether of the electric or 50cc or less variety from the "keep to right" statute.



Although I do not know UK law on this (which is apparently where this incident took place) most people including almost all motorist and many cyclist and cops as well who totally misunderstand the "keep to right" (or left in places where they drive on the other side of the road) rule for cyclists and do not understand the multiple layers of Federal, State, and Common Law Precedent in this mater. In fact strict interpretation of my particular states "keep to right" statute for cyclists in the traffic code actually not only requires pedal-only cyclist moving at significantly slower speeds then both the rest of traffic to share the lane and "keep to right" when it is actually a wide enough lane but also requires cyclist to "take the lane" when the lane is too narrow to safely share and failing to do so can actually put the cyclist in legal jeopardy for failure to ride safely and "improperly encouraging" a motorist to pass unsafely by not "taking the lane" in a lane too narrow to safely pass within the lane. There are precedent cases on the books in my state where that has been part of the liability determination and civil judgment amount. Believe me I've been in court on this particular issue ("keep to right" vs. "take the lane" as a pedal-cyclist, e-cyclist, =<50cc-cyclist) more then once personally.


There are times and places where "keep to right" is the correct thing to do, and there are other times where "take the lane" is the correct thing to do and doing either one when you should be doing the other can get you into all kinds of trouble.

And, yes, taking the lane when its the correct thing to do can cause some social friction, but so did being in the "white people part of town" as a colored person not too many years ago and I consider the issues to be equivalent especially in the native-american "off the reservation" which is the kind of historical ingrained prejudice I am most familiar with in this area where I live. The native americans were here first, they were "in the way" both physically and metaphorically and they were brutalized as a result and forced into designated "reservations" where they had to stay if they wanted to do their thing. When a cyclist takes the lane even when not moving slower then the rest of traffic they are also "in the way" both physically and metaphorically and are also brutalized and yes even lynched sometimes and attempts are made to force them into small limited "reservations" as well.

Think about it, currently in the US who is the easiest to get away with a personal one on one lynching, a black person because they are black, a native american because they are native american, a catholic because they are a catholic, a gay because they are gay, or a cyclist because they are a cyclist. (My apologies to all those I left out because I could never make a complete list). Heck sometimes they don't even get a $50 ticket for hitting and killing a cyclist when they cyclist was not doing anything wrong including cases where they clearly knew the cyclist was there as witnessed by their repeated honking at the cyclist before they ran the cyclist down.

the problem is that the car driver knows he can run over you and never be charged with assault or endangerment. they can even run over you and kill you and never have to go to court. most people are on the phone texting anyway. this guy was unusual in that he was not already on the cell phone. i see about 40% of drivers with their phone and almost 25% texting in traffic all the time.

then there are the drunks who cannot even see you because they are drunk. they just get a drunk driving citation, not first degree murder as it should be.

dnmun said:

. . . not first degree murder as it should be.

Click to expand...

Although I am among the most ardent and militaristic supporter of the rights of the "slower and smaller" on are roadways I do have to take issue with you on this one point. There is such a thing as going too far the other way:


Culpable Negligent Homicide = Doing something really stupid that gets someone else killed, you didn't intend to kill someone but that is how it turned out and it wasn't an unforeseeable incident.
----- Example #1 = Industrial chemical factory owner full well knows that it is only a matter of time before his dangerous unsafe equipment gets someone killed and he continues to deliberately ignore safety and someone does get killed as a direct result.
----- Example #2 = A group of army soldiers get a little board and decide to "have some fun" and without orders load up a 2" tow behind a jeep field gun with a live round and fire it off into the air on the base surrounded by urban area without a safe back drop and the shell comes down a 1/2 mile away and blows a 8' hole in the side of a shopping center and kills two people inside.
----- Example #3 = Some gets all boozed up and tears off down the road and rams their automobile through the side of a shopping center smashing a 8' hole in the side and runs down and kills two people inside (Yes, an automobile at only a very reasonable speed packs approximately the same lethal kinetic energy of a pure kinetic 2' light field artillery shell and can result in similar damage upon impact).


Second Degree (Non-Premeditated) Deliberate Homicide = Deliberately murdering someone in a fit of passion or anger. AKA = a "hot blooded" murder.
----- Example #1 = Someone walks in on their significant other in the act of illicit relations with someone else and kills one or more of the offending parties in a fit of rage.
----- Example #2 = Two people get into a big fight at a bar and one of them in anger screams out that they have had enough and are going to finish this once and for all and runs the other one through the chest with a broken end of a pool cue murdering them.
----- Example #3 = A motorist becomes enraged with a cyclist that is in their way and deliberately runs the cyclist down murdering them.


First Degree (Premeditated) Deliberate Homicide = Deliberately murdering someone with willful forethought and/or planning. AKA = a "cold blooded" murder.
----- Example #1 = Someone finds out their significant other is cheating on them and decides to murder them and plans how to do so and then caries out their plan.
----- Example #2 = One person who hates another person waits in ambush for them in the dark parking lot outside a bar their intended victim is none to frequent and successfully ambushes their victim and murders them with a weapon brought to the seen for that purpose.
----- Example #3 = A motorist becomes enraged with all those )%&*%&*% cyclist that won't stay off the road and boldly declares that the next time one of them gets in their way they are just going to hold the gas pedal down and squash them like a bug, and they do exactly that and murder the next cyclist that dares to be in their way.




Let's be fair. If its a case of "Culpable Negligent Homicide" that is what they should be prosecuted, convicted, and punished for. Likewise for the other offenses (with also include ones I didn't cover such as "Felony Assault With A Deadly Weapon" (deliberate but unsuccessful attack where intent to actually kill is denied and cannot be proven and may actually be indicated otherwise such as they stopped or swerved away at the last second).

In addition it is not just cyclist who are deliberately discriminated against in the same way that people of other races, creeds, religions, etc . . . have been discriminated against, persecuted, had their equal rights denied, been marginalized, etc. both officially and unofficially in a systematic broad society wide case. Same thing happens to pedestrians and for that manner any means of transportation on our public rights of way which is slower and smaller then an automobile. Try building a 4+ wheeled non-polluting electric mini-mobile that only goes 50-mph and try to operate it on the public roadways. Its not a car and its not a cycle, even though it represents less risk to other innocent people in almost every way and is a more responsible choice then a conventional automobile they will outright ban you from using it almost everywhere. There is a real nasty "dead zone" in there of vehicles that are smaller and slower then conventional automobiles but faster and larger then conventional bicycles, e-bikes, mopeds, etc . . . where they will come down so hard on you that it will make your head spin because you don't fit into any of the boxes they have made for you to be stuffed into.


BUT at the same time, when an offender commits an act of "Culpable Negligent Homicide" it is going too far the other way to demand that they be punished for the more serious offense of "First Degree Deliberate Homicide" because you are so upset and fed up with them and those like them. Going too far and demanding punishment for a higher crime of which they are not guilty is one of the ways to have an end result of the perp. walking away without getting punished for the lesser crime of which they are guilty.

I like to just say, if a car hit you, you let that car hit you. Really, because of the stuff Dnmun was talking about, you have to act like you are in a fighter jet dogfight while out riding. Situational awareness, because that guy in the car has none.

Trusting some law to keep you safe is for fools. But if in a group at the moment, you can try to educate one driver at a time.

dogman dan said:

I like to just say, if a car hit you, you let that car hit you. Really, because of the stuff Dnmun was talking about, you have to act like you are in a fighter jet dogfight while out riding. Situational awareness, because that guy in the car has none.

Trusting some law to keep you safe is for fools. But if in a group at the moment, you can try to educate one driver at a time.

Click to expand...

Wise words - laws, traffic signs/lights, Oscar Grope - can't rely on any of that when you're riding out there. One mistake is all it takes.

Wife sent me this pic the other day -

Not exactly eBike material but very true....

Ykick said:

.... Wife sent me this pic the other day -....

Click to expand...

Excellent. Please say thank you to your wife.

dogman dan said:

I like to just say, if a car hit you, you let that car hit you.* Really, because of the stuff Dnmun was talking about, you have to act like you are in a fighter jet dogfight while out riding. Situational awareness, because that guy in the car has none.

Trusting some law to keep you safe is for fools. But if in a group at the moment, you can try to educate one driver at a time.



* Emphasis Added

Click to expand...

Are you really sure you want to make that kind of a blanket statement ???

I'm pretty sure that I get what you are trying to say, which would be more along the lines of "I personally would highly advise all others to not trust motorists not to hit them and would highly advise dodging, getting out of their way instead - that is what I do." A statement which I have no issue with you making (although I personally choose another choice and acknowledge and am willing to deal with the confrontations that result from it, I'm the person who figuratively "refuses to get in the back of the bus" and am willing to engage in the fight that results and I also realize that is my own choice and others are free to submit to discrimination and terrorism if that's their choice).

But that is not what you wrote. What you wrote is a hard line blanket statement. Should I tell the parents of a 12-year old girl who was hit last year on her bicycle while crossing in a crosswalk in the school crossing by a motorist who whipped around the corner and blew through the 4-way school zone stop sign and 15-mph school zone your statement as you wrote it ??? If you personally some time in the future zig when you should have zagged and get nailed by a motorist yourself and end up with a 6-month hospital bill and two surgeries on your medical bill would your like this statement of yours in writing to be used against you in court when you try to get coverage for your medical costs ???


If you actually really meant exactly what you wrote well then what would you think of a (insert minority color/race/ethnicity of your choice) person who told another person of the same minority that if they got beat or lynched because of their minority status it would be their own fault for failing to successfully avoid the situation ??? Or how about telling a rape victim that its their own fault for failure to successfully avoid the attack ???

As written in plain language and taken literally your blanket statement is a solid "Blame the Victim". I don't think you actually meant what you wrote but would like to point out exactly what you did write and where it leads too.

That video gave me a real solid laugh...I dare say it will stay around on the net for a long time as bit of a classic!

I remember coming off a dedicated walk/bike path onto a main road that's at the bottom of a massive hill and I about 50 meters down the road a Range Rover clipped my arm with their side mirror which was a folding mirror so it gave way easily, gave me a real shock the car must of being doing at least 80km/h and I couldn't help but think she got that speed just by rolling down the hill and took her eyes off the road for a second to veer slightly into me.
The driver never stopped, just kept going...

I have driven down the same road my self in a car and its one of those roads where it is kind of tempting just to let the brake go and go rolling but the speed picks up real fast.

The thing I just couldn't get over is that I couldn't of been more on the side of the road out of the way, I have always from that day gone up on the foot path for that first 150meters after the bottom of that hill to give cars that drive like that a chance to slow down even though there not allowed to drive over 60km/h on that road in the first place.
I had to face the fact that it simply doesn't matter how much you do the right thing, if your in a dangerous spot with some shit drivers often enough your gonna get hit.

If my arm had hit something a bit more solid on the car instead of just the folding side mirror my arm bones would of been shattered to bits inside my arm flesh...

turbo1889 said:

Let's be fair. If its a case of "Culpable Negligent Homicide" that is what they should be prosecuted, convicted, and punished for.

Click to expand...

No, let's be fair. Cars have proven themselves to be such a pervasive social menace that the use of one ought to imply intent with premeditation when someone is killed. By now, everyone knows better, but they don't change their behavior. To me that's a bit more serious than just callous disregard.

and in case you are new to bicycle homicides, it is almost always hit and run and there are no witnesses or anyone who records even the license plate number or driver so there is no way to prosecute the murderer.

in my case of attempted homicide, i was beating the drivers window with my fist as he forced me into the parked cars along the left lane. he just kept pushing me over until i did an endo and landed in a heap in the middle of the lane.

i was fortunate that the lady behind stopped and blocked traffic from running over me.

Chalo said:

turbo1889 said:

Let's be fair. If its a case of "Culpable Negligent Homicide" that is what they should be prosecuted, convicted, and punished for.

Click to expand...

No, let's be fair. Cars have proven themselves to be such a pervasive social menace that the use of one ought to imply intent with premeditation when someone is killed. By now, everyone knows better, but they don't change their behavior. To me that's a bit more serious than just callous disregard.

Click to expand...

I agree with Chalo. If you drive toward a cop with a car, its attempted murder with a deadly weapon. If drivers aren't scared to death about the trajectory of their potentially deadly weapon and aren't attempting to control said deadly weapon at all times (no looking away from the trajectory and potential trajectories), they shouldn't be driving. The public has been brainwashed into thinking driving nice shiny new cars is a carefree activity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

dnmun said:

and in case you are new to bicycle homicides, it is almost always hit and run and there are no witnesses or anyone who records even the license plate number or driver so there is no way to prosecute the murderer.

in my case of attempted homicide, i was beating the drivers window with my fist as he forced me into the parked cars along the left lane. he just kept pushing me over until i did an endo and landed in a heap in the middle of the lane.

i was fortunate that the lady behind stopped and blocked traffic from running over me.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the issue as to "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and the quite often absence of sufficient proof. Historically, that is actually the original legal underpinnings for mandatory license plates on automobiles, originated back in the very early part of the 1900's specifically hit and run mostly against pedestrians which actually were prosecuted back then as manslaughter cases.

What burns me up is that even when there is more then sufficient proof that society still deliberately and maliciously refuses to pursue justice and instead seeks to subjugate the most fundamental and basic rights of the minority to the most frivolous and selfish privileges of the majority. The worst situation I've personally been involved in so far was the clearest of clear cut cases of this.

I was deliberately attacked by a school bus driver in a school zone. Incident took place a couple years ago in one of the larger towns in Montana early in the morning with a school bus that was just starting on its outgoing run.

I was riding my primarily pedal power road bike equipped with a hill helper only low geared electric motor and upon entering the 15-mph speed limit zone around the school I slowed down to about 17-mph (It's aggravating to try to ride that slowly but I do try to follow the speed limit in those 15-mph school zones).

The road that I was riding on was originally a two lane road with no parking and reasonable although not what I would call wide lanes. But since they built the apartment complex across from the school that road has been converted to have two vary narrow lanes one each direction with street side parking on the north side of the street with the school on the south side with no parking on that side. I was east bound riding with the parked cars about four feet to the right and the center double yellow line about 3 feet to my left with me and my bike being about 2 feet wide.

----- School bus pulled out of the school parking lot right behind me and got right up on my rear and then tried to pass by crossing the double yellow line in the school zone (in Montana it is illegal to pass in a school zone always) when I was already going slightly faster then the speed limit and then had to abort the pass because an oncoming car came around the upcoming blind corner and she had to slam on her air brakes to avoid doing a head on with the oncoming car which also had to slam on its brakes.
----- I proceeded on my way and the school bus pulled back in behind me again.
----- The school bus driver slammed on the gas and tore around the corner after me and then again pulled into the left oncoming lane like she was going to pass again.
----- We were around the corner and there was no oncoming traffic at all this time and when her big right front wheel was just in front of me with her staring at me through the glass school bus doors just behind her right front wheel she cranked her steering wheel hard to the right and slammed on the horn at the same time.
----- I had a row of parked cars to me right and a massive school bus swinging in on me from the left with the driver intent on squashing me between her bus and the parked cars.
----- In a split second hard cranked my handlebars into a narrow break between two parked cars and crashed my bike into the rear of the forward car, me going over the handlebars and break slamming down on the parked cars roof and sliding down its windshield onto its front hood and into the gap in front of it between it and the next car in front of it.
----- The school bus slammed into the side and front left fender of the same parked car and then the school bus driver backed up and deliberately rammed that parked car trying to get at me down on the ground in front of it.
----- The school bus driver then took off with the school bus in classic hit and run style complete with damage to the right front side and front end of said school bus.


The incident was witnessed by:
----- A driver of a pickup truck that was behind the school bus
----- The driver of another school bus behind that pickup truck
----- An individual walking out of the apartment complex to their parked car
----- And was captured one of the apartment complexes security cameras footage
----- Plus they caught the school bus driver still in the damaged bus going somewhere that was not on her route
----- They had the physical evidence of school bus paint on the totaled out parked car plus its paint on the school bus


Please note that her backing up and doing a second deliberate ramming of the totaled out parked car was caught on the camera footage and supported by two of the three witnesses.

The School bus driver in question was convicted of reckless driving and lost her special license to drive bus. She did not loose her normal drivers license. She was not fired by the school but instead she was let go only because she no longer had the necessary license to drive a school bus. The DA refused to press "Assault With Deadly Weapon Vehicular" charges against her which I tried to get him to do or any other charges for that matter besides just the reckless driving offense which is what she was brought in on. I did win a reasonable settlement to my action in civil court against her and the school district but it wasn't like it was like it was a million plus dollars or something and I had to take a lot less money just to get the school district to agree to mandatory pedestrian and cyclist safety training for their drivers and a written policy at the school that any such future behavior would result in firing for cause of a driver.

And in response to those who have disagreed with my statement that a motorist hitting and killing a cyclist ins't always first degree pre-meditated murder but many times is rather a case of culpable negligent homicide (very similar or the same as the more commonly known "Manslaughter" designation depending on legal jurisdiction). I'm sorry but I just don't see it that its impossible that other people, even cagers, sometimes might do something really stupid and end up killing someone without intending to do so and that this should somehow be dealt with as severely as an intentional homicidal act.

I don't always ride a cycle myself especially when it comes to hauling really big and heavy stuff that I have to do sometimes with my semi-rural lifestyle. My largest vehicle I personally own is a 10-wheel 5-ton truck and I've got a triple axle trailer I can pull behind it that more then doubles the total hauling capacity.

Granted I'm one of the most cautious drivers out there when its me that's piloting the big kinetic energy weapon and I take my responsibility very seriously and so far have never hurt any other innocent person with my driving (although there was once incident involving some property damage that was the result of my stupidity way back many decades ago when I was a young punk fresh out of high school but even back then I wasn't half as irresponsible driving as most cagers out there).

Yet I still understand that the standard I apply to others I must necessarily accept myself and if I ever do something really stupid and some other innocent person gets seriously hurt or killed I do want the fact that it was not an intentional deliberate act taken into account and I wouldn't want to be punished as if I had deliberately and intentionally caused that harm or death.

And that doesn't just apply to just cagers, cyclists have done stupid things and hit and killed pedestrians as well.

And if I would want the fact that what I did wasn't an intentional attack taken into account I must extend that to others as well.

Thus my stand.

i had a similar interaction with trimet bus. riding up the ramp onto the bridge and the drunks had thrown a bottle into the bike lane so i went out into the lane to avoid all the glass, was riding on the white line and the bus driver pushed me back over into the bike lane with the rear of his bus.

so i chased him down and when he stopped i jumped onto his windshield and grabbed onto the wipers and demanded that he stop. i was pissed.

there was a trimet supervisor in a car close by and he saw me on the windshield so he stopped the bus driver from driving off with me hanging on the front windshield. then i told the supervisor what the driver had done so the supervisor stopped the bus and took the passengers off and i can only hope he got disciplined but i just left after that.

there was a similar incident in a suburb of portland called beaverton last year where a bus driver did the same thing to a 15 year old kid and the kid got knocked under the rear wheels of the bus and was killed. no charges were filed. i am sure the bus driver still drives a bus.

they ran over another woman in a cross walk here in portland too. ran over three in all and killed the woman. there was a greyhound bus which ran over a pedestrian downtown when making a right turn. killed him. no charges.