Interesting reading the comments on the EN site on the story about the student receiving compensation from Lothian Buses. And quite depressing. You expect the usual, I see cyclists jumping read lights etc etc etc wheeled out as reasons for cyclists getting hit.
But here you get people 'quoting' what lawyers on either side have said, and then simply assuming (and one person actually says 'I can only assume') that the anti-cyclist story is correct. It's just immediate.
Cyclist's lawyers say bus was stationary and cyclist was in front; bus lawyers say cyclist snuck up inside and lost control in front. Immediately the latter is believed, and this despite the fact LB have agreed to pay an out of court settlement, which can only happen if they have serious doubt about winning the case (i.e. after reviewing the evidence of their driver plus video footage). But still it persists. Some cyclists run red lights and sneak up the side of buses, therefore it must have happened in this case. As if all bus drivers are angels.
"Oh, and the injuries she suffered were: The 38-year-old suffered a broken pelvis, arm and collarbone in the accident, as well as multiple rib fractures, and needed skin grafts and surgery to stomach wounds"
And someone in the comments brings up cyclists not wearing helmets... Now there may be deabte-room over the use of helmets for heads, but I think it's probably pretty clearcut that they provide no protection whatsoever to the pelvis, arms, collarbone, ribs, or stomach...
posts
