advice needed re dispute with bus company

[Chrisgr31]

HertsBiker said:

So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?

Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?

The reality is a car is a lot more manoeuvrable than a bus. There are many locations where buses are exempt from width and weight restrictions that apply to other vehicles, presumably because they are performing a public service. They are not free to damage property however it is common sense for car drivers to make allowances for a large vehicles lack of manoeuvrability.

If the OP was worried about the width of the road he had a number of options - stopping further back at a wider point of the road to allow the bus to pass, pulled over to the left hand side of the road and stopped to allow the bus to pass, stopped and reversed to allow the bus through

However he did none of these instead of which he may have pulled as far over to the left as possible but we dont know, and he didn't stop, indeed the other party argues he was going to fast.

[Chrisgr31]

s4tronic said:

what a stupid question that is - If I had time to react from the moment I realised he was going to hit me I would have swerved to the left, possibly mounting pavement at that time and damaging rim/suspension in the process. Don't want to think if there would be people on the pavement.
I didn't have time because it happened so quickly, it was 7.30 so still quite dark. He made a mistake and didn't leave me space.

IF I was stationary it would of course be his fault, case closed, so how the fact that I was moving as well make it any less his fault that he drove into me? If you apply this logic, if you t bone someone at the junction its 50/50 because he was moving as well?

As a matter of interest was it dark or not? In this post you state it was quite dark whilst in the 1st post you infer when commenting on the bus company saying that it was too dark to see the footage that it was 7.30 and therefore light.

You also comment about pesdestrians and state that the incident happened so quickly. The road is, I assume, a 30mph speed limit, and has street lights. In the google street scene one can see at least 3 oncoming vehicles so visibility is good. You should therefore know if there were pedestrians on the pavement, and I would assume unless the bus swerved in to you been aware it was going to be very tight for some time.

[RYH64E]

allergictocheese said:

HertsBiker said:

So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?

Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?

Nobody is saying what you claim.

What is being said is that sometimes a lane will be too narrow for a vehicle to keep within it. Unless prohibited, that vehicle is still entitled to use that road, albeit straddling the centre line.

Rather than entitling oncoming traffic to then collide with that vehicle and automatically blame it for being on 'their' side of the road, instead it places a responsibility on them to drive with the expectation their lane might become compromised and be prepared to stop, if necessary.

Try doing that on a narrow country road, at night and with no street lights, that's the reality where I live. It's not so easy to dive out of the way when you're dazzled by oncoming headlights and unsure exactly where the road ends and a ditch starts because there are no street lights.

I don't understand the logic that says a road is unsuitable for vehicles over 7.5 tonne because it's too narrow, but we'll make an exception for buses because they're useful. Being useful doesn't make it any safer for other road users.

[allergictocheese]

I lived in the Lake District for 20 years. I know all about narrow, unlit roads with white centre lines that coaches have no hope of sitting within.

You have to accept that meeting one at an inappropriate time is a likelihood and drive accordingly (usually meaning more slowly).

[vonhosen]

RYH64E said:

allergictocheese said:

HertsBiker said:

So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?

Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?

Nobody is saying what you claim.

What is being said is that sometimes a lane will be too narrow for a vehicle to keep within it. Unless prohibited, that vehicle is still entitled to use that road, albeit straddling the centre line.

Rather than entitling oncoming traffic to then collide with that vehicle and automatically blame it for being on 'their' side of the road, instead it places a responsibility on them to drive with the expectation their lane might become compromised and be prepared to stop, if necessary.

Try doing that on a narrow country road, at night and with no street lights, that's the reality where I live. It's not so easy to dive out of the way when you're dazzled by oncoming headlights and unsure exactly where the road ends and a ditch starts because there are no street lights.

I don't understand the logic that says a road is unsuitable for vehicles over 7.5 tonne because it's too narrow, but we'll make an exception for buses because they're useful. Being useful doesn't make it any safer for other road users.

Weight limits aren't necessarily declaring the road unsuitable for larger vehicles (after all they'll often have 'except for access' or the like qualifier).

They can be to stop commercial goods vehicle using the route as a through fare due to noise pollution, damage to road surface etc through volume of that type of traffic. Buses weigh a lot less than similarly sized goods vehicles.

[tyranical]

If you think you can win what is clearly a 50/50 with only 2 parties involved and no witnesses then you are quite frankly smoking rope.

You should have made allowances for a bigger vehicle and been prepared to stop, the bus should have done a better job of judging his vehicle width.

You have completely skated over the fact that your estimates for getting this fixed are quite frankly ridiculous when all parts can be sourced for less than £100 if you shop around and I'm pretty sure if you can afford that car then a couple of hundred quid is not going to break the bank.

My advice to you is get over it, excrete on the back seat of the bus next time you go on one to get back at them if it makes you feel better but life is too short for spending days of your life fighting a bus company for a few hundred quid.

[Lowtimer]

RYH64E said:

I don't understand the logic that says a road is unsuitable for vehicles over 7.5 tonne because it's too narrow, but we'll make an exception for buses because they're useful.

At the risk of stating the obvious, weight restrictions are not to restrict width.

Width restrictions are what do that.

[RYH64E]

allergictocheese said:

I lived in the Lake District for 20 years. I know all about narrow, unlit roads with white centre lines that coaches have no hope of sitting within.

You have to accept that meeting one at an inappropriate time is a likelihood and drive accordingly (usually meaning more slowly).

Coming round a corner to find that there's a bloody great bus barreling towards you and taking up 2/3rds of the available road is downright dangerous, even more so at night when you're dazzled by their headlights. Much more dangerous than, say doing 80mph on an empty motorway in good conditions, it's strange that some of the usual supporters of 'safety cameras' are so dismissive of what is a genuine driving hazard.

[allergictocheese]

RYH64E said:

Coming round a corner to find that there's a bloody great bus barreling towards you and taking up 2/3rds of the available road is downright dangerous, even more so at night when you're dazzled by their headlights. Much more dangerous than, say doing 80mph on an empty motorway in good conditions, it's strange that some of the usual supporters of 'safety cameras' are so dismissive of what is a genuine driving hazard.

It's not dangerous at all if you're driving to the conditions.

[vonhosen]

RYH64E said:

allergictocheese said:

I lived in the Lake District for 20 years. I know all about narrow, unlit roads with white centre lines that coaches have no hope of sitting within.

You have to accept that meeting one at an inappropriate time is a likelihood and drive accordingly (usually meaning more slowly).

Coming round a corner to find that there's a bloody great bus barreling towards you and taking up 2/3rds of the available road is downright dangerous, even more so at night when you're dazzled by their headlights. Much more dangerous than, say doing 80mph on an empty motorway in good conditions, it's strange that some of the usual supporters of 'safety cameras' are so dismissive of what is a genuine driving hazard.

A huge number of roads on our road network are what can be described as single track roads (narrow enough to cause problems for two vehicles in opposing directions passing one another).
When you then start to add parked vehicles into the equation an even larger number of our roads become so when we meet traffic when wanting pass the parked vehicles at the same time.

It shouldn't be outside the wit of somebody competent & driving carefully to deal with it, meeting other traffic & clearance of obstructions is a lesson plan for learners after all.

The problem generally is when two people not displaying competence & care meet one another in such situations. Then they usually blame one another as their first port of call.

[gizlaroc]

My argument would be, there was no need to stop, the road was plenty wide enough for the both of us.......



So when the bus came over to my side and hit me it was a bit of a shock.


Get the footage and see if he came onto your side. I don't care what people say, this road is wide enough for both vehicles to pass, if the lane was too narrow for that then things change, but when both lanes are wide enough you must stay in yours.

[pork911]

s4tronic said:

I am really astounded that some of you think I would have driven knowingly into the bus if I had seen it before on my lane. Of couse before the bus hit me it didnt look like it was coming straight onto me but literally split seconds before the impact it did cross my mind gosh he's going to pass me a bit too close but not even had a chance to react as at that point impact has occurred.

I will try to request the footage again formally and will try to challange them again.

Please post the footage here when you get it.

[Sheepshanks]

gizlaroc said:

My argument would be, there was no need to stop, the road was plenty wide enough for the both of us.......



So when the bus came over to my side and hit me it was a bit of a shock.


Get the footage and see if he came onto your side. I don't care what people say, this road is wide enough for both vehicles to pass, if the lane was too narrow for that then things change, but when both lanes are wide enough you must stay in yours.

If the road was that wide where the incident took place then there shouldn't have been any problem at all.

[s4tronic]

Sheepshanks said:

If the road was that wide where the incident took place then there shouldn't have been any problem at all.

Unless bus was not all thw way to the left and was over white line and in my lane... Doh.

[vonhosen]

s4tronic said:

Sheepshanks said:

If the road was that wide where the incident took place then there shouldn't have been any problem at all.

Unless bus was not all thw way to the left and was over white line and in my lane... Doh.

If the road was any narrower than that the bus couldn't fail to be over the centre line markings.

[STW2010]

Definitely obtain the video footage, just to be sure that such footage even exists! If, upon watching it, you still believe that the fault at least partially lies with the bus driver then I would talk to them again. This time state that you have had a quote for the damage and would be willing to settle for them paying for this (£300 or so? Let's ignore the ridiculous supply and fit quote from Audi).

Even if they give you half of the money then you will have done well. If they refuse to consider settling outside of insurance then you could go down the claim route- they will not want this though, as their excess will far exceed the cost of repair, so even if the insurers settle at 50/50 (and it sounds like they would) then they will be worse off.

Perhaps a sensible chat with someone in a position of authority at the bus company?

Background to my thinking. Some 10 years ago I was travelling down a country road and was met with a lorry carrying a combine harvester. I hit the wheel of the combine harvester and my car was written off. This was all going through insurance and in the end the legal people offered them 50/50 (I never did understand why) and eventually gave up. So it was marked down as a fault on my policy. There was no way both vehicles could squeeze past, yet my car was the only one damaged (so I claimed, they defended). The pictures demonstrated how massive this thing was, and I even learned about the regulations of having a wide load escort vehicle in front of it. That was 6-8 months of being annoyed and being convinced that I was right (to this day I'm still convinced that it wasn't 100% my fault). OP- just be sensible about this, it is VERY unlikely that insurance will settle this 100% in your favour.

[CaptainMorgan]

KFC said:

But if it was like in the pic of my wrecked Lambo, if both parties keep moving then its clearly the fault of the one thats over the line surely ?

Yeah, if it was like in your picture and there was loads of room then I'd say it was the fault of the person over the line. If it was a tight narrow lane with little room for both vehicles then I'd say the onus is on both parties to be careful. If I'm driving along a tight road and see a large lorry/van/bus ahead I dont think it reasonable or responsible to just carry on smashing down the road with no fks given, you are suppose to give large vehicles room when needed too, I'm not saying dive out the way but a splash of common sense.

Saying all that it appears from that picture there was plenty of room so I'd be going down the CCTV route....

[CaptainMorgan]

With regard to the 'buses shouldnt be using roads they dont fit on' brigade, buses and large vehicles dont fit on most roads when turning at junctions, nearly always needing more then just their own lane, should we just ban them all together so everyone can drive round not having to consider there could be a large vehicle meeting them on the road at some point?

[TooMany2cvs]

s4tronic said:

Unless bus was not all thw way to the left and was over white line and in my lane... Doh.

Sounds like a good reason to stop dead, rather than aim for a non-existant gap and hope.

[gizlaroc]

TooMany2cvs said:

Sounds like a good reason to stop dead, rather than aim for a non-existant gap and hope.

Don't be a bus wker, he said he didn't stop as he wasn't expecting it to suddenly come onto his side and hit him.
If he thought there was any chance of that he would have stopped.