VIDEO: Bus in Reading nearly takes out cyclist

The bus didn't have to pull over anywhere. All the driver had to do was to stop when he realised that he was potentially going to kill someone. No matter how the situation arrived, ploughing on in that situation is potentially lethal. Even if the cyclist has made an error of judgement, it shouldn't cost him his life due to aggressive driving. 

The bus driver was technically in the wrong - according to the rules he should have given way. But it was nothing remotely unusual - drivers on the wrong side of the road will hardly ever follow the high-way code and give way if its a cyclist, as opposed to a large motorised vehicle, coming the other way. You don't pose a threat so its your job to get out of their way.

Its just human nature - its not the bus driver being especially bad, its just how humans roll. In fact I bet if I were a bus-driver I'd end up doing the same.

It is, though, precisely the kind of slightly-stressful situation that stops most people from cycling. I think all those saying the cyclist should have done this-or-that are missing that point a bit. Look at what happens in the animal kingdom - its bad for your health to have to keep backing down from conflicts with stronger and more aggressive pack members! Cycling involves having to take that one-down stance repeatedly. It gets old quickly.

To me the real issue is that somehow all those parked cars that cause the conflict in the first place by blocking half the road are ignored as if they are a natural phenomenon.

I don't really get why either cyclists or bus-passengers should be put into conflict and delayed or endangered so drivers can use what should be a throughfare as storage space.

So I'd say ban parking or make the road one-way or widen it and add a cycle lane.

Change road design so such conflicts don't arise, as human nature is never going to change.

I don't see what the big deal is. Cycling in London you get plenty of passes that close. Just crack on!

Ok, this is for real, then.

I think I'm going to have to accept that we all have different versions of the highway code. In my version, which you can find online here, vehicles should "keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road", "move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in", "give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road", and "NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching the brow of a hill."

Therefore every single time you overtake a car, parked or otherwise, you need to make sure those conditions apply, for every instance. This is would seem to be very basic, in fact, rather elementary roadcraft to adherents of this version of the road rules.

And in any case, "the rules in [this] Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." So accoding to my code you should take action to avoid a head on collision, such as swerving to the shoulder, and not drive at people and hope they move. The last thing you should do in this view, in order to avoid an oncoming car on that is approaching you head on while overtaking, is to swerve right into a gap at the right lane in a two-way street. This would be, far from a curteous action of "giving way", an illegal and insanely dangeorus way to drive/ride. But that is clearly just one view, as many here seem to have a revised an improved upon and seemingly conflict-free, if in my mind somewhat dangerously disctinct, version of the highway code to the one I posit. YMMV, clearly.

Edit: added missing link