# Police, primary and politness



## CopperCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

I've wanted to make this point in a few posts, but think its worthwhile making here in a post all to itself. I've seen more than a few angry comments about the police not understanding the concept of 'primary' and at best, berating a cyclist for it and at worst blaming it on an accident.

I'm a police officer nearing ten years service. I began cycling only in April of this year. Before this date, I had never, ever heard of the concept of primary (the first I acually saw of it was in Mikey or Gaz's YouTube channels). I have done driving courses that allow me to razz around safely in a car with lights and sirens going, I consider my level of driving higher than your normal motorist - but no one had ever told me about primary - not police training, nor general life etc.

My point is this. If I had reason to speak to you pre-April in relation to you riding in the middle of the road, holding up traffic my initial attitude and opinion would have been "Why don't you ride further to the left where its safer for you". I now know the answer to this, but back then I didn't.

What I hope to share is this. I'm often surprised by some of the anger expressed in this forum, both towards the police and motorists. Its an anger stemmed from a justifiable frustration of the police/motorists failure to understand. Therefore I'd like to ask this - if you have dealings with the police, be prepared to explain to them the concept and reasons behind primary. Please try to do this calmly, without getting angry and frustrated that they don't already know it.

If I had dealt with a cyclist pre-April that had been knocked off whilst riding in the middle of the road, I'd have been thinking of their position as a contributory factor. If said cyclist had become angry, abusive and accusing when I said this, I don't think they'd have convinced me. However, if they had calmly and politely asked if I cycled a lot, and then proceeded to explain primary, why they were using it at the time they were, then I may have understood that actually, for a driver to hit a cyclist in primary position where used correctly shows an even worse level of driving than hitting one in secondary.

If anyone out there has links with the CTC, I think they should consider putting some sort of proposal to add this training to Standard Police Driver courses too.

This post is not meant to provoke an argument of the benefits/problems of primary positioning, merely raise awareness that the police officer attending your incident probably won't know about it. edit: damn iPad always misses keypresses. I know how to spell politeness really.


----------



## betty swollocks (9 Sep 2011)

You have made some very fair points.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (9 Sep 2011)

I can appreciate your comments, but asking someone who's just been assaulted to be calm and reasoned because the Public Servant, paid well to see that the law is adhered to, doesn't know what they're on about and is trying to blame you, is asking a lot in my opinion.

Far better to educate those that hold themselves out as law enforcers as well as drivers.


----------



## Strick (9 Sep 2011)

Great post.


----------



## clarion (9 Sep 2011)

With so many more cyclists on the road now, it is ridiculous that Police training doesn't include even knowing the law concerning such road users. The level of ignorance I have seen displayed by Officers is breathtaking, to say the least.

I agree that training should be improved. And all Police trainees should spend some time riding a bike in an unrban environment.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Sep 2011)

Good post. 

"Primary" is jargon and it certainly does not mean that if you don't know its meaning you don't understand cycling behaviour .


----------



## byegad (9 Sep 2011)

I like the idea and suggest the OP goes onto the CTC forum and post his idea there.


----------



## G-Zero (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I have done driving courses that allow me to razz around safely in a car with lights and sirens going, I consider my level of driving higher than your normal motorist



"Razz around" ? - that spoils an otherwise decent post for me !! 

IMO the phrase doesn't sit comfortably alongside "safely" and gives the impression of legalised boyracing


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

Great post. 

My brother is a serving copper. He came for a bike ride with me recently and was surprised I didn't cycle in the gutter, used cycle lanes at my discretion and had no hesitation about taking primary at pinch points etc. "We don't have Dutch quality infrastructure so we have to make the best of what we do have and that means cycling assertively" I said. He hadn't heard of any of this before but conceeded the sense in doing so when sharing the road with ignorant drivers. 

He's now just got a job in traffic. So that is one more Lancs bobby with a bit more awareness! Still, I agree it should be an core element of police driver training in particular and driving lessons in general. We can hope!

Thanks for posting.

Oh, and just to add. A work colleague told me recently I cycled dangerously because I was "...in the middle of the road." This was in a 30mph zone, doing about 22mph and approaching red lights. I replied "What. You mean in full view where you could see me yet not squeeze past?" I don't think she could quite grasp the idea she has no more right to the road than any other user and should drive with consideration around 'vulnerable' road users.

OK. Rant over!


----------



## Alien8 (9 Sep 2011)

That's fine but, as your are a police officer nearing ten years service and the fact that you consider your level of driving higher than your normal motorist, you will be familiar with the Highway Code and Rule 163.

Rule 163: give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215).

and the accompanying picture showing a motorist overtaking a cyclist (with the cyclist on one side of the road and the motorist on the other).

Primary/secondary is made-up cyclist speak for positioning yourself to maximise your safety by attempting to influence the actions of other road users - which may mean trying to deter close overtakes from muppets who know nothing about safe road usage.

This has nothing to do with Rule 163. If road users observed Rule 163 primary/secondary would have no relevance because the overtaking vehicle would be on the other side of the road.

When a motorist hits a cyclist the question you should be asking is were they adhering to Rule 163?


----------



## Thomk (9 Sep 2011)

Just to add to the OP's excellent points. I have been a qualified driving instructor in the past. It was about 10 years ago and things may have changed significantly since then but I don't remember having a clue about primary, secondary or indeed very much knowledge at all about the safe road positioning of cycles. It wasn't until I started cycling nearly 2 months ago and started reading CC that my eyes were opened.

It may be that I was a poor instructor or it may be that DI training has improved since then but the education of driving instructors, with the obvious associated trickle down effect, would IMO be a good place to start if we want the car driving population to treat us with more respect.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

Alien8 said:


> Primary/secondary is made-up cyclist speak for positioning yourself to maximise your safety by attempting to influence the actions of other road users - which may mean trying to deter close overtakes from muppets who know nothing about safe road usage.



I take your point to a degree but it is a bit more than "made up cyclist speak".

I quote from Bike Radar in an article callled: Technique - Road Positioning

"The primary riding position is in the centre of the lane (the most left-hand lane on multi-lane roads). The secondary riding position is about a metre to the left of moving traffic, but not closer than 0.5 metres to the edge of the road (closer would mean no room for manoeuvre in emergencies and also riding over glass and other kinds of road debris). While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' aren't defined precisely in road traffic law or in The Highway Code, they are widely used in all recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process."


----------



## MacB (9 Sep 2011)

Ease off a bit folks, I thought the OP was an honest, and informative, post, talk about shooting the messenger.

Perhaps the correct approach would be to try and get some sort of campaign sponsored, via CTC say, to provide cycling awareness as part of police training procedures. I actually agree with those that think this should include some time on 'bike patrol'. 

Though I'm not surprised I am disheartened to find that we have become so carcentric that the laws and rights, as applied to other road users, are not even part of police basic training. But I'd go a step further and want to see it included in the school curriculum as part of their 'life skills' type courses.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> Ease off a bit folks, I thought the OP was an honest, and informative, post, talk about shooting the messenger.



I don't think he's getting shot at at all. One or two digs at Police in general and one comment about the term "Razz". Most replies are very positive including mine.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> My point is this. *If I had reason to speak to you pre-April in relation to you riding in the middle of the road, holding up traffic my initial attitude and opinion would have been "Why don't you ride further to the left where its safer for you"*. I now know the answer to this, but back then I didn't.
> 
> What I hope to share is this. I'm often surprised by some of the anger expressed in this forum, both towards the police and motorists. Its an anger stemmed from a justifiable frustration of the police/motorists failure to understand. Therefore I'd like to ask this - if you have dealings with the police, be prepared to explain to them the concept and reasons behind primary. Please try to do this calmly, without getting angry and frustrated that they don't already know it.



Although it's useful amongst cyclicts discussing the finer points of road positioning. there is no need to be familiar with the term or concept of "primary" in order to grasp any road user's need to position herself in such a way as to maximise her safety, communicate her intentions and influence the behaviour of others towards her. This is going to sound rude, but however politely the OP was worded, the bit in bold is a stupid question, coming from someone who considers himself any kind of advanced vehicle user. And primary has very little to do with "the middle of the road" - it's about unambiguously occupying the moving traffic lane.

I can't argue with the advice about explaining things calmly, but I think cyclists have a right to be angry with police officers who haven't the wit to consider why they might be somewhere other than the gutter.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> Ease off a bit folks, I thought the OP was an honest, and informative, post, talk about shooting the messenger.
> 
> Perhaps the correct approach would be to try and get some sort of campaign sponsored, via CTC say, to provide cycling awareness as part of police training procedures. I actually agree with those that think this should include some time on 'bike patrol'.
> 
> Though I'm not surprised I am disheartened to find that we have become so carcentric *that the laws and rights*, as applied to other road users, are not even part of police basic training. But I'd go a step further and want to see it included in the school curriculum as part of their 'life skills' type courses.



But its not the law is it? The primary position does not give a cyclist the right to do anything by law.Cyclecraft are guidelines as is Roadcraft (used by Police standard and advanced drivers). If by adopting the primary position you commit an offence of careless cycling or inconsiderate cycling you are in the wrong.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

theclaud said:


> This is going to sound rude, but however politely the OP was worded, the bit in bold is a stupid question, coming from someone who considers himself any kind of advanced vehicle user.


It does just a little bit. The OP is being honest and saying Police Driver Training is not fit for purpose as regards cyclists. He should be applauded for that IMHO


----------



## deckertim (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've wanted to make this point in a few posts, but think its worthwhile making here in a post all to itself. I've seen more than a few angry comments about the police not understanding the concept of 'primary' and at best, berating a cyclist for it and at worst blaming it on an accident.
> 
> I'm a police officer nearing ten years service.


Some great points and I for one welcome your input to these boards. It is good to have someone who really knows the score and the law! I also appreciate your honesty.


----------



## Melonfish (9 Sep 2011)

i've seen the amount of law that each cop is supposed to learn, it is without doubt staggering, to then have to learn all the nuances of each law which in itself would fill small books in some cases is once again quite immense. my old man retires this december after wow 23/24 years on the force, i still remember him passing out when i was a kid.

i agree that there should indeed be some education on some things for the police but in a time of cuts and job losses i doubt anything would go ahead as funding is lacking in a big way.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> If by adopting the primary position you commit an offence of careless cycling or inconsiderate cycling you are in the wrong.


Isn't that really what the OP means when saying "...then proceeded to explain primary, why they were using it at the time they were, then I may have understood that actually, for a driver to hit a cyclist in primary position _where used correctly_ shows an even worse level of driving than hitting one in secondary." (my italics)


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

OK. I'm getting too worked up by this one. I'm going out for a bike ride. Enjoy the debate folks!


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've wanted to make this point in a few posts, but think its worthwhile making here in a post all to itself. I've seen more than a few angry comments about the police not understanding the concept of 'primary' and at best, berating a cyclist for it and at worst blaming it on an accident.
> 
> I'm a police officer nearing ten years service. I began cycling only in April of this year. Before this date, I had never, ever heard of the concept of primary (the first I acually saw of it was in Mikey or Gaz's YouTube channels). I have done driving courses that allow me to razz around safely in a car with lights and sirens going, I consider my level of driving higher than your normal motorist - but no one had ever told me about primary - not police training, nor general life etc.
> 
> ...


If the rider was in the Primary and holding up traffic then that would be wrong, like a driver doing 20mph in a 60 for no reason,also if they say why they were in the Primary after an accident surely they leave themselves open to the questioning as to whether they should have been riding like that for those conditions. It becomes one persons descision against the others as to if it was safe,


----------



## siadwell (9 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> Ease off a bit folks, I thought the OP was an honest, and informative, post, talk about shooting the messenger.
> 
> Perhaps the correct approach would be to try and get some sort of campaign sponsored, via CTC say, to provide cycling awareness as part of police training procedures. I actually agree with those that think this should include some time on 'bike patrol'.
> 
> Though I'm not surprised I am disheartened to find that we have become so carcentric that the laws and rights, as applied to other road users, are not even part of police basic training. But I'd go a step further and want to see it included in the school curriculum as part of their 'life skills' type courses.



+1


----------



## 2Loose (9 Sep 2011)

Good post Coppercyclist and very understandable imho. 

After explaining to my mother about the safety reason a cyclist was passing parked cars so widely ie. the Door Zone, she has since stopped thinking such thoughts about cyclists 'taking up the whole road'. These things do need pointing out to non-cyclists before they make sense and are then understandable.

Cycling is not popular enough for these reasons to be common knowledge, therefore I think Govt. Information films \ adverts showing how dangerous such things as bikes undertaking lorries, riding in the door zone\opening car doors without looking, being squeezed in pinch points\not taking the lane etc. would go a long way to help our car driving brethren understand our 'habits'.


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2011)

I know it's probably never going to happen but it would be a good idea if when learning to drive, learner drivers were given some appreciation of other road users unlike at the moment where other road users are considered a potential hazard.

I know I became more aware of bikers needs when I became a biker myself, likewise I became more aware of cyclists needs when I became one. I believe the different forms of road use have made me a better rider/driver.


----------



## MacB (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> *But its not the law is it*? The primary position does not give a cyclist the right to do anything by law.Cyclecraft are guidelines as is Roadcraft (used by Police standard and advanced drivers). If by adopting the primary position you commit an offence of careless cycling or inconsiderate cycling you are in the wrong.



Ok Mr Pedantic, I'm sure you can now point to where in my post I said that riding in primary was enshrined in law, or any specific that I claimed in law?

I get that you're looking for an argument but don't make things up and attribute them to me to try and start one.


----------



## element (9 Sep 2011)

Alien8 said:


> T
> This has nothing to do with Rule 163. If road users observed Rule 163 primary/secondary would have no relevance because the overtaking vehicle would be on the other side of the road.
> 
> When a motorist hits a cyclist the question you should be asking is were they adhering to Rule 163?



Why should an over taking car be on the otherside of the road ? Leaving a car sized gap does not mean going to the wrong side of the road. Also what is it with cyclists being happy to squeeze through tiny gaps between cars to get to the front of traffic lights and hold people up when the lights go green , but when a car overtakes them they expect a massive gap and a car to wait behind them at 12 mph for as long as it takes. 
There has to be a bit of flexability on both sides for the roads to work. I usually take 'primary' as people choose to call it when I don't want cars to pass, when I think they are safe to pass I move over closer to the kerb as a kind of signall that we are at a safe passing point. I was told to drive around cyclists like you expect them to randomly fall over towards your car. this means that there is a safety margin , however if you want to block the road as much as poccible by riding down the middle of it for no reason then you will make car drivers angry and they will start to pass too close.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> Ok Mr Pedantic, I'm sure you can now point to where in my post I said that riding in primary was enshrined in law, or any specific that I claimed in law?
> 
> I get that you're looking for an argument but don't make things up and attribute them to me to try and start one.



blow me down with a feather im sure you said

_'Though I'm not surprised I am disheartened to find that we have become so carcentric that the *laws and rights*, as applied to other road users, are not even part of police basic training.'_


so when you state Law..what do you mean? as for calling me Mr Pedantic thats pathetic..get a llife


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Also what is it with cyclists being happy to squeeze through tiny gaps between cars to get to the front of traffic lights and hold people up when the lights go green , but when a car overtakes them they expect a massive gap and a car to wait behind them at 12 mph for as long as it takes.



See this post on my blog: “You complain about me passing close, and then pass me even closer!”.


----------



## 2Loose (9 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Why should an over taking car be on the otherside of the road ? Leaving a car sized gap does not mean going to the wrong side of the road. *Also what is it with cyclists being happy to squeeze through tiny gaps between cars to get to the front of traffic lights and hold people up when the lights go green , but when a car overtakes them they expect a massive gap and a car to wait behind them at 12 mph for as long as it takes. *
> There has to be a bit of flexability on both sides for the roads to work. I usually take 'primary' as people choose to call it when I don't want cars to pass, when I think they are safe to pass I move over closer to the kerb as a kind of signall that we are at a safe passing point. I was told to drive around cyclists like you expect them to randomly fall over towards your car. this means that there is a safety margin , however if you want to block the road as much as poccible by riding down the middle of it for no reason then you will make car drivers angry and they will start to pass too close.



I think that you would agree that riding through a doorway sized gap would be fine, but having a doorway sized gap moving towards you at a similar same speed would be rather more scary as you wouldn't have any control over it. I feel that is the major difference.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (9 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Why should an over taking car be on the otherside of the road ? Leaving a car sized gap does not mean going to the wrong side of the road.



No but if the other side of the road is clear, then why not do it anyway? Being passed by cars isn't a pleasant experience.



element said:


> Also what is it with cyclists being happy to squeeze through tiny gaps between cars to get to the front of traffic lights and hold people up when the lights go green , but when a car overtakes them they expect a massive gap and a car to wait behind them at 12 mph for as long as it takes.



When you're driving through a car park, or down a narrow street where children are being dropped off at school, do you do so at 30mph, or 10mph? A cyclist can easily get between slow or stationary traffic since the speed differential is about 5mph, and because he can see every single car. He cannot see traffic overtaking him, and a car does not have the same maneuverability as a bicycle. Cyclist hits car while filtering = bruises and scratched panels. Car hits cyclist while overtaking = bruises, serious injury, death...and scratched/dented panels.

Also no cyclist wants to hold traffic up. We filter to the front so we can be seen, and so we can clear a hazardous junction before other traffic has a chance to turn across it.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Also what is it with cyclists being happy to squeeze through tiny gaps between *stationary* cars to get to the front of traffic lights and hold people up when the lights go green , but when a car overtakes them they expect a massive gap and a car to wait behind them *at 12 mph* for as long as it takes.


I have added a word and some emphasis to part of this post, which I hope will enable you to answer your own question.


----------



## youngoldbloke (9 Sep 2011)

If the police have little knowledge of the concept, how on earth do we expect the average driver to understand the needs of cyclists? As pointed out earlier this should be part of learner driver training. Part of the written test perhaps? Education and publicity are obviously needed, otherwise the misunderstandings between cyclists and motorists will continue.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've wanted to make this point in a few posts, but think its worthwhile making here in a post all to itself. I've seen more than a few angry comments about the police not understanding the concept of 'primary' and at best, berating a cyclist for it and at worst blaming it on an accident.
> 
> I'm a police officer nearing ten years service. I began cycling only in April of this year. Before this date, I had never, ever heard of the concept of primary (the first I acually saw of it was in Mikey or Gaz's YouTube channels). I have done driving courses that allow me to razz around safely in a car with lights and sirens going, I consider my level of driving higher than your normal motorist - but no one had ever told me about primary - not police training, nor general life etc.
> 
> ...


When i did my national standards Cycle Instructors course one of my first questions was do drivers know about this and if not why not? The answer, "It costs too much to advertise"  I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2011)

In response to CopperCyclists helpful post much of which I totally support, I would like to point out a couple of aspects that I would be interested in his comments on.

- First why do so many police officers make assumptions about the answer when they don't know? A lot of the problem as I see it is (and its not just cycling) that rather than asking an open question and inviting an explanation they make a statement. e.g. Instead of saying "I noticed you were riding in the middle of the road; was there a reason for that?" they say "You were riding in the middle of the road and holding up the traffic". I think police training would benefit a great deal from learning how to ask open non-accusative questions rather to find out the facts rather than jumping to conclusions

- Second, having staked out a position with a statement that is wrong, police IME tend to then see any attempt to explain the reality to them as an attack on them rather that listen, step back and admit they were wrong. And so the whole situation tends to escalate with the police doggedly defending the ground they have staked out against all the evidence. Even if you do eventually get through to them that you know more about it than they do and are right it usually ends up with some sort of warning or statement that they are only letting you off because they are being generous to you, not because they were wrong.

These I have to say IME are pervasive attitudes in some (not all) police and go way beyond cyclist and cycling.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.



+1


----------



## clarion (9 Sep 2011)

Excellent points, Red Light


----------



## Wankelschrauben (9 Sep 2011)

I was once pulled over by an officer because he couldn't overtake me and enter the car length gap I'd left infront without having to speed and force his way into the next lane to do so.

He didn't understand the concept of primary, the conept that a bike isn't as easy to stop as a car or the idea that if I was moving at the speed limit, then there was no need for him to overtake.

He was angry and basically being a complete prick.

His producer was laughed out of the police station.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> In response to CopperCyclists helpful post much of which I totally support, I would like to point out a couple of aspects that I would be interested in his comments on.
> 
> - First why do so many police officers make assumptions about the answer when they don't know? A lot of the problem as I see it is (and its not just cycling) that rather than asking an open question and inviting an explanation they make a statement. e.g. Instead of saying "I noticed you were riding in the middle of the road; was there a reason for that?" they say "You were riding in the middle of the road and holding up the traffic". I think police training would benefit a great deal from learning how to ask open non-accusative questions rather to find out the facts rather than jumping to conclusions
> 
> ...



I would guess the answer to your first point is that is what they are trained to do. Explain what they have witnessed rather than question actions. "For example - You ran away when I approached you" rather than "Why did you run away when I approached you?"

In answer to the second I think it is very much down to the individual. I have experienced some real knob ends and also some wonderful policemen in regards to all sort of incidents.


----------



## chillyuk (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I have done driving courses that allow me to razz around safely in a car with lights and sirens going, I consider my level of driving higher than your normal motorist -



Following is an excerpt

Speaking at the national Superintendents' Association at Carden Park near Chester, the former head of Greater Manchester Police's traffic network section, claimed that lives were being put at risk because the driving standards of many officers are not routinely checked after training. Noting that forty people were killed last year in high speed police vehicle pursuits, Supt Greene said: "In 2008/9, three people died in firearms incidents across the country. Fifteen people died in custody. Some 40 people died on the roads. Yet there's no ACPO lead on driver standards. Issues fall between driver training, roads policing and health and safety."


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> In response to CopperCyclists helpful post much of which I totally support, I would like to point out a couple of aspects that I would be interested in his comments on.
> 
> - First why do so many police officers make assumptions about the answer when they don't know? A lot of the problem as I see it is (and its not just cycling) that rather than asking an open question and inviting an explanation they make a statement. e.g. Instead of saying "I noticed you were riding in the middle of the road; was there a reason for that?" they say "You were riding in the middle of the road and holding up the traffic". I think police training would benefit a great deal from learning how to ask open non-accusative questions rather to find out the facts rather than jumping to conclusions
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I have very recent experience of both these points, although the second one when it became obvious they were not listening to anything I said I just shut up and bit my lip.


----------



## pshore (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> But its not the law is it? The primary position does not give a cyclist the right to do anything by law.Cyclecraft are guidelines as is Roadcraft (used by Police standard and advanced drivers). If by adopting the primary position you commit an offence of careless cycling or inconsiderate cycling you are in the wrong.



You are right. There is nothing in law about the right to hold a primary position. The reverse is also true, there is no law to say you must be in secondary or in the gutter. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were careless or inconsiderate which is hard if you explain the the advice in Bikability:

Bikability Level 2 Course Manual has this:


> Module 5
> Understand where to ride on roads being used
> ...
> Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the path of motor traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow.
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

chillyuk said:


> Following is an excerpt
> 
> Speaking at the national Superintendents' Association at Carden Park near Chester, the former head of Greater Manchester Police's traffic network section, claimed that lives were being put at risk because the driving standards of many officers are not routinely checked after training. Noting that forty people were killed last year in high speed police vehicle pursuits, Supt Greene said: "In 2008/9, three people died in firearms incidents across the country. Fifteen people died in custody. Some 40 people died on the roads. Yet there's no ACPO lead on driver standards. Issues fall between driver training, roads policing and health and safety."



I don't know why I am reminded of this but anyway. 5th Gear did a show where Vicky BH joined a police driving instructors course and then the instructor was taught how to race. The upshot was the Vicky (with her racing credentials) would have made an excellent Police Driver but the Police Driving Instructor would never have made it as a racer. Make of that what you will


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> You are right. There is nothing in law about the right to hold a primary position. The reverse is also true, there is no law to say you must be in secondary or in the gutter. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were careless or inconsiderate which is hard if you explain the the advice in Bikability:
> 
> Bikability Level 2 Course Manual has this:



Interestingly L2 can be passed by Children as well as adults. The course does take place on roads with medium volume traffic flow and not hectic city centres but it does encourage children to hold primary. If the Police then tell them this is wrong what are they to do?


----------



## MacB (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> blow me down with a feather im sure you said
> 
> _'Though I'm not surprised I am disheartened to find that we have become so carcentric that the *laws and rights*, as applied to other road users, are not even part of police basic training.'_
> 
> ...



I still can't see how you can read the above and take it to mean what you responded to, it is a general comment that police training should cover the laws and rights of all road users....it does not say that primary is a right or a law...though I could have expanded the original to say laws, rights and needs.


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> You are right. There is nothing in law about the right to hold a primary position. The reverse is also true, there is no law to say you must be in secondary or in the gutter. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were careless or inconsiderate which is hard if you explain the the advice in Bikability:
> 
> Bikability Level 2 Course Manual has this:



Does the law not state that you must ride/drive to the left of the lane dividing markings but does not state where to the left you must be. Obviously unless overtaking/changing less.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> Does the law not state that you must ride/drive to the left of the lane dividing markings but does not state where to the left you must be. Obviously unless overtaking/changing less.



I believe it does.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2011)

I'd love to know which law that is, if anyone has a reference. Because I rather suspect that "drive on the left" is still enforced under s78 of the Highways Act 1835, which rather predates painted road markings


> or if the driver of any waggon, cart, or other carriage whatsoever, or of any horses, mules, or other beast of draught or burthen meeting any other waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts of burthen, shall not keep his waggon, cart or carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts of burthen, on the left or near side of the road; or if any person shall in any manner wilfully prevent any other person from passing him, or any waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts of burthen, under his care, upon such highway, or [...] ; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid, and being convicted of any such offence, either by his own confession, the view of a justice, or by the oath of one or more credible witnesses, before any two justices of the peace, shall in addition to any civil action to which he may make himself liable, for every such offence forfeit any sum not exceeding [F3level 1 on the standard scale]


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/78

Almost the only section of that act that's not been repealed or superseded by something more recent ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> I'd love to know which law that is, if anyone has a reference



Nothing much changed until 1773 when an increase in horse traffic forced the UK Government to introduce the General Highways Act of 1773 which contained a keep left recommendation. This became a law as part of the Highways Bill in 1835.



 In small-is-beautiful *England*, though, they didn't use monster wagons that required the driver to ride a horse; instead the guy sat on a seat mounted on the wagon. What's more, he usually sat on the right side of the seat so the whip wouldn't hang up on the load behind him when he flogged the horses. (Then, as now, most people did their flogging right-handed.) So the English continued to drive on the left... Keeping left first entered English law in 1756, with the enactment of an ordinance governing traffic on the London Bridge, and ultimately became the rule throughout the British Empire. 
[Hamer] It extended the rule in 1772 to towns in *Scotland*. The penalty for disobeying the law was 20 shillings (£1). 
According to [Amphicars], the UK Government introduced the General Highways Act of 1773, containing a keep left recommendation to regulate horse traffic. This became law as part of the Highways Bill in 1835


----------



## Bicycle (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> When i did my national standards Cycle Instructors course one of my first questions was do drivers know about this and if not why not? The answer, "It costs too much to advertise"  I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.




The OP raised some interesting points and was a good, frank and thought-provoking piece. 

This lack of wider awareness raised by AFsolo is critical.

There was a tired, old joke about Belgium changing its traffic laws and adopting the UK system of driving on the left. They decided to stagger it ; trucks and buses one day... cars the next.

If cyclists are adopting a road-position stance of which many other road users are unaware, there is a problem.

To a driver unaware of the concept of 'primary', a cyclist riding there may appear to be riding dangerously, selfishly or similar. 

Most drivers are unaware of the concept of bicycles adopting primary position in certain circumstances. I think we are all agreed on that.

Many drivers are not cyclists and are quite unaware of the needs of cyclists (this is not a crime, any more than it is a crime not to drive and to be unaware of the needs of drivers).

It doesn't help that a minority of cyclists either misunderstand the circumstances in which the adopting of primary position may be appropriate or are simply spatially unaware. This is not a troll comment; I refer only to a small minority. We have all seen them. 

The broader concept of adopting primary road position where appropriate is far from barmy. There is much to commend it.

Doing so among a wider motoring and cycling public who take their road use seriously (but are completely bamboozled by a cyclist moving into the middle of the road for what might appear to be a quite arbitrary reason) needs careful thought.

Many car drivers bumbling along a single carriageway at 30 might be unsettled to see a cyclist, doing 15 ahead of them, moving to primary as they approach a parked car on the right side of the road. The cyclist can argue that he is adopting primary to prevent a close pass. That may or may not be so. To the driver it may appear otherwise. It is often a good idea to think how our actions appear to other road users. Adopting primary can sometimes appear to some drivers like a red rag being waved. There is no training; there is no wider publicising of the concept; as the OP says, even the Police are not routinely told about it. 

The great majority of drivers I've shared the roads with are courteous, skilled and aware of their surroundings. Many cyclists also appear to be. 

When using primary in what can appear a fairly hostile traffic environment, it may be helpful to ask oneself what it looks like to the other road users who will need to adjust their speed or direction to accommodate our actions.

There is a danger that the use of primary position by UK cyclists will start to resemble the Belgian-joke scenario.

Thanks again to the OP for highlighting a most interesting topic.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The OP raised some interesting points and was a good, frank and thought-provoking piece.
> 
> This lack of wider awareness raised by AFsolo is critical.
> 
> ...




Very good post


----------



## MontyVeda (9 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> No but if the other side of the road is clear, then why not do it anyway? *Being passed by cars isn't a pleasant experience.*



So in light of this... do you enjoy cycling on the roads at all? 

With regards to the OP's points. Yes, drivers would benefit from regular updates and reminders as to how to drive and how others are permitted to use the roads. 

The Drivers CPC should be rolled out to all drivers, not just professional ones to highlight things like this... and it should be free to all.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> I still can't see how you can read the above and take it to mean what you responded to, it is a general comment that police training should cover the laws and rights of all road users....it does not say that primary is a right or a law...though I could have expanded the original to say laws, rights and needs.



I took your post and the mention of law and threw it open as part of the debate rather than anything personal to you so I apologise if you took it the wrong way.

Police training is an emotive subject.... Society is changing so yes the OP is right at some point Police Officers should be made aware of cycling 'guidelines' that are beyond the scope of the law but infringe upon the law they study!

The guidelines and rules for cyclists are circumstantial to any criminal offences but if cyclists are using one set of rules and motorists are unaware of these, its important that someone has knowledge of the middle ground. Very few offences of careless driving by motorists are prosecuted nowadays whereas 20 years ago it was very common so this is an indication that bad driving (by all parties) isnt a priority for Police at the moment.

My daughter is learning to drive and she has never heard of the primary position for cyclists, likewise my son passed his test a year ago and thinks I am talking some strange language. If the motorist has no idea why the cyclist had adopted a road position then what hope is there!


----------



## cd365 (9 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> <snip>



A very good post by the OP and the post by Bicycle I have snipped is bang on the mark in my opinion


----------



## pshore (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Therefore I'd like to ask this - if you have dealings with the police, be prepared to explain to them the concept and reasons behind primary. Please try to do this calmly, without getting angry and frustrated that they don't already know it.



In my experience CopperCyclist, you are right. If you can explain calmly is really helps you seem like a reasonable person and I can now get my point across when reporting incidents. Its not that easy though when you are a victim of crime.

I must admit that in my first three years of cycle commuting I was getting seriously wound up by close passing and near misses. Nonchalantly, describing somebody threatening my life was not possible but I have now conditioned myself to do it. 

Looking back, my natural reaction was one of somebody who had been threatened or assaulted (without physical connection), but I think people in general and not just Coppers do not recognise the _threat_ of motor vehicles against cyclists in any way that is similar to being threatened by fists, knives or guns.

I would be immensely frustrated and more if I was feeling like my life had been threatened by then had to start defending my road positioning. In a way, it is a bit like a rape victim having to defend their wearing of a short skirt. 

Further, if you do run into problems, cyclist-car incidents are being treated as if the two road users were equal. The duty of care of the person in the larger vehicle is missing. 

To give an example, if I see a child playing with a ball near the side of the road I rarely see drivers changing their speed or proximity to that child. If that child then ran out and was hit by the car, my belief is that a court today will see this as an accident. Duty of care is a thing of the past.


----------



## Mad at urage (9 Sep 2011)

Talking of publicity for (for example) Primary and Secondary as cycle positions, there is of course a motoring organisation which sees itself as having a safety brief in promoting training for car drivers and which has recently expanded into training for cyclists (with the author of Cyclecraft writing their cycle training book). When training car drivers, this organisation still includes _no mention _of where a cyclist is expected to be!

Members of the IAM may be curious as to why this gross omission continues (I've tried asking, for example here: http://www.iam.org.uk/forum/index.php?f=6&t=525&rb_v=viewtopic). Since the IAM does get consulted by 'the media' they are in a position to promote the knowledge more widely as well.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

I would applaud the OP for his honesty. 

To others argueing about road positioning, 

Cyclists aren't much narrower than mopeds and motorbikes, they don't ride in the gutter.

Cyclists are much faster than horses/ horse and carts, they don't drive in the gutter.

Just because a cyclist is small narrow and easily intimidated should not mean they have to ride in the gutter, and afaik there is nothing in law saying they must either.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I would applaud the OP for his honesty.
> 
> To others argueing about road positioning,
> 
> ...


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Sep 2011)

Excellent post by CopperCyclist - thank you  

and nicely "positively provocative" 
Angelfishsolo's




> I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.



+1 (if I raise my hand one digit at a time, can I make that +10?)
Bicycle's 




> The OP raised some interesting points and was a good, frank and thought-provoking piece.... and the rest of Bicycle's post



+ 1 (same request)


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> When i did my national standards Cycle Instructors course one of my first questions was do drivers know about this and if not why not? The answer, "It costs too much to advertise"  *I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.*



I contacted the the DfT about a campaign of this sort (re: road positioning, passing distances etc) and received a response along the lines of "the HC is adequate and we would rather focus our limited resources on campaigns that save more lives, i.e. drink driving etc". 

It would be better to widen the scope of driving lessons and the driving test in order to better understand the differing needs of other types of road users, be they cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists, pedestrians, HGV drivers etc.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> I contacted the the DfT about a campaign of this sort (re: road positioning, passing distances etc) and received a response along the lines of "the HC is adequate and we would rather focus our limited resources on campaigns that save more lives, i.e. drink driving etc".
> 
> It would be better to widen the scope of the driving lessons/test in order to better understand the different needs of other types of road users, be they cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists, pedestrians, HGV drivers etc.



Attacking the problem from the Driving test is great but is doesn't tackle those already on the roads who have been driving for 30/40+ years. It is sad that the DfT (who are responsible for Bikeability) feel there is no need to advertise what they teach cyclists


----------



## apollo179 (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> This post is not meant to provoke an argument of the benefits/problems of primary positioning, merely raise awareness that the police officer attending your incident probably won't know about it. edit: damn iPad always misses keypresses. I know how to spell politeness really.



Im always interested in reading your posts.
Aside from the argument of the benefits/problems of primary positioning - if a car driver has the arguement "i hit the cyclist because he was in the middle of the road" i cant see how that could be a valid excuse in any circumstances anyway.


----------



## gaz (9 Sep 2011)

Never worth getting wound up at a copper, you want them on your side so always carry a beer and chocolates to bribe them with.


----------



## apollo179 (9 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Never worth getting wound up at a copper, you want them on your side so always carry a beer and chocolates to bribe them with.


Youd fit right in in india !


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Attacking the problem from the Driving test is great but is doesn't tackle those already on the roads who have been driving for 30/40+ years. It is sad that the DfT (who are responsible for Bikeability) feel there is no need to advertise what they teach cyclists



We need to radically overhaul driver training, testing and licensing - this should include refresher training/testing at frequent intervals (to address your point). As the IAM point out: "Driving is a life-long skill that requires life-long learning" (although they do have a vested interest when pushing this agenda).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> We need to radically overhaul driver training, testing and licensing - this should include refresher training/testing at frequent intervals (to address your point). As the IAM point out: "Driving is a life-long skill that requires life-long learning" (although they do have a vested interest).



Amen to that. I know in some ways I am a better driver than I was when I first passed my test and in others a worse one. For example - I am damned if I could do that reversing around a corner keeping wheels near curb any more.


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> We need to radically overhaul driver training, testing and licensing - this should include refresher training/testing at frequent intervals (to address your point). As the IAM point out: "Driving is a life-long skill that requires life-long learning" (although they do have a vested interest when pushing this agenda).



You would think the government would jump at the chance for that lovely new revenue stream.


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

I go to sleep after nights and wake to find a four pager. Most posters have replied for me with many of my points, I thank you! A couple of things to clear up:

- I'm not saying I'd have blamed a cyclist for an accident based on their primary position, I'm saying that I'd have been wrong and thought it was a contributory factor i.e. I may have thought that if they had been over to the left where its safer it may not have happened

- The use of the phrase 'where its safer' both above and in the original post is indicative of my thinking pre-April, I'm not claiming that it actually IS safer!

- I apologise for any offence for the use of the term 'razz around'. This was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek playing on the perception of members of public when they joke "chip shop must be closing etc" and drawing parallels to the fact that police are trained to be 'better drivers' yet don't know anything of what I've recently learnt

- I don't think Rule 163 is overly relevant to giving people an understanding of positioning. Pre-April I would have given a cylist plenty of room whether they were in primary or secondary. The difference is primary controls the road for them a lot more as it requires the driver to find more space, often on the other carriageway. Rule 163 is what makes primary positioning work, if drivers obey it

Finally, in response to RedLight I think he's being a little unfair and tarring us all with the same brush. Yes, I have colleagues who act like that no matter what. In fact I have one on my shift, but only one on a shift of fifty. The majority of us, when spoken to calmly and rationally are perfectly capable of applying reason to our standpoint, which is why I asked or it as he purpose of my post! I hope you can understand, the majority of people we deal with tend to be dishonest (I found this bag of coke on the floor I was going to hand it in) and use aggression as a challenge hoping they can get us to back down. We're almost conditioned (not trained) therefore to be massively defensive and immovable in the face of aggression, as trust me, showing weakness to some of the underclass we deal with gets you assaulted. On the other hand, because we deal with this so often, meeting a genine, decent person capable of communicating is a pleasure. RedLights post in many ways conveyed my point - stay calm, be prepared to explain the 'cycling knowledge' and you should find yourself avoiding his issues.


----------



## 4F (9 Sep 2011)

CC another excellent post, "razz around" as much as you like


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> We need to radically overhaul driver training, testing and licensing - this should include refresher training/testing at frequent intervals (to address your point). As the IAM point out: "Driving is a life-long skill that requires life-long learning" (although they do have a vested interest when pushing this agenda).



I've always been for this. Personally I think a five year driving retest is necessary, with a cost of about fifty quid. If you fail I'd put you back onto a green L-plate for a short period (3-6 months perhaps) with a requirement to retake the test within that time and pass it else drop back to a red L Plate and a provisional licence, with all the restrictions it holds.


----------



## apollo179 (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've always been for this. Personally I think a five year driving retest is necessary, with a cost of about fifty quid. If you fail I'd put you back onto a green L-plate for a short period (3-6 months perhaps) with a requirement to retake the test within that time and pass it else drop back to a red L Plate and a provisional licence, with all the restrictions it holds.


i woudnt agree with this. This would just be more hurdles for normal people to jump through to go about there normal life.
The majority of problems arnt caused by peoples inability to drive they are caused by sheer carelessness and inattention.
edit
Maybe make convicted drivers retake there tests but dont penalise good drvers.


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> i woudnt agree with this. This would just be more hurdles for normal people to jump through to go about there normal life.
> The majority of problems arnt caused by peoples inability to drive they are caused by sheer carelessness and inattention.
> edit
> Maybe make convicted drivers retake there tests but dont penalise good drvers.



More dedicated traffic officers.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> The majority of us, when spoken to calmly and rationally are perfectly capable of applying reason to our standpoint, which is why I asked or it as he purpose of my post! I hope you can understand, the majority of people we deal with tend to be dishonest (I found this bag of coke on the floor I was going to hand it in) and use aggression as a challenge hoping they can get us to back down. We're almost conditioned (not trained) therefore to be massively defensive and immovable in the face of aggression, as trust me, showing weakness to some of the underclass we deal with gets you assaulted. On the other hand, because we deal with this so often, meeting a genine, decent person capable of communicating is a pleasure. RedLights post in many ways conveyed my point - stay calm, be prepared to explain the 'cycling knowledge' and you should find yourself avoiding his issues.




For me, that shows why some people lose respect for the Police after dealing with them. 
What you've described there implies that the Police treat everyone as criminals, and getting frustrated and angry with the Police will only reinforce that opinion. 
For me that's a failing with the Police rather than with an emotionally charged victim of crime, who will just see the Police actions not as strength but as an arrogant inconsiderate person that isn't listening to them.


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've always been for this. Personally I think a five year driving retest is necessary, with a cost of about fifty quid. If you fail I'd put you back onto a green L-plate for a short period (3-6 months perhaps) with a requirement to retake the test within that time and pass it else drop back to a red L Plate and a provisional licence, with all the restrictions it holds.


As there are drivers who have accrued many times over the total for a points ban, of 12 and yet are still on the road, due to them stating personal hardships if they lost their licence, it as usual would fall on the ordinary driver who needed his car for his family and work and struggled to find "50 QUID" " a lot of money for a family" to carry the burden, taking away a persons licence is a ridiculous proposal because of a few irresponsible drivers, and saddling a family with another,"stealth" tax is the last thing they need in this economic climate.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2011)

Fifty quid every five years is bordering on the insignificant given that petrol is probably more than fifty quid to fill the tank for all but the smallest of cars. But I take the general point, imposing more costs and more requirements to run a car legally will just push more people into running them illegally.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

middleagecyclist said:


> OK. I'm getting too worked up by this one. I'm going out for a bike ride. Enjoy the debate folks!


Back from my bike ride. Made good use of primary where needed. 40 mile mix of busy multi lane urban roads and traffic free country lanes. Rain and then glorious Sun. No Police encountered and majority of drivers very courteous. What have you lot been up to then?


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2011)

middleagecyclist said:


> Back from my bike ride. Made good use of primary where needed. 40 mile mix of busy multi lane urban roads and traffic free country lanes. Rain and then glorious Sun. No Police encountered and majority of drivers very courteous. What have you lot been up to then?



Working hard .


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> For me, that shows why some people lose respect for the Police after dealing with them.
> What you've described there implies that the Police treat everyone as criminals, and getting frustrated and angry with the Police will only reinforce that opinion.
> For me that's a failing with the Police rather than with an emotionally charged victim of crime, who will just see the Police actions not as strength but as an arrogant inconsiderate person that isn't listening to them.



Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, you may be the 7th or 8th emotionally charged victim of crime I've seen that day.

It may be a once in a lifetime thing for you but I've done it a million times and it's very easy to forget that. On top of that I might have just told someone their relative has died, had a massive fight with a violent maniac, dealt with a rape victim, ticketed a cyclist for jumping a red light or a myriad of other things.

Added to the fact there's 3 sides to every story when the police are involved, your side, their side and what I think happened. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make you wrong or me right, just means we see things differently.

I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.

The point is that someone will always feel they are being dealt a poor hand by the police regardless. We try our best but sometimes it's not enough to please you, sorry about that.

The OP has a good point though, police officers are in the main human and just like you and me respond very well to polite intelligent conversation. Again we may not agree but it's worth a try.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> Working hard .



OMG. 6 Pages! You have been busy little Bees.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Finally, in response to RedLight I think he's being a little unfair and tarring us all with the same brush. Yes, I have colleagues who act like that no matter what. In fact I have one on my shift, but only one on a shift of fifty. The majority of us, when spoken to calmly and rationally are perfectly capable of applying reason to our standpoint, which is why I asked or it as he purpose of my post! I hope you can understand, the majority of people we deal with tend to be dishonest (I found this bag of coke on the floor I was going to hand it in) and use aggression as a challenge hoping they can get us to back down. We're almost conditioned (not trained) therefore to be massively defensive and immovable in the face of aggression, as trust me, showing weakness to some of the underclass we deal with gets you assaulted. On the other hand, because we deal with this so often, meeting a genine, decent person capable of communicating is a pleasure. RedLights post in many ways conveyed my point - stay calm, be prepared to explain the 'cycling knowledge' and you should find yourself avoiding his issues.



There may be a perception filter acting in that the "fair and reasonable" colleagues of yours would never bother with pulling someone up for riding in the primary position in the first place. So maybe all we meet are the ones that are somewhat corrupted by the power who see it as an opportunity to demonstrate their power.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.



You illustrate the problem perfectly. The difference is it is illegal* to open a car door so as to endanger or injure someone. It is not illegal to cycle in the door zone. You have immediately ignored an illegal act and blamed the victim of that illegal act in your decision. It is your job to know the law so as you would say to us "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

* Section 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986


*Opening of doors*
105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

It has been my experience that the "guilty till prove yourself innocent still tends to apply" and often in legal cases the one with the most money wins, as they just drag the proceedings on till the other persons runs out of money to prove their innocence.


----------



## rowan 46 (9 Sep 2011)

It's not bad advice "to be polite to coppers when you deal with them" In fact I would go as far as saying that's true of anyone. however as the op said we are all human. Interesting post even so.


----------



## pshore (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.



Modern times. The apportioning of blame is now left to insurers and the no claims bonus has replaced the penalty points system.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> There may be a perception filter acting in that the "fair and reasonable" colleagues of yours would never bother with pulling someone up for riding in the primary position in the first place. So maybe all we meet are the ones that are somewhat corrupted by the power who see it as an opportunity to demonstrate their power.



You asked previously when had you demonstrated issues against the police. I refer you to the above and also your next post.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> Modern times. The apportioning of blame is now left to insurers and the no claims bonus has replaced the penalty points system.



This would probably work fine, if only it wasn't so easy just to drive uninsured


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token *the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.*



Sorry to pick up on this part of your otherwise helpful and informative post, but this is just wrong. Cycling in the door zone does not absolve a driver of his resposibility as it is an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. 

If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). (RVCUR r. 105; RTA s. 42; RTOA Sch 2).

Edit - RL beat me to it.


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> You illustrate the problem perfectly. The difference is it is illegal* to open a car door so as to endanger or injure someone. It is not illegal to cycle in the door zone. You have immediately ignored an illegal act and blamed the victim of that illegal act in your decision. It is your job to know the law so as you would say to us "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
> 
> * Section 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
> 
> ...



Yes it is illegal to do so as the law states, and no I haven't ignored an illegal act as you try and insinuate. I have looked at the facts of the incident and in line with policy, the law and the guidance of supervision have deemed that it is not in the public interest to prosecute, nor will have a realistic prospect of conviction. Therefore no further action was taken. If we applied the law as you seem to wish then every driver who parks at the side of the road should be prosecuted under the same law, ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree. In addition I fail to see where I blamed the victim for the accident or have you just stuck that in to be emotive?

Inadvertently you have illustrated the problem perfectly, we clearly have a difference of opinion and yours is so strong you have even hunted the internet for the exact bit of law and been incredibly patronising by telling me what my job is. How any reasonable person can expect *anyone* to know all of "the law" is simply beyond me and is generally simply used as a stick to beat someone (usually the police or a lawyer) with.


----------



## Bicycle (9 Sep 2011)

This has the makings of a very interesting thread, but there is a danger it will become a weep fest about bad, naughty drivers without insurance and horrid, aggressive police officers who 'side with the guilty'.

I was hit many years ago in my van by an uninsured driver. It was jolly unlucky, but I had to lump it. It happens.*

All my dealings with the police have been with highly professional and courteous officers, whether I was a cheeky bike courier, a three-figure speeder, the victim in a collision or the relative being informed of a tragic death.

Things were going really well on this thread - and might continue to do so if we can collectively resist the (powerful) urge to wave our own pet hates around as war banners and just stick to the topic of the thread.

There have been some really positive, frank and open posts on the thread. It would be wonderful if it stayed that way.

*_ He cannoned off me backwards in his stolen and went into a parked vehicle, picking up serious neck injuries. _


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (9 Sep 2011)

i'm sorry cc, but i find the word 'underclass' very unprofessional from a highly paid civil servant (compared to other civil servants). the public are the public and should be at all times treated as innocent until proven guilty. i find the thought of every police officer being in a frame of mind where there is such a phrase of 'underclass' quite worrying and perhaps shows us the real face of the police force.

surely your training includes dealing with angry people? 

imagine how many angry people mental health / psychiatric nurses have to deal with daily (and probably a hell of a lot more restraints per shift on an acute ward than yourself) yet they never use that sort of terminology.


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> Yes it is illegal to do so as the law states, and no I haven't ignored an illegal act as you try and insinuate. I have looked at the facts of the incident and in line with policy, the law and the guidance of supervision have deemed that it is not in the public interest to prosecute, nor will have a realistic prospect of conviction. Therefore no further action was taken. If we applied the law as you seem to wish then every driver who parks at the side of the road should be prosecuted under the same law, ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree. In addition I fail to see where I blamed the victim for the accident or have you just stuck that in to be emotive?
> 
> Inadvertently you have illustrated the problem perfectly, we clearly have a difference of opinion and yours is so strong you have even hunted the internet for the exact bit of law and been incredibly patronising by telling me what my job is. How any reasonable person can expect *anyone* to know all of "the law" is simply beyond me and is generally simply used as a stick to beat someone (usually the police or a lawyer) with.


Its not patronising if you did not know it , its informative, and some may say as you are paid to enforce the law, knowing it might help.


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> Sorry to pick up on this part of your otherwise helpful and informative post, but this is just wrong. Cycling in the door zone does not absolve a driver of his resposibility as it is an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”.
> 
> If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). (RVCUR r. 105; RTA s. 42; RTOA Sch 2).
> 
> Edit - RL beat me to it.



I didn't say it did absolve the driver, it's simply a contributory factor in the accident and something I have to take account of when making a decision on process. If I'm thinking it at the roadside a solicitor in court would rip the victim to shreds about it and most likely result in a not guilty decision.

The law as it is written down is black and white, it's application in the real world is not. The driver opened her door and took out the cyclist, the driver claimed to have only opened the door about 6 inches. The cyclist disagreed and said it was much wider. 

Let me flip this round and ask what you would have done?


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Its not patronising if you did not know it , its informative, and some may say as you are paid to enforce the law, knowing it might help.



The patronising bit was not pointing out the bit of law (which I was aware of though not the exact wording) but rather telling me it's my job to know the law. I'm rather aware of that fact and don't need reminding of it so someone can score cheap points on the internet.


----------



## apollo179 (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> The patronising bit was not pointing out the bit of law (which I was aware of though not the exact wording) but rather telling me it's my job to know the law. I'm rather aware of that fact and don't need reminding of it so someone can score cheap points on the internet.



Isnt the thing with the car door opening that its ok to open a car door with the due care but its not ok to open the car door without due care and thereby cause injury to another person as a result.
Presumably a lawyer could assert that the act and resulting injury is in itself enough evidence to establish lack of due care.


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I didn't say it did absolve the driver, it's simply a contributory factor in the accident and something I have to take account of when making a decision on process. If I'm thinking it at the roadside a solicitor in court would rip the victim to shreds about it and most likely result in a not guilty decision.
> 
> The law as it is written down is black and white, it's application in the real world is not. The driver opened her door and took out the cyclist, the driver claimed to have only opened the door about 6 inches. The cyclist disagreed and said it was much wider.
> 
> Let me flip this round and ask what you would have done?



I think the problem with your earlier statement was that you mentioned the cyclist was in the door zone and used the term "by the same token" - suggesting equal responsibility/liability. 

I appreciate you have clarified the details of the collision, but to be honest, if every driver said they had opened the door 6 inches would that be sufficient for you not to proceed? There is not a min limit is there? 

To answer your question, I'd be interested in the nature and extent of the cyclist's injuries, damage to the bike and door to glean if the 6 inch story could be in any way corroborated. What's more, it's much easier to avoid a door that has been opened 6 inches, rather than 3 foot for example. Did the driver say he checked before opening the door?

Anyway, this is OT and I am not having a go.


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> The patronising bit was not pointing out the bit of law (which I was aware of though not the exact wording) but rather telling me it's my job to know the law. I'm rather aware of that fact and don't need reminding of it so someone can score cheap points on the internet.


You are quite touchy about this but I have no need for cheap points, I have two relations in the force both Inspectors and a cool head in a situation is a mark of a good officer, your reaction to my post is unwarranted, where an incident is 50/50 a degree of diplomacy is as much a tool as a law book.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

User said:


> Except that's not your decision to make - it is the decision of the CPS. It is your duty as a police officer to investigate fully and, where there is evidence of an offence (in this case there clearly was as it is an absolute offence), submit a file to the CPS. It is for the CPS to apply the public interest and realistic prospect tests.



I think you will find that in minor cases such as this its the Police who decide to charge/ report not the CPS. The CPS can always knock it on the head and I suspect it would be laughed out of court if it ever got there.....now back to reality.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> You are quite touchy about this but I have no need for cheap points, I have two relations in the force both Inspectors and a cool head in a situation is a mark of a good officer, your reaction to my post is unwarranted, where an incident is 50/50 a degree of diplomacy is as much a tool as a law book.



Knowing two Inspectors doesnt qualify you to comment on what it takes to be a Police Officer.


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Isnt the thing with the car door opening that its ok to open a car door with the due care but its not ok to open the car door without due care and thereby cause injury to another person as a result.
> Presumably a lawyer could assert that the act and resulting injury is in itself enough evidence to establish lack of due care.



Exactly, it also has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's an extremely high burden of proof.



Origamist said:


> I think the problem with your earlier statement was that you mentioned the cyclist was in the door zone and used the term "by the same token" - suggesting equal responsibility.
> 
> I appreciate you have clarified the details of the collision, but to be honest, if every driver said they had opened the door 6 inches would that be sufficient for you not to proceed? There is not a min limit is there?
> 
> ...



Yes poor wording on my part, the cyclist did contribute to the accident by being in the door zone but clearly that isn't the cause. They cyclist broke a bone in her knee, no damage to the bike or the car, no corroboration at all, one word against another. 

Incidentally one word against another is 50/50, that's a not guilty verdict straight away.

In addition the highway code says you should "Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path" when cycling. No defence solicitor in the world would not bring this up in court. The driver was adamant they checked and nothing was there, they then opened the door only 6 inches before the cyclist hit.

Not easy to make a decision is it? Proceed and you are potentially wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, don't proceed and the car driver potentially gets away with an illegal act. 

I might add that I was swinging in favour of prosecution but once I'd discussed it with supervision the lack of any independent witnesses killed it.



User said:


> Except that's not your decision to make - it is the decision of the CPS. It is your duty as a police officer to investigate fully and, where there is evidence of an offence (in this case there clearly was as it is an absolute offence), submit a file to the CPS. It is for the CPS to apply the public interest and realistic prospect tests.



Not in the case of low level traffic offences it isn't, nor low level criminal offences either. The offence is absolute, the test would be was the door opened so as to cause a danger? 

Do you really think it's a valuable use of public funds for me to spend 4 hours minimum putting a prosecution file together to send to CPS who spend another half an hour looking at it for something that would result in a fine of £30. It would cost more than that in paper, hence the public interest test. If it was an open and shut case then yes, this wasn't and would have likely gone to trial resulting in a bill of at least a few thousand quid to the tax payer that had little chance of resulting in conviction.


----------



## davefb (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I didn't say it did absolve the driver, it's simply a contributory factor in the accident and something I have to take account of when making a decision on process. If I'm thinking it at the roadside a solicitor in court would rip the victim to shreds about it and most likely result in a not guilty decision.
> 
> The law as it is written down is black and white, it's application in the real world is not. The driver opened her door and took out the cyclist, the driver claimed to have only opened the door about 6 inches. The cyclist disagreed and said it was much wider.
> 
> Let me flip this round and ask what you would have done?



could they have taken the cyclist out if they opened the door 6 inches?

and what difference does that make? the issue is 'not opening the door' isnt it? not how far?

Surely the defence to such an act would be to say 'i looked, but didnt see the cyclist as they 'appeared from no-where' ? Which implies the driver admitted to it..

[edit]

makes less sense after reading the next point  so the driver did say they looked...

I still find this difficult to take, almost as if when the police say 'they said they looked' that somehow magically the accident will 'unhappen'


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> i'm sorry cc, but i find the word 'underclass' very unprofessional from a highly paid civil servant (compared to other civil servants).



I stick with my term. I accept its complete un-politicallycorrect, but I'm afraid that after years of dealing with people, there really is a growing number of people in our society who care nothing at all for the rights of others. They take what is given for free, then they assault, beat and rob to take more. They kill for pounds, they dish out beatings for laughs, they prey on the vulnerable, and worse, they often laugh, boast and enjoy it. They have contempt for the rights of others, and often these others are the first that would stand up and speak out for THEIR rights. I meet these people all the time, and personally I think my term is kind.

I accept your view of being offended by it and I apologise, I'll try not to use it as it probably does detract from my points - but I'll be honest and say its accurate. I'm not talking about mental health patients, I'm talking about people who make genuine decisions to act as described above.

Don't miscontrue me. This isn't a view of everyone I meet, not in any way at all. My original use of the term was just to try and higlight the lows that I deal with almost on a daily basis, and by contrast how when I meet a genuine member of the public that I'd happily put myself in harms way for, the difference it makes.

The cynical would read a little more into your post, as I would a few others - however I'm already drifting off topic so I'll leave it here!

It may also assist to know I'm not a traffic officer, I'm a response officer, and an Authorised Taser Officer - hence you can imagine the sort of jobs that are my 'bread and butter' and hopefully understand what I deal with.


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> You are quite touchy about this but I have no need for cheap points, I have two relations in the force both Inspectors and a cool head in a situation is a mark of a good officer, your reaction to my post is unwarranted, where an incident is 50/50 a degree of diplomacy is as much a tool as a law book.



I know you have no need to score cheap points, I wasn't directing my post at you and did not react to it. 

It was directed at the person who told me what my job was and yes I am touchy about it. Someone who most likely has absolutely no idea what my job entails on a day to day basis tells me what my job is, how insulting!


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> Knowing two Inspectors doesnt qualify you to comment on what it takes to be a Police Officer.


I do not need to know any police to comment on what it takes to be a policeman,as it is my opinion, but, knowing two Inspectors who have commendations has given me the chance to talk to them and see the coin from the other side, there is a person inside the uniform.


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

davefb said:


> could they have taken the cyclist out if they opened the door 6 inches?
> 
> and what difference does that make? the issue is 'not opening the door' isnt it? not how far?
> 
> ...



Again, not easy is it. 

I'll try and explain. To prosecute the driver I would have to gather evidence that would support beyond reasonable doubt that the car driver opened the door in a manner that caused injury. Without independent witnesses or CCTV it would be almost impossible to prove. 

The cyclist could have suddenly came out from the footpath behind the car and hit the car door after the driver had checked the mirror and the blind spot, that alone would result in a not guilty verdict. Without any evidence to the contrary I'm afraid it's tough luck. 

Most likely the driver didn't look properly and did open the door wider than 6 inches, unfortunately conviction in a criminal court requires a bit more than most likely.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> I do not need to know any police to comment on what it takes to be a policeman,as it is my opinion, but, knowing two Inspectors who have commendations has given me the chance to talk to them and see the coin from the other side, there is a person inside the uniform.



An opinion ?You were commenting on how to deal with an incident...why dont you join the Special Constabulary then come back and tell us how it is. Thereafter you wont feel so inclined to post smarmy comments about Police Officers not knowing about obscure parts of the law.

Thats my opinion.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I stick with my term. I accept its complete un-politicallycorrect, but I'm afraid that after years of dealing with people, there really is a growing number of people in our society who care nothing at all for the rights of others. They take what is given for free, then they assault, beat and rob to take more. They kill for pounds, they dish out beatings for laughs, they prey on the vulnerable, and worse, they often laugh, boast and enjoy it. They have contempt for the rights of others, and often these others are the first that would stand up and speak out for THEIR rights. I meet these people all the time, and personally I think my term is kind.


I'm a left leaning, Guardian reader. I work in front line health care - a busy Emergency Dept in an inner city area. I will happily describe a fair proportion of my 'clients' as being from an underclass. I think it is very apt and one of the nicer descriptions of some of these scrotes...ahem, people.

Let's not get too PC. This is cyclists talking to cyclists not us and the Police.


----------



## davefb (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> Again, not easy is it.
> 
> I'll try and explain. To prosecute the driver I would have to gather evidence that would support beyond reasonable doubt that the car driver opened the door in a manner that caused injury. Without independent witnesses or CCTV it would be almost impossible to prove.
> 
> ...



what footpath behind the car? and was there any evidence they came up from there? 
it just seems 'simple' to just accept 'didnt look' when the law doesnt say 'open the door without due care' , it just says 'open the door and cause'. But apparently because of little court 'action' the issue of fault hasn't even been tested in court..
http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/01/18/the-laws-of-car-doors/


should be made a fixed penalty offence instead I suppose


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> Yes it is illegal to do so as the law states, and no I haven't ignored an illegal act as you try and insinuate.



Yes you did. You said there was fault on both sides, him for opening the door without looking and her for cycling in the door zone. That is wrong. The fault is entirely on his side for doing something clearly illegal and not the victims for doing something entirely legal. Whether you choose to do anything about it is another matter but failing to recognise she was the victim of an illegal act and blaming her for cycling legally on the road - "but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't." - isn't. You don't need a CCTV or witnesses or anything else. You have an injured cyclist and a driver who has opened a door to take her out. That is enough to establish the offence has been committed. It would only matter whether it was 6" or 3ft if you were prosecuting for endangering rather than injuring.

What you have done is the equivalent of saying it was partly the victims fault for being on the street when the gun was fired.



> In addition I fail to see where I blamed the victim for the accident or have you just stuck that in to be emotive?



"the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't."?



> Inadvertently you have illustrated the problem perfectly, we clearly have a difference of opinion and yours is so strong you have even hunted the internet for the exact bit of law and been incredibly patronising by telling me what my job is. How any reasonable person can expect *anyone* to know all of "the law" is simply beyond me and is generally simply used as a stick to beat someone (usually the police or a lawyer) with.



There you go jumping to conclusions again. Mine is based on the law which I knew. The only "hunting" on the internet was to give a reference to it and that only consisted of typing Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) into legislation.gov.uk and scrolling down to s105.

And one minute you claim knew about that law all along and the next minute you are pleading how can you be expected to know about it. Either you knew about it and ignored it for the purposes of attributing blame or you didn't know about it. Which was it?


----------



## Oxo (9 Sep 2011)

middleagecyclist said:


> I'm a left leaning, Guardian reader. I work in front line health care - a busy Emergency Dept in an inner city area. I will happily describe a fair proportion of my 'clients' as being from an underclass. I think it is very apt and one of the nicer descriptions of some of these scrotes...ahem, people.
> 
> Let's not get too PC. This is cyclists talking to cyclists not us and the Police.




Whether 'underclass' is an apt term or not is open to debate, but most people understand what is ment by it.


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> An opinion ?You were commenting on how to deal with an incident...why dont you join the Special Constabulary then come back and tell us how it is. Thereafter you wont feel so inclined to post smarmy comments about Police Officers not knowing about obscure parts of the law.
> 
> Thats my opinion.



I did not post about him not knowing the law ,I said it was not patronising but informative "IF" he didn't know it, As the person collided with the door it must have been open, how much more evidence do you need, he said he knew the law existed but not the actual wording so obviously not so obscure after all, you do not need cctv the open door is proof.if it was not open she would not have been able to hit it. And you have no idea what I do.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (9 Sep 2011)

the fact that you are both willing to use terms you both acknowledge as unprofessional in a public forum, worrying, i wonder what are you really using 'in reality' behind the scenes, and most importantly in your attitudes?

i thought we were trying to knock stigmatization on the head?


----------



## apollo179 (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> Exactly, it also has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's an extremely high burden of proof.






If a car driver opens a door thereby injuring a cyclist isnt it either due to the driver not taking due care and thereby accidentally causing the injury or if they did check before opening the door and still did it then they did it deliberately.
Can the cyclist be at fault at all on the grounds that he was too near to the car in the first place. If this is the case then obviously that then does totally make it very dificult to aportion blame cos without third party evidence its as you say disputed liability.
My present understanding is that a cyclist could be cycling 4 inches from a car and if the car door opened then that would be the fault of the car - am i wrong in this beleif.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> the fact that you are both willing to use terms you both acknowledge as unprofessional in a public forum, worrying, i wonder what are you really using 'in reality' behind the scenes, and most importantly in your attitudes?
> 
> i thought we were trying to knock stigmatization on the head?


I'm not at work. Neither am I dealing with members of the public (from whatever strata). You have no idea of how professional I am. I hope you never need to find out. 

Kind regards


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (9 Sep 2011)

the code doesn't seem to care whether your at work or not, if your front line i'm sure you'll have similar.

i'm bored now.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> the fact that you are both willing to use terms you both acknowledge as unprofessional in a public forum, worrying, i wonder what are you really using 'in reality' behind the scenes, and most importantly in your attitudes?
> 
> i thought we were trying to knock stigmatization on the head?



I dont know whats funnier, watching the barrack room lawyers attempting to pick holes in the legal aspect thats arisen on this thread or the people who have just rocked up to have a dig at them for no other reason than they are Police Officers.

My GP the other day referred to the underclass as the 'great unwashed' - well he would know


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> i'm bored now.


And quite rude too. 

Thanks for your input anyway I'm sure. Goodbye.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> I dont know whats funnier, watching the barrack room lawyers attempting to pick holes in the legal aspect thats arisen on this thread or the people who have just rocked up to have a dig at them for no other reason than they are Police Officers.



hehehe....if they come in here to preach, they deserve to be ridden, HARD!!!


----------



## Bicycle (9 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> I dont know whats funnier, watching the barrack room lawyers attempting to pick holes in the legal aspect thats arisen on this thread or the people who have just rocked up to have a dig at them for no other reason than they are Police Officers.



I think that remark is just so typical!

I'm very disappointed. It's just so worrying that you see humour in this. You just don't seem to get it, do you?

How dare you call someone a barrack-room lawyer! My friend really is a barrack-room lawyer and so is his wife.

They'll tell you I'm right!

Your's is exactly the sort of attitude that people like.... (Sorry, my head just exploded)

_(The above to be read in a slightly-strangled, John Major-type voice)

_


----------



## ClichéGuevara (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, you may be the 7th or 8th emotionally charged victim of crime I've seen that day.
> 
> It may be a once in a lifetime thing for you but I've done it a million times and it's very easy to forget that. On top of that I might have just told someone their relative has died, had a massive fight with a violent maniac, dealt with a rape victim, ticketed a cyclist for jumping a red light or a myriad of other things.
> 
> ...





Your reply actually supports my comments as you have confirmed that in general, Police have a poor attitude at incidents and also that they prejudge, as you have in assuming that I don't deal with conflict and emotion on a regular basis or expecting I don't have enough knowledge of Polic operations to know that what you describe would be far, far from a normal day even in the worst of areas.

Some people remember that they are public servants and manage to do it politely and respectfully understanding that they are understandably emotional and still manage to listen to what someone is saying instead of simply assuming it's just another scrote trying to wriggle out of things.

The bulk of people are honest and law abiding, little wonder so many seem to be hostile to the attitude of some Police officers.


----------



## Oxo (9 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think that remark is just so typical!
> 
> I'm very disappointed. It's just so worrying that you see humour in this. You just don't seem to get it, do you?
> 
> ...




_(The above to be read in a slightly-strangled, Sergeant Major-type voice)_


----------



## PK99 (9 Sep 2011)

User said:


> There is clear evidence that actually paying attention to offences such as these, and dealing robustly with them, both leads to a reduction in more serious offences (as people don't go on to do worse as they've 'got away with' minor offences) and to an improvement in public satisfaction with policing.



The logic of your point leads inevitably to the prosecution of every RLJing cylist.

Personally, i want the police chasing down the burglars who (twice) entered my house while we were asleep upstairs with small children, not wasting time prosecuting road users for simple errors.


----------



## Hacienda71 (9 Sep 2011)

Bringing back cycling proficiency and make it compulsory at all schools. Teach everyone how to cycle safely and then they will have empathy with cyclists when they become car drivers in later life.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Hacienda71 said:


> Bringing back cycling proficiency and make it compulsory at all schools. Teach everyone how to cycle safely and then they will have empathy with cyclists when they become car drivers in later life.



I'm all for that. More work for me then


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> The logic of your point leads inevitably to the prosecution of every RLJing cylist.
> 
> Personally, i want the police chasing down the burglars who (twice) entered my house while we were asleep upstairs with small children, not wasting time prosecuting road users for simple errors.



In the example cited, the cyclist suffered a serious injury, not a broken nail. It might be a "simple error", but it is one that can have very serious and occasionally fatal consequences.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> In the example cited, the cyclist suffered a serious injury, not a broken nail. It might be a "simple error", but it is one that can have very serious and occasionally fatal consequences.



Just a thought but if the door was only opened 6 inches wouldn't the cyclist have hit the cars wing mirror even if the door had stayed shut. 

I honestly believe that cyclists need to take some responsibility for their actions and understand hazard and risk perception. Would a car driver pass a parked car that closely without choice? I very much doubt it.


----------



## snibgo (9 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> ... riding in the middle of the road ... riding in the middle of the road ...


At the risk of being pedantic or patronising, I hope the OP and others understand the difference between a "road" and a "lane".


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> Exactly, it also has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's an extremely high burden of proof.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dave, what would get alarm bells ringing in my head when the driver said he only opened the door 6 inches is that many wing mirrors protrude further from the vehicle than this. For this reason, cyclists very, very rarely cycle less than 1 foot from a car door, if they did cycle as closely as the driver suggests, hardly any vehicles would have wing mirrors!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> Dave, what would get alarm bells ringing in my head when the driver said he only opened the door 6 inches is that many wing mirrors protrude further from the vehicle than this. For this reason, cyclists very, very rarely cycle less than 1 foot from a car door, if they did cycle as closely as the driver suggests, hardly any vehicles would have wing mirrors!



See post number 127


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Just a thought but if the door was only opened 6 inches wouldn't the cyclist have hit the cars wing mirror even if the door had stayed shut.
> 
> I honestly believe that cyclists need to take some responsibility for their actions and understand hazard and risk perception. Would a car driver pass a parked car that closely without choice? I very much doubt it.



Cross posted with para 1. 

I see car drivers pass dozens of cars with only inches of clearance on the road I live on.


----------



## Dave W (9 Sep 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Your reply actually supports my comments as you have confirmed that in general, Police have a poor attitude at incidents and also that they prejudge, as you have in assuming that I don't deal with conflict and emotion on a regular basis or expecting I don't have enough knowledge of Polic operations to know that what you describe would be far, far from a normal day even in the worst of areas.
> 
> Some people remember that they are public servants and manage to do it politely and respectfully understanding that they are understandably emotional and still manage to listen to what someone is saying instead of simply assuming it's just another scrote trying to wriggle out of things.
> 
> The bulk of people are honest and law abiding, little wonder so many seem to be hostile to the attitude of some Police officers.



I fail to see how anything I have posted has any relevance to the above. 

I'm just tryng to give a view from the other side so to speak, quite why it would reinforce your already biased opinion is unknown to me. I don't see where I wrote about having a poor attitude at incidents or prejudging anything but whatever floats your boat. 

Anyway, I'm done here so enjoy the rest of the thread.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (9 Sep 2011)

Origamist said:


> Cross posted with para 1.
> 
> I see car drivers pass dozens of cars with inches clearance on the road I live on.



i also see wing mirrors dangling or on the floor having been knocked off, quite regularly on my commute, i doubt very much cyclists would have done that, i wonder who?


----------



## PK99 (9 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If a car driver opens a door thereby injuring a cyclist* isnt it either* due to the driver not taking due care and thereby accidentally causing the injury or if they did check before opening the door and still did it then they did it deliberately.




No. It is possible to look and not see.

I'm sure we have all seen the gutter hugging cyclist 6 inches from the kerb who comes up behind a parked car pulls out tight behind and passes 6 inches from the car. It is perfectly possible in those circumstances to imagine the driver taking real care and still not seeing the cyclist who had "appeared from nowhere".

He said, she said!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> No. It is possible to look and not see.
> 
> I'm sure we have all seen the gutter hugging cyclist 6 inches from the kerb who comes up behind a parked car pulls out tight behind and passes 6 inches from the car. It is perfectly possible in those circumstances to imagine the driver taking real care and still not seeing the cyclist who had "appeared from nowhere".
> 
> He said, she said!



Yep. Yet another reason not to ride in the gutter.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Sep 2011)

:sigh:

Another CC thread goes the same way.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (9 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I fail to see how anything I have posted has any relevance to the above.
> 
> I'm just tryng to give a view from the other side so to speak, quite why it would reinforce your already biased opinion is unknown to me. I don't see where I wrote about having a poor attitude at incidents or prejudging anything but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Anyway, I'm done here so enjoy the rest of the thread.




I didn't expect you would be able to see it, especially as you've already set your mind on me having a biased opinion and a closed mind. 

You're simply adding to the perception that you don't have very good people skills. It's a shame because the other Policeman posting seems better equipped and more open minded.

Your response does your profession no credit.


----------



## clarion (9 Sep 2011)

User said:


> That's what you and the CPS are paid for.
> 
> One reason that people are losing respect for the police is that officers are not properly responding to offences such as this. You may see them as 'low level' but they cause injury to many people - and often significant injury.
> 
> ...



An excellent post, User. I know we have differing perspectives on the Police, but on this we can agree.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2011)

User said:


> One reason that people are losing respect for the police is that officers are not properly responding to offences such as this. You may see them as 'low level' but they cause injury to many people - and often significant injury.



Dooring is one of the top causes of cyclist serious injuries in London (8%) and just the other week we had a cyclists killed when doored under a bus on Edgeware Road. Its not a trivial problem.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> :sigh:
> 
> Another CC thread goes the same way.


And it started so well too!


----------



## Bman (9 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> :sigh:
> 
> Another CC thread goes the same way.



Yeah, it would be a shame to see this thread locked like the other few recently. It has potential.

Calm down people. We are all here for the same reason. We are cyclists. Lets stop assassinating characters and talk to each other like proper people. We wont get anywhere with petty bickering.

Im not even a mod here!


----------



## Ian 74 (9 Sep 2011)

Back to the OP good post and what not. Warms the cockles and puts a sympathetic human face to the blue machine.


----------



## clarion (9 Sep 2011)

That's a fair summary. We both expect public servants to be properly resourced to do the job, but it is not unreasonable to expect people employed in public service to perform their duties appropriately.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> No. It is possible to look and not see.
> 
> I'm sure we have all seen the gutter hugging cyclist 6 inches from the kerb who comes up behind a parked car pulls out tight behind and passes 6 inches from the car. It is perfectly possible in those circumstances to imagine the driver taking real care and still not seeing the cyclist who had "appeared from nowhere".





I'd have thought it takes really quite exceptional bike control to execute two tight 90% turns around the back of the car while moving at sufficient speed to have "appeared from nowhere".


----------



## derrick (9 Sep 2011)

It's all down to common sense, wich the police and a lot of drivers seem to lack.


----------



## pshore (9 Sep 2011)

I can see that the dooring incident mentioned would be difficult to prove in court. That leads me to the question about a Fixed Penalty Notice and points. 

Could a FPN or points have been issued ? Or is that something that can only be issued by a traffic cop ? Would it involve less paperwork ?

The doorer could of course appeal if they felt strongly. Part of me doesn't like this as it reverses the burdon of proof and increases injustice.


----------



## Bicycle (9 Sep 2011)

derrick said:


> It's all down to common sense, wich the police and a lot of drivers seem to lack.




I have dealt with the police on many occasions and have never found them (individually or as an organisation) to lack common sense.

I've sometimes disagreed with them but they've always been extraordinarily courteous to me - even when telling me that 100 mph is not a good idea with a new baby in the car (Oops!).

Some drivers might lack common sense, as do some cyclists.

This perfectly sensible discussion seems to have become something completely different and slightly unsavoury.

Well done the OP for raising the issue. I do apologise, we seem to have bollocksed it up and turned it into a slanging match.

Who saw that happening?


----------



## derrick (9 Sep 2011)

that allow me to razz around safely.

I rest my case


----------



## Norm (9 Sep 2011)

derrick said:


> that allow me to razz around safely.
> 
> I rest my case


 Following the clarification of the person who posted that, your case was presumably that police officers are allowed to have a sense of humour? And irony? 

Thanks not only to the policemen on this thread, but to all of them. Yes, they are human, yes they don't always get it right but, by getting out there and getting down and dirty, they get a whole load more respect from me than any keyboard hero with a copy of a legal dictionary.



Bicycle said:


> Well done the OP for raising the issue. I do apologise, we seem to have bollocksed it up and turned it into a slanging match.


 Indeed.


----------



## roadrash (9 Sep 2011)

its a fair cop , (pardon the pun ) with a fair point to make, which i personally think he did well. some people see everything as a can of worms just waiting to be opened


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> This perfectly sensible discussion seems to have become something completely different and slightly unsavoury.
> 
> Well done the OP for raising the issue. I do apologise, we seem to have bollocksed it up and turned it into a slanging match.
> 
> Who saw that happening?



Lol, no its not completely bollocksed up. I appreciate the positive suggestions and comments that have been a pleasure to read.

Also +1 to the person who suggested compulsory cycle training at school.


----------



## sheddy (9 Sep 2011)

BTW apart from speeding and parking offences, are there any other FPNs that can be issued to motorists ?


----------



## lukesdad (9 Sep 2011)

Don t FPNs have to be witnessed by a police officer on duty ?


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Sep 2011)

derrick said:


> that allow me to razz around safely.
> 
> I rest my case


-1


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

sheddy said:


> BTW apart from speeding and parking offences, are there any other FPNs that can be issued to motorists ?



hundreds, from failure to keep left around a keep left bollard to parking with your offside to the kerb at night. Every one is guaranteed to cause a debate.


----------



## doog (9 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Don t FPNs have to be witnessed by a police officer on duty ?



Yes, Non endorsable can be planted on your car without you present, endorsable (points) need to be issued in person.


----------



## lukesdad (9 Sep 2011)

Not really a lot of help in a lot of accidents then are they ?


----------



## Cubist (10 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Not really a lot of help in a lot of accidents then are they ?



What aren't? Coppers or FPN's?

Can I just point out, from the viewpoint of a 5 times commended Inspector who always tries to listen to reason, that Dave W's example was a crap one? He applied a threshold test (50/50) which should be applied to due care cases, to an offence absolute. He should have reported for summons in my opinion. 

I'm sorry Dave W, but you didn't do yourself any favours there.

To everyone else, whatever your standpoint on public servants, please don't tar everyone with the same brush. In our daily working lives we meet an enormous range of situations, from the hilariously funny, through the terrifying and downright harrowing, to the stomach churning stuff that leaves some of our colleagues mentally scarred for life. Many of us would love to be able to do what we see as our job without being hampered by a lack of resources, and, dare I say it, speciality legal training. However, over the last 24 years of policing I have seen huge changes in structures, support services, legislation, fundamental changes to the entire criminal justice process, and in all of this there has been a constant theme that the police aren't quite getting it right in the eyes of many people. 

Some of our number are rude, lazy, incompetent, power-crazed, unpleasant. Some officers are ignorant of some legislation, but try to make up for this lack of knowledge by being bombastic or aggressive, (When challenged on the street a natural defence is to put up the communication barriers.) 

I can assure you all that there are many of who will challenge those officers who do not give a quality service. I also speak from experience when I say that generally speaking the rude, aggressive, opinionated and apparently arrogant officers tend to be less experienced, and therefore lacking in confidence. I will also point out that they are the exception rather than the rule in my (albeit limited to the officers I have met over 24 years) experience. 

I accept quite readily that we do not, on occasion, live up to expectation, neither do we always give the service that the majority of the public deserve. I choose those words carefully, because I also agree that there are a significant number of people with whom we come into contact on a daily basis who have no social conscience whatsoever. They delight in causing misery and unrest, they cheerfully help themselves to your goods and possessions without a single pang of conscience. They beat, stab, burgle, rob, rape, even kill, for their own purposes, and would not give a second thought to the welfare or wellbeing of the bleeding hearts who would so readily defend them against the injustices, real or imaginary, that the Criminal Justice System may mete out to them. However, and this again is sincerely meant, the vast majority of police officers will afford them every single ounce of professionalism, even courtesy in dealing with them. 

Coppercyclist tried very hard to point out that you cannot assume that a cop will know all about your needs as a cyclist. I didn't want to criticise at first, because his post was genuinely intended, but giving a cyclist room is enshrined in the highway code. It's also common sense. Doorzone is also covered in Motorcycle Advanced Training copies of Roadcraft, or was when I read it. 

The main thrust of his argument however is around knowledge, and subsequent communication. He makes a point that we cannot be expected to know every shred of legislation around a particular topic, as often a basic working knowledge can be sufficient. We have access to advice and further reference should we need it, and, here's the rub, are prepared to access that advice before jumping in with both feet and getting it wrong.


----------



## Red Light (10 Sep 2011)

Cubist said:


> What aren't? Coppers or FPN's?
> 
> Can I just point out, from the viewpoint of a 5 times commended Inspector who always tries to listen to reason, that Dave W's example was a crap one? He applied a threshold test (50/50) which should be applied to due care cases, to an offence absolute. He should have reported for summons in my opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Red Light (10 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> they get a whole load more respect from me than any keyboard hero with a copy of a legal dictionary.


----------



## Red Light (10 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> they get a whole load more respect from me than any keyboard hero with a copy of a legal dictionary.


----------



## Cubist (10 Sep 2011)

derrick said:


> It's all down to common sense, wich the police and a lot of drivers seem to lack.



Can I make sweeping statements about Derricks please?


----------



## Dave W (10 Sep 2011)

Cubist said:


> What aren't? Coppers or FPN's?
> 
> Can I just point out, from the viewpoint of a 5 times commended Inspector who always tries to listen to reason, that Dave W's example was a crap one? He applied a threshold test (50/50) which should be applied to due care cases, to an offence absolute. He should have reported for summons in my opinion.
> 
> I'm sorry Dave W, but you didn't do yourself any favours there.



I'll return to the thread only to say that I agree it was a crap example. It wasn't meant to be held up to internet scrutiny, simply to illustrate that with some things you can't please everyone. No one here knows the full facts of the case, me and ultimately my supervision did and it was deemed a no go. That doesn't make it the right decision but that's the decision that was taken. 

The biggest mistake was seemingly trying to contribute to yet another thread on CC where the membership seem hell bent on ripping apart everything you post. 

It really does make for a poor experience and it's not just because I'm a copper posting here. This place really is one of the most unfriendly and aggressive forums I have frequented.


----------



## Garz (10 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist, firstly it is very commendable to acknowledge such a realisation - well done. Could you not recommend from your statute channels of educating the rest of the force or push for all officers to undergo cycling in some form as part of their training so they understand what it feels like to be vulnerable on the road?

After all, if you have the law on your side in more ways than one, maybe more safety can be achieved or at least from an educational angle.


----------



## classic33 (10 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've wanted to make this point in a few posts, but think its worthwhile making here in a post all to itself. I've seen more than a few angry comments about the police not understanding the concept of 'primary' and at best, berating a cyclist for it and at worst blaming it on an accident.
> 
> What I hope to share is this. I'm often surprised by some of the anger expressed in this forum, both towards the police and motorists. Its an anger stemmed from a justifiable frustration of the police/motorists failure to understand. Therefore I'd like to ask this - if you have dealings with the police, be prepared to explain to them the concept and reasons behind primary. Please try to do this calmly, without getting angry and frustrated that they don't already know it.



At times its misplaced anger. Frustration at not being understood when your explaining your actions.

Speaking for myself. I was fffing & blinding every other word, whilst trying to explain what had happenned. Hit side-on by a car coming out of a junction onto the road I was on & carried across on the bonnet. It hurt like hell. Bent double, trying to explain my actions & the drivers(my side of the story) to a police officer who seemed to feel that I shouldn't have been on the road. Reason given at the scene was "it can be dangerous"! Never!(His side of the story). Drivers side was that he thought I was a bus, so it was okay to do what he'd done.

As for being polite to an officer, does that still apply when that officer later makes threats against you, denies he was ever at the scene or you receive abusive phonecalls from the police.

See *"Split from incidents and outcomes"* 

Other than that, I'd say the more police that we as cyclists can get on our side by seeing the road & traffic as we do the better.


----------



## Garz (10 Sep 2011)

Sounds like that that officer shouldn't be in the force at all.


----------



## Cubist (10 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I'll return to the thread only to say that I agree it was a crap example. It wasn't meant to be held up to internet scrutiny, simply to illustrate that with some things you can't please everyone. No one here knows the full facts of the case, me and ultimately my supervision did and it was deemed a no go. That doesn't make it the right decision but that's the decision that was taken.
> 
> The biggest mistake was seemingly trying to contribute to yet another thread on CC where the membership seem hell bent on ripping apart everything you post.
> 
> It really does make for a poor experience and it's not just because I'm a copper posting here. This place really is one of the most unfriendly and aggressive forums I have frequented.



Try discussing firearms legislation and a copper's perspective on Airgunbbs. ...........

You haven't been ripped apart Dave, you willingly entered debate. It can get robust at times, but then so can life. There are many different perspectives, and if we expect everyone to see it from our viewpoint and agree with everything we do, we'd be guilty of naiivety.

You've actually played right into the hands of those who accuse us of not listening. People have disagreed with you and you are on the point of flouncing because what you hear doesn't suit you. It is't aggression, it's life.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Not really a lot of help in a lot of accidents then are they ?




FPNs


----------



## Vikeonabike (10 Sep 2011)

CC's original post about cyclist being angry about Police Officers not understanding Primary is a good one. Before I started cycling I had no idea about it either. As my experience and interest has expanded, I have become more knowledgeable about the safety issues involved and obviously, cycling law. 

How many forumites can put thier hand up and say "I knew about Primary before I started cycling on a regular basis!" Not many I can tell you. How many of us would agree that not wearing a helmet would make us any less vulnerable in the event of a crash. That would again start a heated debate. How many teachers of history could step in and teach chemistry or PE or French? Not expected too either are they? So why do a lot of people expect officers to know and of dealt with every offence in the land? 

How you react to a police officer as with any other human being will and can decide how you are treated. Most of us can tell an angry and upset with the situation person from the Angry and aggressive I want my way type...

The former will be allowed time to calm down, the later will be dealt with in the most appropriate way. I have gone to a job, met a person who who alleged they were the victim and after 5 minutes of abuse aimed directly at the police (I don't take it personally) walked away. If they had calmed down they may have been listened to.


Dangerous Dogs act....I haven't a clue, first time I have come across it. I'll have to spend all weekend looking it up, deciphering it nd deciding if there is a case to answer or if there is a lesser offence (there is). Case I'm dealing with, I can guarantee neither the Victim or the Offender is going to be happy with the outcome! Guess whose fault that is then...Not mine but I'm going to take the flak for it.


Finally, despite the uniform police officers and PCSOs are human. They get angry and upset like you do, they make mistakes like you do, they may have a differeing oppinon to yours but 99% of them are doing thier job to the BEST of thier ability!


----------



## Red Light (10 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> So why do a lot of people expect officers to know and of dealt with every offence in the land?



I don't expect them to know everything but I do expect them to have a good working knowledge of the law as that is their job. But what I don't expect is for them to make it up when they don't know.


----------



## apollo179 (10 Sep 2011)

Cubist said:


> What aren't? Coppers or FPN's?
> 
> Can I just point out, from the viewpoint of a 5 times commended Inspector who always tries to listen to reason, that Dave W's example was a crap one? He applied a threshold test (50/50) which should be applied to due care cases, to an offence absolute. He should have reported for summons in my opinion.
> 
> I'm sorry Dave W, but you didn't do yourself any favours there.


Helpful post.
To clarify - are you saying that the car door opening is an offence absolute ?
Forget about excuses (it was misty , the cyclist came 90 degrees out of nowhere) the blame surely always lies 100% with the car door opener. The duty of care rests with the car door opener to check it is safe surely.
I can see why the police / cps arnt inclined to get involved in it by and large it is just absent minded people in cars and usually dosnt do that much harm. But there are instances as have been cited where cyclists have been killed as a result of people opening car doors and it seems to me that a comprimising on the area of blame away from the door opener is wrong and can only send the wrong message.
 for the police btw.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (10 Sep 2011)

Interesting! I'd never heard of primary and secondary road positioning before I read this post, but that is how I ride anyway.

I think of it as "defensive" riding (assume the worst): if I see indications that a parked car might be about to move off (lights, exhaust fumes etc), I'll give it a wide berth; similarly when I'm approaching a blind bend in the road, I'll occupy the centre of the lane to prevent being overtaken.

Ordinarily I ride in, what I now know is, the secondary position to avoid the debris and ironworks in the gutter and so as not to run into the kerb, but also to ease safe overtaking (consideration runs both ways).

"Primary", "defensive" or just plain "common-sense"?

PS As for the Highway Code applying only to motorists: 1) I understood that it applied to all users of the er... highway; and 2) although it is only _guidance (_rather than _the law_) the courts will take whether it was being adhered to, into account in the event of a prosecution or compensation claim.


----------



## Red Light (10 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I can see why the police / cps arnt inclined to get involved in it by and large it is just absent minded people in cars and usually dosnt do that much harm.



35 cyclists seriously injured a year by it in London alone, representing 8% of all serious injuries and the fourth most common cause behind left and right hooks and being hit by a vehicle alongside. I wouldn't call it trivial but perhaps left and right hooks are also just absent minded people in cars that usually don't do that much harm


----------



## apollo179 (10 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> 35 cyclists seriously injured a year by it in London alone, representing 8% of all serious injuries and the fourth most common cause behind left and right hooks and being hit by a vehicle alongside. I wouldn't call it trivial but perhaps left and right hooks are also just absent minded people in cars that usually don't do that much harm



You undermine your own credibility by selective quoting. You know full well i also said ;
"But there are instances as have been cited where cyclists have been killed as a result of people opening car doors and it seems to me that a comprimising on the area of blame away from the door opener is wrong and can only send the wrong message.
 for the police btw."

It does seem like you are just out to attack anyone and anything rather than making sensible well reasoned observations.


----------



## Vikeonabike (10 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> I don't expect them to know everything but I do expect them to have a good working knowledge of the law as that is their job. But what I don't expect is for them to make it up when they don't know.






The vst majority do. Nearly all, like in my dangerous dogs case will admit when they don'tknow, however will come back with the answe from someone who does. A good officer, like any honest pesron and lets face it officers are supposed to be honest, will not make things up.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (10 Sep 2011)

Dave W said:


> I'll return to the thread only to say that I agree it was a crap example. It wasn't meant to be held up to internet scrutiny, simply to illustrate that with some things you can't please everyone. No one here knows the full facts of the case, me and ultimately my supervision did and it was deemed a no go. That doesn't make it the right decision but that's the decision that was taken.
> 
> The biggest mistake was seemingly trying to contribute to yet another thread on CC where the membership seem hell bent on ripping apart everything you post.
> 
> It really does make for a poor experience and it's not just because I'm a copper posting here. This place really is one of the most unfriendly and aggressive forums I have frequented.



Never used Usenet then?


----------



## Origamist (10 Sep 2011)

Back to the OP - could I reiterate some of the points made by CC as I have had to explain these terms to police officers, colleagues, friends, family etc 

The overwhelming majority of cyclists have no concept of the terms primary and secondary (even if they adopt similar road positions). If you're dealing with people who do not understand the terms, politely and clearly define them, but more importantly explain why you were in said position (IME people get too hung up on the nomenclature). Use examples to explain why you consider the position safer in certain dynamic traffic situations and by all means mention that this advice is enshrined in Cyclecraft which is recommended reading for the National Cycle Training Standard, but don't labour the point. Be prepared for people to disagree with you - don't be doctrinaire (point out some of the disadvantages of riding in primary, but counter them!). Some people can be persuaded, others will understand why you were riding the way you were, but still think it was a bad idea. In one case, I convinced a doubting friend to ride through pinch points with me in the centre of the lane and then again, close to the gutter, this practical demonstration worked far better than the theory...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Cubist said:


> What aren't? Coppers or FPN's?
> 
> Can I just point out, from the viewpoint of a 5 times commended Inspector who always tries to listen to reason, that Dave W's example was a crap one? He applied a threshold test (50/50) which should be applied to due care cases, to an offence absolute. He should have reported for summons in my opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Cubist said:


> Can I make sweeping statements about Derricks please?



If you drop err they are dicks


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> CC's original post about cyclist being angry about Police Officers not understanding Primary is a good one. Before I started cycling I had no idea about it either. As my experience and interest has expanded, I have become more knowledgeable about the safety issues involved and obviously, cycling law.
> 
> How many forumites can put thier hand up and say "I knew about Primary before I started cycling on a regular basis!" Not many I can tell you. How many of us would agree that not wearing a helmet would make us any less vulnerable in the event of a crash. That would again start a heated debate. How many teachers of history could step in and teach chemistry or PE or French? Not expected too either are they? So why do a lot of people expect officers to know and of dealt with every offence in the land?
> 
> ...


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

_Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?_

However difficult it is for the police to know everything, if the enforcers of the law don't know what they're enforcing, what hope do we have?


----------



## cjb (10 Sep 2011)

Best thread I've read for a while, congratulations to the OP. I'm new to road cycling after many years off-roading and I hadn't heard about primary and secondary either. It will be a long while before I have the confidence to ride anywhere other than next to the curb though. I think if the government are serious about promoting cycling (to work) they should think about spending some money on educating the car driving public.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> _Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?_
> 
> However difficult it is for the police to know everything, if the enforcers of the law don't know what they're enforcing, what hope do we have?



Why do you think there are lawyers who specialise in certain areas of the law?


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why do you think there are lawyers who specialise in certain areas of the law?



Because there is a difference between enforcing the law on the street and enforcing the law litigiously. It's somewhat unnerving to think that the person that could be doling out "summary justice" may not be wholly informed.


In terms of the OP, it would have made sense for a traffic/motorcycle policeman to speak to him.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> Because there is a difference between enforcing the law on the street and enforcing the law litigiously. It's somewhat unnerving to think that the person that could be doling out "summary justice" may not be wholly informed.
> 
> 
> In terms of the OP, it would have made sense for a traffic/motorcycle policeman to speak to him.



Police do not dole out summary justice (unless you live inside a 2000AD comic). The Police Officers who have posted here have portrayed themselves as human beings, fallible and flawed just like the rest of us. I admire that honesty. 

On another point, are you telling me that you know ever nuance of your job and would never have to reference anything?


----------



## apollo179 (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Police do not dole out summary justice (unless you live inside a 2000AD comic). The Police Officers who have posted here have portrayed themselves as human beings, fallible and flawed just like the rest of us. I admire that honesty.
> 
> On another point, are you telling me that you know ever nuance of your job and would never have to reference anything?



Well said.
The police are trained to be assertive and forcefull and this can sometimes be perceived as arrogant and overbearing. It may sometimes rub people the wrong way but the reality is that they have to be like this - they woudnt get very far going in like WPC Lorriane Kelly and PC Jedwood. Aside from the occasional glaring exception the police are ok and we should cut them some slack.
 for the police.


----------



## doog (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> Because there is a difference between enforcing the law on the street and enforcing the law litigiously. It's somewhat unnerving to think that the person that could be doling out "summary justice" may not be wholly informed.
> 
> 
> In terms of the OP, it would have made sense for a traffic/motorcycle policeman to speak to him.



summary justice is a'kick in the nuts' not a fixed penalty ticket




...bring back summary justice I say.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

doog said:


> summary justice is a'kick in the nuts' not a fixed penalty ticket
> 
> 
> 
> ...bring back summary justice I say.



Bring back the 1970's style policing you mean


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Police do not dole out summary justice (unless you live inside a 2000AD comic). The Police Officers who have posted here have portrayed themselves as human beings, fallible and flawed just like the rest of us. I admire that honesty.
> 
> On another point, are you telling me that you know ever nuance of your job and would never have to reference anything?


So what do you call the OP's admonishment by the policeman? The police are the physical representation of the law with all the responsibility that entails. I have not implied that the police are inhuman. But the problem is that you are trying to uphold and enforce the abstract concept of justice and then writing off your efforts by saying "Well, we're only human!" If we think like that, why have police at all? If you became a policeman you entered into this understanding. I could not be a policeman; that is why I am not one. 

I'm very glad they are there but telling someone that he was lucky not to be penalised when he was clearly the injured party is a threat towards summary justice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> So what do you call the OP's admonishment by the policeman? The police are the physical representation of the law with all the responsibility that entails. I have not implied that the police are inhuman. But the problem is that you are trying to uphold and enforce the abstract concept of justice and then writing off your efforts by saying "Well, we're only human!" If we think like that, why have police at all? If you became a policeman you entered into this understanding. I could not be a policeman; that is why I am not one.
> 
> I'm very glad they are there but telling someone that he was lucky not to be penalised when he was clearly the injured party is a threat towards summary justice.



The OP's experience was a bad one and I doubt very much if anyone here would disagree. However what her experienced was NOT summary justice. If the Police Officer had put the OP in cells for several nights that would have been summary justice.


----------



## davefb (10 Sep 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Never used Usenet then?



QFT.


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The OP's experience was a bad one and I doubt very much if anyone here would disagree. However what her experienced was NOT summary justice. If the Police Officer had put the OP in cells for several nights that would have been summary justice.





> Summary justice is a system in criminal law that punishes offenders in a speedy, informal manner without a court hearing or jury trial.




Like a Fixed Penalty Notice.

Summary justice isn't just "taking the law into our own hands" or killing a spy in Soviet Russia.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> Like a Fixed Penalty Notice.
> 
> Summary justice isn't just "taking the law into our own hands" or killing a spy in Soviet Russia.



You can appeal an FPN. You can not appeal being killed (to my knowledge anyway).


----------



## G-Zero (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why do you think there are lawyers who specialise in certain areas of the law?



Just to add to that, there are also cops who specialise in certain aspects of "Policing" ie. Collision Investigation, Forensics, Crime Investigation, Traffic, Family Liaison etc. It takes a lot of training and years of experience to become very competent in any area of these specialist roles and due to the lower numbers involved, they tend to be utilised, only in more serious cases. 

Hopefully without sounding disrespectful to CopperCyclist and forum colleagues, 24/7 response (panda) crews tend to be younger in service and less experienced, and have to be "jacks of all trades" for want of a better phrase. 
You can't possibly turn out a fully fledged and fully experienced cop, after only two years probation and ask them to be fully conversant with every act and section, of every law.... it just can't be done !

Experience is gained over time.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

G-Zero said:


> Just to add to that, there are also cops who specialise in certain aspects of "Policing" ie. Collision Investigation, Forensics, Crime Investigation, Traffic, Family Liaison etc. It takes a lot of training and years of experience to become very competent in any area of these specialist roles and due to the lower numbers involved, they tend to be utilised, only in more serious cases.
> 
> Hopefully without sounding disrespectful to CopperCyclist and forum colleagues, 24/7 response (panda) crews tend to be younger in service and less experienced, and have to be "jacks of all trades" for want of a better phrase.
> You can't possibly turn out a fully fledged and fully experienced cop, after only two years probation and ask them to be fully conversant with every act and section, of every law.... it just can't be done !
> ...



Amen to that.


----------



## BSRU (10 Sep 2011)

We should remember an officer is a finite resource, the more time they spend filling in paper work back at base the less time they are acting as a deterrent on our streets.

If we want officers to give the required time to investigate everything, from the very minor to the very serious, we need to pay more taxes for more officers and reduce unnecessary paperwork.


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You can appeal an FPN. You can not appeal being killed (to my knowledge anyway).



That doesn't nullify the definition of summary justice. A summary execution is a _type_ of summary justice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> That doesn't nullify the definition of summary justice. A summary execution is a _type[/] of summary justice.
> 
> 
> 
> _


_

Have you had bad experiences with the Police per chance?_


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

G-Zero said:


> Just to add to that, there are also cops who specialise in certain aspects of "Policing" ie. Collision Investigation, Forensics, Crime Investigation, Traffic, Family Liaison etc. It takes a lot of training and years of experience to become very competent in any area of these specialist roles and due to the lower numbers involved, they tend to be utilised, only in more serious cases.
> 
> Hopefully without sounding disrespectful to CopperCyclist and forum colleagues, 24/7 response (panda) crews tend to be younger in service and less experienced, and have to be "jacks of all trades" for want of a better phrase.
> You can't possibly turn out a fully fledged and fully experienced cop, after only two years probation and ask them to be fully conversant with every act and section, of every law.... it just can't be done !
> ...



So why didn't they send someone more experienced? BSRU's case isn't one of the usual bump 'n' shunts in Swindon? I really think a motorcycle copper would've had a better understanding.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> So why didn't they send someone more experienced? BSRU's case isn't one of the usual bump 'n' shunts in Swindon? I really think a motorcycle copper would've had a better understanding.



Any number of reasons. Road Traffic fatalities, the chasing of a murderer escaped in a car. Just use your imagination FFS.


----------



## apollo179 (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Any number of reasons. Road Traffic fatalities, the chasing of a murderer escaped in a car. Just use your imagination FFS.



Fair comment - you cant expect to be dealt with by a policeman whos a cycle specialist. It gets dealt with by whoevers available / nearest.


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Have you had bad experiences with the Police per chance?



Not at all, and this attitude is not helpful. My point is sound; I just don't accept the "our brave boys" rhetoric. Just because you or someone you know is a copper that does not make them untouchable due to a skewed morality. I am grateful for what they do but that does not elevate them above me. Their role is to enforce the law; that did not occur here.

As I said, there's more to this case than to most RTAs. I think the case was mismanaged; I'd appeal it. The policeman who spoke to the OP should never have been sent in the first place.

I don't see how anything I've said could be construed as an _ad hominem_ attack, which is how I feel it's been seen.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> Not at all, and this attitude is not helpful. My point is sound; I just don't accept the "our brave boys" rhetoric. Just because you or someone you know is a copper that does not make them untouchable to due a skewed morality. I am grateful for what they do but that does not elevate them above me. Their role is to enforce the law; that did not occur here.
> 
> As I said, there's more to this case than to most RTAs. I think the case was mismanaged; I'd appeal it. The policeman who spoke to the OP should never have been sent in the first place.
> 
> I don't see how anything I've said could be construed as an _ad hominem_ attack, which is how I feel it's been seen.



Yes, the OP had a raw deal and he has grounds to appeal. The case is not over. Summary Justice has not been served in the slightest.


----------



## twobiker (10 Sep 2011)

Dixon of Dock Green or Regan, there's just no pleasing some people.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Dixon of Dock Green or Regan, there's just no pleasing some people.



Let us not forget Gene Hunt!


----------



## apollo179 (10 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Let us not forget Gene Hunt!



Juliet Bravo.


----------



## Adasta (10 Sep 2011)

Adasta said:


> I'm very glad they are there but telling someone that he was lucky not to be penalised when he was clearly the injured party is a threat towards summary justice.



That's what I said. I did not said it had been done. The definition of summary justice is the definition of summary justice. What you think about that is irrelevant, really.


I don't know why you take every comment about the police to heart, but that's your choice. But don't start getting tetchy at me about it. All I said is that a traffic cop should have dealt with it. If a panda car copper is too inexperienced to deal with it, then he shouldn't have been sent. I realise the police are busy, but I'm sure a motorcycle cop could've been sent at some point.


----------



## Red Light (10 Sep 2011)

From reading this thread it seems to me there are two things the police could usefully do to improve matters:


If you know the law, apply it. If you don't don't make the law up. Either let it go for trivial matters or find out for serious ones
Just because you have to deal with a lot of the lowest lifeforms in society don't assume everyone you encounter is one of them. So don't treat that cyclist you are dealing with as if they have a hidden career as a drug crazed gun running hardened criminal. Most people are just ordinary people and deserve to be treated as such.


----------



## twobiker (10 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> From reading this thread it seems to me there are two things the police could usefully do to improve matters:
> 
> 
> If you know the law, apply it. If you don't don't make the law up. Either let it go for trivial matters or find out for serious ones
> Just because you have to deal with a lot of the lowest lifeforms in society don't assume everyone you encounter is one of them. So don't treat that cyclist you are dealing with as if they have a hidden career as a drug crazed gun running hardened criminal.  Most people are just ordinary people and deserve to be treated as such.


----------



## twobiker (10 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Juliet Bravo.


----------



## apollo179 (10 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


>



Shed kick your ass.


----------



## snailracer (10 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> ...If you know the law, apply it. If you don't don't make the law up...


Steady on there, a good chunk of the legal system exists mainly to interpret and argue about what the law is or when certain laws should be applied. Even a panel of High Court judges can disagree, whereupon a verdict goes by a majority vote, which is absurd if you think about it.

If the law was so obvious, lawyers would not be necessary. You can not reasonably expect a policeman in the street to know much about the law.

Every now and then, a court will find a cyclist guilty of "obstruction" for riding in primary. To date, these have always been cleared on appeal to a higher court, nonetheless it proves that if a court can get the law wrong, then it is entirely unrealistic to expect the police to always get it right.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

Well said Snailracer.


----------



## BSRU (10 Sep 2011)

I have to say that in my recent incident an officer was only dispatched because the driver was standing next to me getting agitated and clenching his fists, by the time the officer arrived the driver had left the scene.
On reflection, as soon as driver left, for the second time, I should have contacted the police to inform them there was no need to send anyone.

I actually expected just to report it then receive a witness statement to fill in then let traffic section deal with it, as they did last October.


----------



## twobiker (10 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Shed kick your ass.


You would expect to pay extra for that round here.


----------



## PoweredByVeg (10 Sep 2011)

This is what we need, more Bobbies on bicycles  Evenin' all


----------



## classic33 (10 Sep 2011)

PoweredByVeg said:


> This is what we need, more Bobbies on bicycles  Evenin' all



Nah, at least not like that. They're riding four abreast & one (2nd from the back on the right) is even cycling with the stand down!


----------



## PoweredByVeg (10 Sep 2011)

Didn't notice that, but imagine what they're like with the blues&twos going


----------



## pshore (11 Sep 2011)

This reminds me ...

The other week I was waiting on the pavement of a 30mph zone round a slight bend. I just happened to be wearing my motorcycle gear: black trousers, hi-viz yellow jacket, not unlike the pic above. 

I reckon about one third of the cars were hard on the brakes as they spotted me. I was only about 500 yards past a speed camera but nearish to where it changes to 40mph.

I couldn't decide if I was about to cause a crash or doing a public service.


----------



## Vikeonabike (11 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> From reading this thread it seems to me there are two things the police could usefully do to improve matters:
> 
> 
> If you know the law, apply it. If you don't don't make the law up. Either let it go for trivial matters or find out for serious ones
> Just because you have to deal with a lot of the lowest lifeforms in society don't assume everyone you encounter is one of them. So don't treat that cyclist you are dealing with as if they have a hidden career as a drug crazed gun running hardened criminal. Most people are just ordinary people and deserve to be treated as such.



Exactly the way it should be...no arguments from me RL.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (11 Sep 2011)

this is relevant to this thread


----------



## gaz (11 Sep 2011)

User said:


> I would also add:
> 
> 3. The person the officer is dealing with may also know more about the relevant law than the officer. When someone politely points out the law, don't get arsey with them. *Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make the member of the public wrong*.



going by recent threads here, it does


----------



## Dan B (11 Sep 2011)

User said:


> I would also add:
> 
> 3. The person the officer is dealing with may also know more about the relevant law than the officer. When someone politely points out the law, don't get arsey with them. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make the member of the public wrong.


Ah, but arguing with the police means you fail the "attitude test", so are ipso facto wrong and deserve to be punished.


----------



## snailracer (11 Sep 2011)

User said:


> I would also add:
> 
> 3. The person the officer is dealing with may also know more about the relevant law than the officer. When someone politely points out the law, don't get arsey with them. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make the member of the public wrong.


Too bad there won't be a judge in attendance to decide whose argument takes precedence.


----------



## classic33 (11 Sep 2011)

User said:


> I've never failed the attitude test, but have on occasion advised police officer of relevant offences - and one case reminded them they were obliged to breathalyse a driver who had hit a cyclist. That particular officer got a bit arsey - but his colleague reigned him in...



Closest I've come whilst riding a bike was indicating my intention to slow down/stop. Driver of the police car insisted that what I'd actually been doing was indicating a left turn. He'd cut across me at a junction where the main road continued to the right. 

In order to avoid me he ended up entering the junction on the wrong side of the road, claiming it was my fault! for not turning left.


----------



## Bicycle (11 Sep 2011)

classic33 said:


> Closest I've come whilst riding a bike was indicating my intention to slow down/stop. Driver of the police car insisted that what I'd actually been doing was indicating a left turn. He'd cut across me at a junction where the main road continued to the right.
> 
> In order to avoid me he ended up entering the junction on the wrong side of the road, claiming it was my fault! for not turning left.




Bizarre he didn't mistake it for a right-turn signal....

Why would you indicate a left turn with your right hand?

(I learned all this stuff in the 70s, so forgive me if my knowledge of hand signals is out of date - I thought the _'slow down or stop'_ one was right arm, palm downwards)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Sep 2011)

Slowing down is indicated in the UK by pointing the right arm out, palm down and moving the arm up and down.


----------



## Bicycle (11 Sep 2011)

That's what I meant. (See my earlier post).

Odd then that a policeman would mistake it for _'I intent to move or turn to the left'_ which is normally done by wearing an SWP or WRP lapel badge and speaking out against Capitalism...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Sep 2011)

Is the OP from the UK? If not I can understand, if not I am at a loss. Also I am sorry but I misread your post as my sleeping tablets are kicking in


----------



## CopperCyclist (11 Sep 2011)

Yeah weird one. Its similiar to the arm signal suggested if driving a car, but as you weren't moot point.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Yeah weird one. Its similiar to the arm signal suggested if driving a car, but as you weren't moot point.


I was under the impression that the signal was valid on any form of transport. Is that not the case?


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Sep 2011)

Slowing down: Right arm extended, palm down. Move palm up and down.

Turning left, while in a motor vehicle: Right arm extended, circular motion with hand. 

Interestingly (FSVO interestingly) the pdf here says the signals are also for use by pedal cyclists and those in charge of horses. I find if I want to show I'm turning left, I stick my left arm out.


----------



## classic33 (11 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Is the OP from the UK? If not I can understand, if not I am at a loss. Also I am sorry but I misread your post as my sleeping tablets are kicking in




From the UK, but its one Iv'e never worked out yet.


----------



## Bobtoo (12 Sep 2011)

Tim Hall said:


> Interestingly (FSVO interestingly) the pdf here says the signals are also for use by pedal cyclists and those in charge of horses. I find if I want to show I'm turning left, I stick my left arm out.



They've got a cheek using the Crystal Mark on their literature (something I've pointed out to them before on another issue). It's the motorbike signals that apply to cyclists and horse riders, but you would never know by reading that.


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was under the impression that the signal was valid on any form of transport. Is that not the case?



Well its valid, but why wouldn't you just use the left arm, so I don't think many would be expecting it


----------



## BSRU (12 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Well its valid, but why wouldn't you just use the left arm, so I don't think many would be expecting it



I do not think the vast majority of road users would have a clue, they would just assume right arm out their turning right, palm down or circular motions would not make any difference.


----------



## Red Light (12 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> I do not think the vast majority of road users would have a clue, they would just assume right arm out their turning right, palm down or circular motions would not make any difference.



Brings back to mind the old joke about those two indications meaning "I'm drying my nail varnish"


----------



## BSRU (12 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Brings back to mind the old joke about those two indications meaning "I'm drying my nail varnish"



Hopefully saturn yellow or scotchlite nail varnish.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Well its valid, but why wouldn't you just use the left arm, so I don't think many would be expecting it



Sorry misread your post last night. Ignore me


----------



## classic33 (12 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> I do not think the vast majority of road users would have a clue, they would just assume right arm out their turning right, palm down or circular motions would not make any difference.



The main road went to the right, so if I was staying on the main road, I'd have no need to signal. I wasn't travelling at any great speed, nor was the police car behind me. 

Got a bit uncomfortable with it following so close, at the speed I was doing, faster traffic passing, I decide to pull in & let it go. Right arm gave the signal but my intention was to move to the left, the kerb, and let it go past. It did pass but on the wrong side of the road entering a junction


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Sorry misread your post last night. Ignore me



Never! You're normally the one making most sense!


----------



## locker (13 Sep 2011)

classic33 said:


> Nah, at least not like that. They're riding four abreast & one (2nd from the back on the right) is even cycling with the stand down!



Also Coppers riding no handed like this


View: http://youtu.be/mhnYvD33UjE


----------



## locker (13 Sep 2011)

snailracer said:


> Steady on there, a good chunk of the legal system exists mainly to interpret and argue about what the law is or when certain laws should be applied. Even a panel of High Court judges can disagree, whereupon a verdict goes by a majority vote, which is absurd if you think about it.
> 
> If the law was so obvious, lawyers would not be necessary. You can not reasonably expect a policeman in the street to know much about the law.
> 
> Every now and then, a court will find a cyclist guilty of "obstruction" for riding in primary. To date, these have always been cleared on appeal to a higher court, nonetheless it proves that if a court can get the law wrong, then it is entirely unrealistic to expect the police to always get it right.



*"then it is entirely unrealistic to expect the police to always get it right."*
*
*
*Like this*
*
*

View: http://youtu.be/Vy9aHV9RufM


*
*


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

locker said:


> *"then it is entirely unrealistic to expect the police to always get it right."*
> *
> *
> *Like this*
> ...




Tbf the policeman did apologise and sounds quite polite and ok from the beginning. Hes there to do a job - in this case he was mistaken and just did the sensible thing when he realised he was mistaken and apologised. For me that shows him off quite well.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

locker said:


> *"then it is entirely unrealistic to expect the police to always get it right."*
> *
> *
> *Like this*
> ...




I have to say that the Police Officer holds the moral high ground in that discourse. Polite and apologetic. No bad attitude what so ever.


----------



## snailracer (13 Sep 2011)

Also *entirely unrealistic*:


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

snailracer said:


> Also *entirely unrealistic*:



Love it


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Tbf the policeman did apologise and sounds quite polite and ok from the beginning. Hes there to do a job - in this case he was mistaken and just did the sensible thing when he realised he was mistaken and apologised. For me that shows him off quite well.



+1


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> +1



Heres a question for you. When the police come to your house , if it is your custom for visitors to remove their shoes , can you ask the police to remove there shoes ?
Ive always wondered but have always been too on the defensive to broach the subject.


----------



## Bicycle (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Heres a question for you. When the police come to your house , if it is your custom for visitors to remove their shoes , can you ask the police to remove there shoes ?
> Ive always wondered but have always been too on the defensive to broach the subject.



We always remove our shoes in the house.

Friends and friends of our children always remove their shoes; we ask them.

We've never asked deliverymen, tradesmen, doctors or members of the emergency services (or midwives) to do so.

On reflection, it would just seem a little odd to ask. Also maybe a little rude.

I'm not sure why I think that.


----------



## totallyfixed (13 Sep 2011)

In the small town where I live I observed about 8 children between 2 Bikeability Instructors riding within a foot or so of the pavement [as were the instructors], not only an invitation for a car to try and squeeze past some wobbly young riders but also a real danger of one of them catching their pedal on the pavement edge.
On another note, I ride in a club that has 3 policewomen as members and non of them, or the rest of the members have ever heard of primary or secondary, so how the heck are car drivers supposed to understand? The answer of course is common sense, as seasoned riders we know instinctively the correct position to adopt for any particular situation. The same will apply to a thoughtful driver, unfortunately there are not enough thoughtful drivers and too many cyclists who are intimidated by traffic.
Only greater numbers of cyclists on the road will eventually solve the problem, it's interesting to note that the three countries that are the worst to cycle in are the UK, USA and Australia - all English speaking. Good honest post Coppercyclist, now we need a country wide information blitz preferably led by the government. I live in hope.


----------



## growingvegetables (14 Sep 2011)

> When the police come to your house , if it is your custom for visitors to remove their shoes , can you ask the police to remove there shoes ?



Yes. No guarantees on the answer, though! 

But full marks to the officers we've had dealings with who stopped at the door, and asked the simple "Do you have any customs you'd like us to follow?" or equivalent.


----------



## Vikeonabike (14 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Heres a question for you. When the police come to your house , if it is your custom for visitors to remove their shoes , can you ask the police to remove there shoes ?
> Ive always wondered but have always been too on the defensive to broach the subject.




I've only ever been asked twice in about 7 years. I will always appologise for not removing my shoes and have only once had anybody refuse me entry because of that. 

I will not remove my shoes whilst I'm at work for the same reasons as I would not take off my belt kit and body armour.


So yes you can ask, however, unless it's a pre-arranged visit of a non uniformed officer for something like a meeting over local community matters (You are more likely to get the inspector to take off thier shoes than your PC) then for Safety reasons you will be unlikely to get an officer to take off his shoes. That's not to say, once hes risked assesed the situation he won't dump shoes, body armour and belt kit on the floor put his feet up on your sofa with a cup of tea and watch the cricket with you


----------



## apollo179 (14 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> We always remove our shoes in the house.
> 
> Friends and friends of our children always remove their shoes; we ask them.
> 
> ...



Similar situation here. 
Im not sure about being odd or rude but you could argue that some people you invite to your house it is your responsibility to accomodate them and adapt to their requirements for a one off visit.
Re the police - when they turn up unexpected and uninvited it sometimes seems that any sensitivity to issues like taking shoes off arnt considered and there in reality isnt any opportunity for asking about shoes. Its ok if you choose not to request people to remove there shoes but another thing when events take a mind of their own.
In these circumstances nobody want particularly to aggravate the police but i was genuinely wondering if it is ok to ask the police to remove there shoes before they come in.
Extreme example to illustrate : if there are 20 police coming in with a warrant to search premises do you have a right to insist they remove their shoes ?
I suspect not.
Not an anti police question btw.
Just curious.
 for the police.


----------



## apollo179 (14 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Yes. No guarantees on the answer, though!
> 
> But full marks to the officers we've had dealings with who stopped at the door, and asked the simple "Do you have any customs you'd like us to follow?" or equivalent.



Thats very pleasing to hear .


----------



## apollo179 (14 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> I've only ever been asked twice in about 7 years. I will always appologise for not removing my shoes and have only once had anybody refuse me entry because of that.
> 
> I will not remove my shoes whilst I'm at work for the same reasons as I would not take off my belt kit and body armour.
> 
> ...



Thanks Vikeonabike youve answered my question which is what i thought.
Actually what i though was that with a warrant the answer would be no but without a warrant if you said "come in only if you take your shoes off" then i thought then maybe.
Anyway thanks.
Not worried about the body armour or belt.


----------



## bottombracket (14 Sep 2011)

PoweredByVeg said:


>



riding 4 abreast?

Surely 3 X 2 abreast... just not exactly in line astern.

No wonder car drivers shout at us if cyclists don't even understand it... 

Some interesting posts BTW


----------



## CopperCyclist (14 Sep 2011)

I've actually been in both situations:

Called to a house and asked to remove shoes. No cultural reasons, just a houseproud owner with a plush white carpet! I politely declined, explaining my reasoning that I may at any point have to run out of their house to an emergency call, and the two minutes it would take me to put my boots back on would hold me up. I was also privately thinking of safety reasons, like VikeonaBike but decided not to mention this - its got a strange ring to it to suggest I may be in danger in their household. I offered to give the householder a lift to the station and ensure either I would give them a lift back or arrange transport as an alternative - they politely declined, and suggested we speak in their conservatory instead, which we did.

I've also been conducting a search under Section 17 PACE for an offender for an assault (for the unitiated this normally suggests an unplanned, spur of the moment search which applies here). Family members present had a prayer room, and tried to refuse us entry to this room unless we removed our shoes. I initially politely declined, and eventually had to calmly and assertively decline, and walked into the room to find the chap hiding behind a (religious?) wall hanging. To be fair, he was shoeless. The family did make a complaint, but it didn't go anywhere.

Ooh - just remembered ONCE when I have. There was a special day at a Sikh Temple - forgive my ignorance for forgetting what the day was. They invited the police to join them. I and a sergeant went for community relations purposes. For this day I wasn't on a car, and wouldn't be called to anything else. They requested removal of shoes, and we both did so. They also treated us extremely well, don't think I've ever had so much food!


----------



## classic33 (14 Sep 2011)

bottombracket said:


> riding 4 abreast?
> 
> Surely 3 X 2 abreast... just not exactly in line astern.
> 
> ...




3 X 2 equals 6, there's seven police bikes in the picture.


----------



## bottombracket (14 Sep 2011)

classic33 said:


> 3 X 2 equals 6, there's seven police bikes in the picture.



oops...

Yep, I missed the wheelsucker at the back


----------



## Red Light (14 Sep 2011)

classic33 said:


> 3 X 2 equals 6, there's seven police bikes in the picture.



I count nine and all wearing helmets. Clearly taken this pedestrian helmets thing to heart.


----------



## bottombracket (14 Sep 2011)

Are those pedestrian helmets the new-fangled aero helmets?


----------



## Shut Up Legs (14 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> If the rider was in the Primary and holding up traffic then that would be wrong, like a driver doing 20mph in a 60 for no reason,also if they say why they were in the Primary after an accident surely they leave themselves open to the questioning as to whether they should have been riding like that for those conditions. It becomes one persons descision against the others as to if it was safe,



With respect, I don't completely agree with that, because there are situations where assuming Primary lane position is justified even in busy traffic. For example, I always assume Primary position approaching and navigating through a roundabout, because I don't feel safe using roundabouts in any other manner. I also assume Primary when going through any pinch-point, e.g. sections of road where a single lane is bounded by kerb on the left and traffic island on the right.


----------



## classic33 (14 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> I count nine and all wearing helmets. Clearly taken this pedestrian helmets thing to heart.




Just done a recount & I can still only count seven bikes. There not carrying passengers by any chance?

Since when did bicycles have to wear helmets anyway?


----------



## Red Light (15 Sep 2011)

classic33 said:


> Just done a recount & I can still only count seven bikes. There not carrying passengers by any chance?
> 
> Since when did bicycles have to wear helmets anyway?



You've missed the two coppers standing on the street in the background wearing helmets of the pointy variety. OK, yes, its police not bikes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

victor said:


> With respect, I don't completely agree with that, because there are situations where assuming Primary lane position is justified even in busy traffic. For example, I always assume Primary position approaching and navigating through a roundabout, because I don't feel safe using roundabouts in any other manner. I also assume Primary when going through any pinch-point, e.g. sections of road where a single lane is bounded by kerb on the left and traffic island on the right.



Unless primary is for your safety there is no need to hold it any longer than necessary.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I've actually been in both situations:
> 
> Called to a house and asked to remove shoes. No cultural reasons, just a houseproud owner with a plush white carpet! I politely declined, explaining my reasoning that I may at any point have to run out of their house to an emergency call, and the two minutes it would take me to put my boots back on would hold me up. I was also privately thinking of safety reasons, like VikeonaBike but decided not to mention this - its got a strange ring to it to suggest I may be in danger in their household. I offered to give the householder a lift to the station and ensure either I would give them a lift back or arrange transport as an alternative - they politely declined, and suggested we speak in their conservatory instead, which we did.
> 
> ...



The white carpet guy is understandable.
The muslim case illustrates the sensitivity - for example what about entering a mosque - however i can see that as the representative agents of the state the police must have the right to enter any premises in appropriate circumstances and removing shoes isnt appropriate and shoudnt be taken offence at. I wonder what the police do in muslim countries.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The white carpet guy is understandable.
> The muslim case illustrates the sensitivity - for example what about entering a mosque - however i can see that as the representative agents of the state the police must have the right to enter any premises in appropriate circumstances and removing shoes isnt appropriate and shoudnt be taken offence at. I wonder what the police do in muslim countries.



This reminds me a little of the right of sanctuary in a church. Great idea in principle but in reality it is never going to work. If a search warrant is being carried out it is laughable to expect the officers to remove their shoes.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This reminds me a little of the right of sanctuary in a church. Great idea in principle but in reality it is never going to work. If a search warrant is being carried out it is laughable to expect the officers to remove their shoes.



Yes agreed - in alot of ways i have more sympathy with the white carpet bloke.


----------



## PedAntics (15 Sep 2011)

I contacted the police yesterday in regards to a chap, front passenger, lunging out of a passing car as it passed me. The incident was dealt with swiftly. It was a positive experience with one of the officers updating me having visited the vehicle owner. It turned out it was a new driver who admitted the incident alongwith harasing other road users. He's now on record for 12 mths, he is responsible being the vehicle owner, hopefully this'll be a lesson learned. The officers were polite, friendly and very helpful. I understand this is not everyones experience, numerous -ve comments in thread, however credit where it's due. 

I did ask the two officers if they'd heard of primary and secondary riding positions and drew a blank expression from both. I did my bit and explained the rational and cited examples. Both agreed it made sense, will they remember - who knows?

For the record neither officer was asked to remove his shoes when entering my home. A bit cheeky wiping their feet on the way out though!


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

PedAntics said:


> I contacted the police yesterday in regards to a chap, front passenger, lunging out of a passing car as it passed me. The incident was dealt with swiftly. It was a positive experience with one of the officers updating me having visited the vehicle owner. It turned out it was a new driver who admitted the incident alongwith harasing other road users. He's now on record for 12 mths, he is responsible being the vehicle owner, hopefully this'll be a lesson learned. The officers were polite, friendly and very helpful. I understand this is not everyones experience, numerous -ve comments in thread, however credit where it's due.
> 
> I did ask the two officers if they'd heard of primary and secondary riding positions and drew a blank expression from both. I did my bit and explained the rational and cited examples. Both agreed it made sense, will they remember - who knows?
> 
> For the record neither officer was asked to remove his shoes when entering my home. A bit cheeky wiping their feet on the way out though!


Thats good to hear.
+ for the police.


----------



## benb (15 Sep 2011)

PedAntics said:


> I contacted the police yesterday in regards to a chap, front passenger, lunging out of a passing car as it passed me. The incident was dealt with swiftly. It was a positive experience with one of the officers updating me having visited the vehicle owner. It turned out it was a new driver who admitted the incident alongwith harasing other road users. He's now on record for 12 mths, he is responsible being the vehicle owner, hopefully this'll be a lesson learned. The officers were polite, friendly and very helpful. I understand this is not everyones experience, numerous -ve comments in thread, however credit where it's due.
> 
> I did ask the two officers if they'd heard of primary and secondary riding positions and drew a blank expression from both. I did my bit and explained the rational and cited examples. Both agreed it made sense, will they remember - who knows?
> 
> For the record neither officer was asked to remove his shoes when entering my home. A bit cheeky wiping their feet on the way out though!



Good stuff. I sometimes think we concentrate on the negatives too often, so thanks for relaying a positive story.


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> You've missed the two coppers standing on the street in the background wearing helmets of the pointy variety. OK, yes, its police not bikes.



Didn't miss them, the one on the left(riders right) looks as though he can see something out of shot.

Is it a "dry run" for the Olympics next year. Bikes used in place of motor vehichles due to cuts in the police budget.


----------



## Twigman (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Why should an over taking car be on the otherside of the road ? Leaving a car sized gap does not mean going to the wrong side of the road. Also what is it with cyclists being happy to squeeze through tiny gaps between cars to get to the front of traffic lights and hold people up when the lights go green , but when a car overtakes them they expect a massive gap and a car to wait behind them at 12 mph for as long as it takes.



I interpret Rule 163 not as giving cyclists a whole car's width ie on the other side of the road but that the gap between my vehicle and them be as great as it might be if I was overtaking a car. This results in probably around 0.5m gap. That's as much room as I give a car when I overtake it so should be adequate for a cyclist.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> I interpret Rule 163 not as giving cyclists a whole car's width ie on the other side of the road but that the gap between my vehicle and them be as great as it might be if I was overtaking a car. This results in probably around 0.5m gap. That's as much room as I give a car when I overtake it so should be adequate for a cyclist.



Would you be happy with that gap if you were on your bike and a car overtook you?


----------



## Twigman (16 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you be happy with that gap if you were on your bike and a car overtook you?



It happens often and I've no complaints


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> It happens often and I've no complaints



Fair enough. I would prefer closer to a meter if the road allows it but 0.5 meters is acceptable if not desirable IMO.


----------



## guttertrash (16 Sep 2011)

0.5 meters @ 30mph is fine, however 0.5 meters at > 30 mph will scare the living daylights out of you.


----------



## snailracer (16 Sep 2011)

0.5m is not enough if the cyclist wobbles or swerves, or even puts out their arm to signal. According to the HC, the overtaking motorist should anticipate that possibility.


*"213*
_Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."_


----------



## Mad at urage (16 Sep 2011)

0.5 metres is fine? So if the cyclist avoids a pothole as you pass, it's fine to hit them? Or if they hit the pothole as you pass because you force them into it, then that's fine too? If the pothole causes them to fall under your wheels that's fine?

You have heard of a slipstream I guess: If your passing breeze causes them to swerve and fall under the following car is that fine? 

If it's your son or daughter that happens to, that's fine too?

Pass me at 30mph just 19 and a half inches away, I just might swerve and dig my offside bar into your precious car - suction from that slipstream you know! I guess that is also fine.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> 0.5 metres is fine? So if the cyclist avoids a pothole as you pass, it's fine to hit them? Or if they hit the pothole as you pass because you force them into it, then that's fine too? If the pothole causes them to fall under your wheels that's fine?
> 
> You have heard of a slipstream I guess: If your passing breeze causes them to swerve and fall under the following car is that fine?
> 
> ...



Frustrating thing is that 0.5 meters to some drivers is a generous amount of space. When on the MTB (with wide DH Risers bars) I have actually made contact with passing cars (thank the gods for bar ends). Sure it cost them more than it cost me.


----------



## Twigman (16 Sep 2011)

it's like shooting fish in a barrel



0.5m is as much room as I give a car - should be enough for any vehicle.

A miss is as good as a mile


----------



## snailracer (16 Sep 2011)




----------



## Dan B (16 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> it's like shooting fish in a barrel


Wet, smelly, inhumane, and entirely unsporting


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Wet, smelly, inhumane, and entirely unsporting


You aren't that bad Dan


----------



## snailracer (16 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Wet, smelly, inhumane, and entirely unsporting


Yeah, we'll get the RSPCA onto him.


----------



## Mad at urage (16 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> *it's like shooting fish in a barrel
> *
> 
> 
> ...


So you admit to trolling :troll: ? Must feel so *good* to be a troll :troll:!! Congratulations on your lifestyle choice  .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> So you admit to trolling :troll: ? Must feel so *good* to be a troll :troll:!! Congratulations on your lifestyle choice  .


Seems like a popular lifestyle choice at the mo


----------



## Amanda P (16 Sep 2011)

I've just spent far too long reading this thread, and it's fascinating.

Congrats to CycleCopper for starting it off and being so honest - and calm in the face of some robust criticisim. You're clearly the kind of copper we need more of - open minded and willing to change your approach in the light of what you've learned.

You're not alone either - Mrs Uncle Phil and I were stopped last winter for using primary along a particularly dodgy stretch of road. The chap who stopped us was trying to advise us that it was safer to stick to the gutter, but did ask why we asds in the middle of the lane, holding up traffic?

I pointed out that we WERE traffic, and explained (briefly) why we were taking up the whole lane. He made to interrupt once, but heard me out. He didn't argue, or reply, but left us with a curt "well, go careful". I'd like to think he learned something that evening.


----------



## benb (16 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> it's like shooting fish in a barrel
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pathetic. Welcome to ignore.


----------



## apollo179 (16 Sep 2011)

I got stopped in richmond park today by a met police for cycling on the grass. Previously i might have been miffed by this and come out with the usual "havnt the police got better things to be doing with their time" nonsense but now i am kind of warmed by the fact that the police are actively protecting the park and that all the rules are regarded as worthy of enforcement.
I explained that i was unaware of the rule and that i was just going onto the grass for a bite to eat to which the policeman correctly replied that i would have to walk the bike which i did.
The most cyclists ive ever seen in the park today.


----------



## Recycler (17 Sep 2011)

I've only just returned to cycling after a gap of 4 decades so all this is very new to me....I hadn't even heard of "primary" and "secondary" positions until a week ago when, on this site, I was also advised to get hold of John Frankilns "Cyclecraft" book. I have been reading it and it makes sense but it is very difficult to put into practice. All my instincts are to hug the gutter, even though I can understand that it is better to move out.

Time will tell. 

I just hope that the 4x4 driver who went passed me today, with a caravan in tow, leaving about 100mm for me learns to give room to people.


----------

