Police, primary and politness

[lukesdad]

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

 

[middleagecyclist]

that allow me to razz around safely.

I rest my case

-1

 

[doog]

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]

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]

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

 

[Cubist]

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]

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]

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

 

[Red Light]

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

 

[Cubist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Cubist]

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.