Police, primary and politness

[Parrot of Doom]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

+1

 

[clarion]

Excellent points, Red Light

 

[Wankelschrauben]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

If unsure, the default position is the primary position.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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]

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]

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

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.