Police, primary and politness

[Angelfishsolo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[CopperCyclist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.