Debate with roadsafelondon (long)

[Tinuts]

I recently reported an incident to http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/.

You can view the video here:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0z4JIBln8s


I got a swift reply:

Many thanks for this notification.

I have viewed the video footage of this incident and subsequently invited other officers to give an opinion. The concensus was that the man's driving was not unreasonable in the circumstances but his subsequent ranting was.

As there was well over a cars width of unobstructed road to your left, you could have been further to the left as mentioned in Highway Code Rule 160 which says;

'Keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road.'

S. 78 Highways Act 1835 creates an offence of 'Interrupting the free passage along a highway'. This legislation is used (rarely) to deal with a moving obstruction such as a cyclist riding far from the left and preventing a motor vehicle from passing and this is worth bearing in mind should traffic build up.

I am aware that a cyclist needs to be sure an overtaking car will not squeeze them into the kerb and I accept temporarily restricting an overtake until a wide enough gap is found is self-preservation but, in this case, there was plenty of room to allow the overtake.

A letter will be sent to the driver regarding his behaviour.

All the best

Matthew Brimilcombe
A/Inspector
Roadsafe London

This is my reply to Matthew Brimilcombe:

Hi Matthew

Thanks for your swift reply and for deciding to contact the subject of my complaint about his behaviour.

I have to say though, that I disagree somewhat with your interpretation of the law.

Highway Code rule 163 states:

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

[Picture of suggested overtaking distance]

As you can see 21s into the video I am actually cycling just inside the bus stop (once I've cleared the area covered by the central island) and not impeding the driver's progress at all. As I point out, there is no oncoming traffic so the driver should have given me (as stated in Rule 163) at least as much space as a car by pulling into or, at least, over towards, the opposite lane. He did not do that, nor did he use his indicator to announce his intention to overtake (as also stated in Rule 163). In fact, he passed me dangerously closely. I could have reached out and touched his car as he passed.

You will also notice that the bus stop I am cycling through is quickly followed by a restricted parking zone. I cycle this road regularly and there is often stationary traffic parked there. As I had to wait for the bus to pass this area before it became clear whether it was occupied it was quite prudent, and totally acceptable, for me to continue my line to avoid any problematic weaving in and out between potential parked cars. As cyclists have to be constantly alert to the possibility of motorists opening doors of parked cars directly in their path (which, although not uncommon, is also illegal) my keeping the given line until I was able to establish the level of occupancy of the parking zone is doubly understandable.

I find it somewhat surprising that, given that the government sanctioned Cyclecraft publication makes it clear that it is perfectly acceptable for cyclists to take up as much space on the road as necessary to ensure their safety, you and your colleagues fail to find the driver's behaviour unreasonable when he:

failed to give adequate distance while overtaking - which he is required to do.
very obviously overtook dangerously close in an attempt to intimidate another road user
failed to indicate his intention to overtake.
undertook me (again dangerously close and in my lane) after I set off from the ASL area at the lights, despite my being in the correct lane for a forthcoming right turn.

At no time during my passage could it be construed that I was interrupting free passage along the highway. I was not even cycling in the middle of my lane, let alone "the middle of the road" as alleged by the motorist in the video. I think you will find that the legislation to which you refer only applies when preventing motor vehicles from passing. As, to repeat myself again, there was no oncoming traffic there was nothing preventing the driver from carrying out a safe and legal overtaking manoeuvre rather than the dangerous attempt to intimidate which he actually effected.

Finally, I have to say that I'm extremely surprised by your last comment:

in this case, there was plenty of room to allow the overtake.

Perhaps, given the reasons stated above explaining my road positioning (all perfectly acceptable according to the aforementioned Cylecraft) and given the fact that there was nothing preventing a legal overtake, you could explain in what way I am failing to allow an overtake. As far as I'm aware, there is no legislation forcing cyclists, or any other road users for that matter, to give way to traffic behind them. Had I, for example, been driving a tractor (which would quite possibly have been travelling slower than my speed) or, say, a horse, I would not have been obliged to pull over and allow a single motorist to pass on this straight stretch of road, where visibility of traffic in the oncoming lane is good, so why should a cyclist travelling in a safe and legal manner be any different?

I'm curious as to whether any of the colleagues to whom you showed the video are, themselves, cyclists on London's roads. If not, I feel you should certainly open up your viewing audience to include some!

To this end, I will be posting your letter and my reply on a prominent cycling forum (http://www.cyclechat.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11) so that we can widen the debate a bit. Who knows, I may be entirely wrong in my interpretation of road traffic law, but at least we will find out what other commuting cyclists think!

Best wishes



Despite the very gratifying fact that the subject of my vid will receive a letter from the Met regarding his dismal behaviour, clearly there is a difference of opinion here when it comes to interpretation of traffic law - one which, I have to say, I find surprising!

I'm quite prepared to admit my own particular reading of the law could be erroneous so I'd love to know what other CCers think.

Apologies for the long post but I feel that, given cyclists in London (and, I hope, the rest of the country soon) now have avilable to them a means of reporting poor driving relatively quickly it would be a shame if it didn't quite live up to expectations.

 

[wafflycat]

So are the police saying you should effectively be cycling in the gutter/door zone? If they are, they are this: wrong. They need to acqauint themselves with the National Cycle Training Standards (Bikeability)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4275

as well as Cyclecraft http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/ which, as the web site says,

"Reflects experience gained through implementation of Bikeability, the National Cycle Training Standard "

And as Cyclecraft is the text book designed to be used in conjunction with formal cycle training to the national standards and it is very clear in there about primary & secondary positioning on the road.


Looking at the vid - I'd certainly be cycling it giving plenty of space between me & the parked cars & traffic islands for exactly the reason you were doing it - to stay out of the door zoone and to deter overtaking at pinch points.

One of the problems with too many pokice is that they are not cyclists and as a result are too motor-centric in their view of cyclists. They forget that roads are for more than motorists, they are for all of us, and that vulnerable road users need to be given space and patience.

Perhaps they need to reacquaint themselves with HC rule 144

"You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously
• drive without due care and attention
• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users"

and rule 146 (extract)

"Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular ...

try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do."

and rule 147

"
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should

• try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well
• be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake
• not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey
• slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them
• not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists"

and 148 (extract)
"Safe driving and riding needs concentration.
Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as

• arguing with your passengers or other road users "

and 204

"The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders."

and 212

"When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so."


then there's 163

which, actually gives a picture of how a cyclist should be overtaken..

"
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
• use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
• not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
• move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

• take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
• give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
• give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)"

Indeed in the online photo that goes with the above rule see
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

and it is enlightening. It clearly shows that the driver who overtook you did NOT give you sufficient room and as regards the distance bewteen you and the door zone/pinch point/ kerb in your vid, you weren't exactly miles more out from the hazards in question! You had entirely correct reasons for cycling in the road position you were in.

What I would say to you is that (and looking at it from a third party POV is an easy thing..) if anything, if you had not carried on the 'conversation' with him, it may have diffused the situation quite a bit, which (and I know it's easy for me to say) would have made the whole thing a bit easier for you as less aggression from the driver in terms of language & using his car as a threat as he continued to so.

To the police - they should be getting out on bicycles more and using seeing the hassles from the POV of a vulnerable road user. They should also be undergoing cycle training to the national standards, so they get to know them. Even better, they should be undergoing the training to be instructors. They'd then have an entirely different POV - of that I'm certain.

 

[downfader]

I saw the vid (cant remember if I left a comment on it) and have read their Police reply.

s78 is to deal with obstructions like people blockading roads (like the original unions used to - along with the railways). You were no way in breach as you'd have to physically stop for one, here you were flowing with traffic and cycling around marked parking bays.

The onus is clearly on the part of the overtaker to do so in a safe and effective manner. I'd send a copy of the letter and the video to the CTC or BC if you're a member and let their campaigns team have a noodle.

If you dont get a satifactory response and the effectively blame you for contributing to his overtake behaviour then consider the local paper and ask them to run a story.

On you confronting the driver I think he felt threatened and immediately went on the offensive. Perhaps a more overly polite approach would work better, still I understand why you were upset as I would certainly be so myself.

 

[chap]

Firstly, the driver was reckless and highly inconsiderate, in fact his driving was not dissimilar to that of many taxi drivers. However, the simple fact remains that this is acceptable in London, and as you can see he got away with it. He got a warning in the end so perhaps the next time he sees a cyclist he will think a little before manoeuvring.

Secondly, I do take issue with your letter. Granted, the driver is selfish and by that respect dangerous - there is more to be lost in hitting a bus than a cyclist and by the looks of things he didn't even consider your presence (hence the surprise when you approach him); however I doubt he deliberately intended to 'put you in your place'. Even if he did, you have no proof of that, thus it impedes your case, through detraction, when you continually insist upon this moot point in your letter.

Moreover, the MET are not going to care about Cyclecraft, I doubt they have even heard of it - I know I hadn't until relatively recently, and how many Government schemes are there in a year. What they will note however are the veiled insults and the provocative tone emanating from your correspondence. So they didn't pursue the case to your satisfaction, whatever their criteria, this incident was flanked as minor - irrespective of the perceived and actual threat it posed to you. However if there is one organisation you do not want to get on the wrong side of, it is the police force, especially the MET. So a little less emotion in the future, stick to the facts, and leave elusive references out of it.

 

[downfader]

Moreover, the MET are not going to care about Cyclecraft, I doubt they have even heard of it - I know I hadn't until relatively recently, and how many Government schemes are there in a year. What they will note however are the veiled insults and the provocative tone emanating from your correspondence. So they didn't pursue the case to your satisfaction, whatever their criteria, this incident was flanked as minor - irrespective of the perceived and actual threat it posed to you. However if there is one organisation you do not want to get on the wrong side of, it is the police force, especially the MET. So a little less emotion in the future, stick to the facts, and leave elusive references out of it.

The MET know full well what Cyclecaft is, even what the Bikeability course is. If the officer deals with traffic he or she will have heard of it even if they dont know the fundementals.

Cyclecraft and the Bikeability course which is based on it is not some recent invention either. Both have been established for quite some time (you can even d/l the instructor manuals from the website), the former for a quarter of a century approx, and the latter some 10 years.

Also. If we do not question the actions and beliefs of officers (who it should be remembered work for us, not themselves) we simply wont get anywhere. If something is wrong it needs to be addressed.

 

[Tinuts]

Even if he did, you have no proof of that, thus it impedes your case, through detraction, when you continually insist upon this moot point in your letter.

I'm not a lawyer arguing a case in court and neither is the person to whom I addressed my letter but I certainly take your point. Like many witness statements, my own is certainly partisan and not devoid of extraneous emotional content. Yes, perception is most certainly projection and I'm quite prepared to admit my own fallibility in this respect.

What they will note however are the veiled insults and the provocative tone emanating from your correspondence.

No veiled insults intended at all. My only provocation, if it can be called that, is that the debate continue and that it will result in a satisfactory explanation for their particular reading of the relevant traffic law.

So they didn't pursue the case to your satisfaction

What gives you that impression? Actually, they exceeded my expectations: I didn't expect either such a swift response or for them to declare their intention to write to the driver concerned. What is not to my satisfaction is, imho, an apparent attempt to justify the overtake on the grounds that I was obstructing the free flow of traffic. But that's why I've posted this correspondence here.

I should also mention that I contacted them regarding this video:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE31ETzfWFk


and got another swift and entirely satisfactory response that also exceeded expectations.

 

[BentMikey]

I think I would have taken the same line as you TiNuts. I think the officer is missing that although there is a section of unobstructed road to your left, it's partly covered by parking spaces and the bus stop, and you maintained a straight and predictable course after the pinch point. There's no excuse for that driver's stupid and impatient overtake, which was predictably pointless as it gained him no benefit. That the driver didn't get ahead also shows up the officer's mistake in quoting the obstruction rule anyway.

I would have liked to see you tell the driver to search for his registration on youtube, btw.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

I didn't play this with sound on, but got the general idea!

The overtake was too close. It should never be forgotten that cyclists need to balance, and a pass that close would have scared a new cyclist (nevermind a more experienced one!) and possibly caused them to fall. No matter what your position was on the road, and whether it was right or not, that pass was too close.

(by the way, I think your positioning was just fine, especially given the speed of the bus, the traffic lights on the road, and the swathes of parked dooring potential cars).
Reading the act they quoted, I also think it was intended so that people could pass eachother head-on by keeping left, not necessarily aiming at a multi lane environment. In any case, passing you got the guy nowhere as clearly shown by your pulling into the ASL in front of him! So, impossible for you to be holding up traffic much, eh?

 

[MacB]

You can get a myriad of cyclists, and motorists, views on your road positioning, it's subjective and you were there they weren't.

That's immaterial, the police response is shocking in one respect. It reads as if it's reasonable for a driver to execute a dangerous manouver, towards a vulnerable road user, if they feel that the road user is in their way.

It doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, none of us have the right to endanger others to make a point.

 

[chap]

The MET know full well what Cyclecaft is, even what the Bikeability course is. If the officer deals with traffic he or she will have heard of it even if they dont know the fundementals.

Cyclecraft and the Bikeability course which is based on it is not some recent invention either. Both have been established for quite some time (you can even d/l the instructor manuals from the website), the former for a quarter of a century approx, and the latter some 10 years.

I do not deny that it is an established work, but the average person, perhaps even cyclist will not know of it. Although, I take your point, if the government at some point decided to put a sticker on it, then it can be argued for arguments sake, although clearly that did not get far even with the ubiquitous Highway Code.

Also. If we do not question the actions and beliefs of officers (who it should be remembered work for us, not themselves) we simply wont get anywhere. If something is wrong it needs to be addressed.

There is a time an place. Where does it get one by questioning anothers suitability to their face? The default defence is attack, and in the case of the MET that is something you do not want since it will most likely result in your case being binned. It is a valid concern, the need for a variety of people from different backgrounds to be used when judging by a common law, that is why we have such requirements for jury service. However there is little room for appeal in this instance, and the construction of the officers team is unknown, furthermore given the context to raise this issue is can be interpreted as an attack on their professionalism and competence to do the job, thus this was not the place to raise or hint at such a question.

I'm not a lawyer arguing a case in court and neither is the person to whom I addressed my letter but I certainly take your point. Like many witness statements, my own is certainly partisan and not devoid of extraneous emotional content. Yes, perception is most certainly projection and I'm quite prepared to admit my own fallibility in this respect.


No veiled insults intended at all. My only provocation, if it can be called that, is that the debate continue and that it will result in a satisfactory explanation for their particular reading of the relevant traffic law.

Tinuts, I realised even before posting the note that it ran the risk of sounding a little harsh, hence the numerous reiterations of my opinion on the driver. I respect the fact that you would have been rather shaken, and annoyed however, and the police are perhaps trained to deal with a variety of reports. Overall, I thought your letter was politely written, the parts I highlighted were merely the exceptions. As for the veiled insults, that was chiefly aimed at the point that I have responded to Downfader about, it could have been taken as an implication that you judged the officers involved to be unsuited to the job through bias Coupled with the theme of the driver putting you 'in your place' this could have read as an 'us vs them' rant.

What gives you that impression? Actually, they exceeded my expectations: I didn't expect either such a swift response or for them to declare their intention to write to the driver concerned. What is not to my satisfaction is, imho, an apparent attempt to justify the overtake on the grounds that I was obstructing the free flow of traffic. But that's why I've posted this correspondence here.

I should also mention that I contacted them regarding this video:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE31ETzfWFk


and got another swift and entirely satisfactory response that also exceeded expectations.

Excellent, I think they probably tried to play the diplomatic card in this instance. Fair point concerning your point of contention, it is something that I imagine will cause a fair bit of debate. Cheers.

 

[Origamist]

Spot on, MacB - the police reply is little more than a bullies' charter and it does not surprise me in the slightest.

As for road positioning, you're always in the wrong bit of the carriageway when something bad happens (as CCers are keen to point out).

Oh, the driver was not wearing a seatbelt either - the police should at least be interested in this infraction.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Quite simply, the motorist was of the f*ckwit variety that doesn't care about anyone else on the road, and has no concept of forward planning (hence the dangerous overtake to get nowhere)... more worryingly is the attitude of the Police to find that this is entirely acceptable.

Clearly neither party (the motorist or the Police involved here) should be allowed in a motorised vehicle again without retaking their test.

Appalling!

 

[GrasB]

Disappointing but not unexpected. After my incident last year initially the Police man seemed more interested in littering than anything else. Thankfully I have a friendly contact who managed to move things along in a more productive direction from my POV.

 

[downfader]

(1)There is a time an place. Where does it get one by questioning anothers suitability to their face? The default defence is attack, and in the case of the MET that is something you do not want since it will most likely result in your case being (2) binned. It is a valid concern, the need for a variety of people from different backgrounds to be used when judging by a common law, that is why we have such requirements for jury service. However there is little room for (3) appeal in this instance, and the construction of the officers team is unknown, furthermore given the context to raise this issue is can be interpreted as an (4)attack on their professionalism and competence to do the job, thus this was not the place to raise or hint at such a question.

1 The time and place is usually most appropriate right after a question or concern has been raised imo. Its no good keeping stumn whilst the nice officer tells you off if you know better.

2 You also have to remember that the Police are not allowed to simply drop a case or complaint because they disagree with someone, the grievance raised here was not an attack - just a grievance with the tone of the letter. They cannot "bin" it on those grounds, and may infact bring other problems to bear by doing so.

I also note that the officer had to confirm with his colleages on this, sugesting that he himself was unfamiliar with that section of law, which in itself is fine. However this does raise an extra concern that there might be a culture that would allow bad driving to pass as there is little empathy with the victim.

3 You mention appeal. I dont think TiNuts is asking for that, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong Ti) that he's simply after the officer(s) to understand road positioning and why a cyclist may be there and that there was no blocking of traffic flow.

4 Lastly if the Police were truly worried about an attack on their professionalism there are far, far more serious issues and attackers to deal with than a cyclist who wants clarification. As I said earlier all professional standards should be questioned and scrutinised for good reason, if something is wrong it must be said to be so.

 

[chap]

1 The time and place is usually most appropriate right after a question or concern has been raised imo. Its no good keeping stumn whilst the nice officer tells you off if you know better.

2 You also have to remember that the Police are not allowed to simply drop a case or complaint because they disagree with someone, the grievance raised here was not an attack - just a grievance with the tone of the letter. They cannot "bin" it on those grounds, and may infact bring other problems to bear by doing so.

I also note that the officer had to confirm with his colleages on this, sugesting that he himself was unfamiliar with that section of law, which in itself is fine. However this does raise an extra concern that there might be a culture that would allow bad driving to pass as there is little empathy with the victim.

3 You mention appeal. I dont think TiNuts is asking for that, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong Ti) that he's simply after the officer(s) to understand road positioning and why a cyclist may be there and that there was no blocking of traffic flow.

4 Lastly if the Police were truly worried about an attack on their professionalism there are far, far more serious issues and attackers to deal with than a cyclist who wants clarification. As I said earlier all professional standards should be questioned and scrutinised for good reason, if something is wrong it must be said to be so.

Downfader, I do not believe that we disagree on prinicple. I just do not believe that it is the best of ideas to raise such issues with a particular 'gate guarder' / single point of contact at the time of a direct disagreement. Perhaps it is just my background, although when in such situations where you are dealing with an authority, exchanges should be polite, cordial (if possible), and brief. Some people can get away with otherwise, and to a large extent it depends on the temperance of the authority in question, but why risk it. However, the worst case scenario here would be that the case is not properly pursued - kind of like the complaint to any customer service department when you provoke their ire

I shall not get drawn into debating about the police and their conduct, but once again I do not think that the principle is what we disagree on, just the implementation.

If it is worth anything, I do think it is a good thing that the topic is being debated, especially given the direct source to the video (although I assume our OP would have submitted the unedited version) and the correspondence. Who says the Internet is a waste of time?