Impatient driver - punishment pass

[HLaB]

The coppers wrong, for all the reasons given already. That said, no one ever teaches us about 'primary' and the reasons behind it. I only learnt about it as a result of visiting here, after becoming a 'keen cyclist'.

Do the police get sent to advance drivers training ? IIRC the primary position, etc is included in the Association of Advanced Motorists literature (whether it is actually taught is another thing )

 

[CopperCyclist]

Do the police get sent to advance drivers training ? IIRC the primary position, etc is included in the Association of Advanced Motorists literature (whether it is actually taught is another thing )

Nope.

Officers that will use blue lights get 'standard' driver training (which in terms of driving, is excellent) but makes zero mention of cyclists.

Officers that are required to drive to a higher standard still (I.e. pursuits, and very high speeds) get the advanced training. I haven't had it so can't state for sure, but would doubt they mention cyclists.

 

[slowmotion]

That's a terrible piece of driving. I don't think that I would attempt to negotiate that series of junctions more than once. It looks like an absolute nightmare to me.

 

[Hip Priest]

Yeah right.

I think this is the new "I have a coloured friend" strapline.

Very perceptive.

And most people who say it just have a BSO in the shed that they rode round Center Parcs once.

 

[Monkreadusuk]

I have composed an email that I intend to send to the Police force in question, but i'd like to see if anyone has any further input or criticism about the email. Many Thanks,

I wish to draw your attention to an incident that I have had dealt with by one of your officers. On 14th August 2013 I was the victim of what I perceived as an intentional close pass by a car whilst cycling to work. The incident was recorded on my helmet camera and the footage has been viewed by the officer in question. On 28th August 2013 I received a phonecall from the Officer to inform me of the outcome and the action he would be taking.
I was told that due to the language used by myself at the time of the incident, the case would not be able to go to court as I would be liable to be charged with a public order offence. I explained my reasons for my actions to the officer, however he did not agree with me. When I am on a bike and someone in a ton of metal passes me extremely close, it can be expected that my reaction may be colourful. If you drop a heavy object on your foot, chances are quite a lot of people will swear or curse, it's a natural reaction. Therefore I do not believe that this is any reason not to take further action.
I was also told that even if I had not sworn at the driver, the case would still not be taken further than a word with the driver. Please can you explain why this would be the case? The footage clearly shows careless or dangerous driving from a person driving a dangerous weapon around. With the new laws in place to enforce Careless driving, can more not be done about this incident?
More worryingly I was told the following by the officer. He told me that he was a keen cyclist himself and that he cycles a similar route to work himself.
He went on to tell me that I should not be cycling in the middle of the lane, but instead I should be riding on the left of my lane. This goes against what the National Standard of Cycle training advises and after speaking to a cycle instructor about my road position, they have confirmed that the middle of my lane was appropriate at the time of the incident. By riding at the left of the lane, I would not be discouraging drivers from trying to pass me in the same lane. If you look at the video, you can clearly see that at the time the driver passed me, there was not enough room in my lane for both me and him. Rule 163 of the highway code states:
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

The driver of the car did not give me nearly enough room as is required and you can also see that the lane to my left was empty and therefore using my lane to pass was completely unnecessary.
The Officer then went on to tell me that the council have installed a cycle lane around that junction and it may be wise to use this instead. I explained my reasons why I don't use the cycle lane in question as the Department for Transport advises a speed limit of 17mph on cycle paths. I travel at nearer the 20-25mph mark and therefore cannot use the cycle path provided at that speed.
He said that I need to be an innocent cyclist if I want anything to happen in regards to offending motorists. Is the officer saying that if, in his eyes, I am in the wrong, that excuses the actions of a motorist endangering my life? He told me that if I had been riding near the kerb and a motorist passed me that close, then he would take further action, however because he did not agree with my road positioning he wouldn't in this incident.
He said that I should ride a foot from the kerb, where drivers expect to see cyclists and that I need to accept that car drivers are cars drivers, they don't understand cyclists.
The information given to me by the officer contradicts all cycle safety information I have been given and seen. If you go to https://www.facebook.com/PedalPowerCycleTraining?fref=ts and look at the two videos from the 19th August 2013, you can see why it is advised to take a central position in certain circumstances.
My main concerns are why this incident is not being taken further, but more importantly, why your officer is giving out information that may put cyclists at risk.

Many Thanks for your time,

 

[buggi]

The officer is a keen cyclist himself and says that he will be ringing Bikeability to explain to them that teaching Primary is a silly idea. I'd love to be there for that conversation. According to the officer, I should be riding a foot from the kerb, where drivers expect cyclists to be, or in the case of that roundabout, the left side of my lane, by the dotted white line.

Please can you ask him for an update on what the Bikeability people said. I would love to be a fly on that wall! I really want to know if me and thousands of other instructors have been teaching silly positioning???​

 

[buggi]

He's the plod cycling instructor :O

Pah! Whatever!! he may be a plod cycling instructor but he's definitely NOT qualified.

 

[buggi]

Just when I thought nothing else about this idot would surprise me, this last one takes the biscuit.

Without doubt you have to bring this to the attention of senior management (but do so as a separate issue to your problem with the close pass). This cop is making serious errors of cycling judgement and will be putting people in dangerous situations until he is corrected or, preferably, removed as a cycling instructor.

GC

agree

 

[buggi]

I have composed an email that I intend to send to the Police force in question, but i'd like to see if anyone has any further input or criticism about the email. Many Thanks,

i would change the following :

I wish to draw your attention to an incident that I have had dealt with by one of your officers. On 14th August 2013 I was the victim of what I perceived as an intentional close pass by a car whilst cycling to work. The incident was recorded on my helmet camera and the footage has been viewed by the officer in question, [name the officer]. On 28th August 2013 I received a phonecall from the Officer to inform me of the outcome and the action he would be taking.

I was told that due to the language used by myself at the time of the incident, the case would not be able to go to court as I would be liable to be charged with a public order offence. I explained that my reasons for my actions to the officer, however he did not agree with me. When I am on a bike and someone in a ton of metal passes me extremely close, it can be expected that my reaction may be colourful. If you drop a heavy object on your foot, chances are quite a lot of people will swear or curse, it's a natural reaction. As my language was a reaction, and was not the cause of the aggressive driving, Therefore I do not believe that this is any reason not to take further action against the driver.

I was also told that even if I had not sworn at the driver, the case would still not be taken further than a word with the driver. Please can you explain why this would be the case and no one has even spoken to the driver? The footage clearly shows that the driver is not just careless or but displayed dangerous driving with intent . With the new laws in place to enforce Careless driving, can more not be done about this incident? The video evidence clearly corroborates my version of events.

More worryingly I was told the following by the officer that he was a keen cyclist himself and that he cycles a similar route to work himself and then He went on to tell me that I should not be cycling in the middle of the lane, but instead I should be riding on the left of my lane. This goes against what the National Standard of Cycle training advises and after speaking to a National Standards Cycle Instructor about my road position, they have confirmed that the middle of my lane was appropriate at the time of the incident. By riding at the left of the lane, I would not be discouraging drivers from trying to pass me in the same lane when there is not enough room. If you look at the video, you can clearly see that at the time the driver passed me, there was not enough room in my lane for both me and him. Rule 163 of the highway code states:

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

The driver of the car intentionally did not give me nearly enough room as is required (commonly referred to as a "punishment pass")and you can also see that the lane to my left was empty and therefore using my lane to pass was completely unnecessary.

The Officer then went on to tell me that the council have installed a cycle lane around that junction and it may be wise to use this instead. I explained my reasons why I don't use the cycle lane in question as the Department for Transport advises a speed limit of 17mph on cycle paths. I travel at nearer the 20-25mph mark and therefore cannot use the cycle path provided at that speed. Further, the Highway Code states "Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills". I am not obligated by law to use a cycle path or lane and this cannot be used as mitigation for a driver's behaviour.

He said that I need to be an innocent cyclist if I want anything to happen in regards to offending motorists. Please define "innocent". As stated, the video clearly shows the driver at fault.. Is the officer saying that if, in his eyes, I am in the wrong, that excuses the actions of a motorist endangering my life? He told me that if I had been riding near the kerb and a motorist passed me that close, then he would take further action, however because he did not agree with my road positioning he wouldn't in this incident. Clearly, this is your officer's personal opinion of my positioning, and not a professional or qualified opinion, and as my position is not illegal the driver should be held accountable in any event.

He said that I should ride a foot from the kerb, where drivers expect to see cyclists and that I need to accept that car drivers are cars drivers, they don't understand cyclists. The information given to me by the officer contradicts all cycle safety information I have been given and seen. If you go to https://www.facebook.com/PedalPowerCycleTraining?fref=ts and look at the two videos from the 19th August 2013, you can see why it is advised to take a central position in certain circumstances. If the driver does not understand cyclists, then clearly he needs to be educated and removed from the road until he does understand.

Your officer states that he is going to talk to Bikeability and inform them they are teaching “silly road positioning”. As the Bikeability instructors hold a National Standards qualification, I would be interested to know the outcome of this conversation and whether thousands of instructors are teaching “silly road positioning” under government approved advice.
My main concerns are why this incident is not being taken further, when the actions of the driver are clearly intentional, and but more importantly, why your officer is giving out information that may put cyclists at risk. Perhaps, if your officer wishes to continue to instruct cyclists he should first pass the National Standards qualification?

I look forward to receiving a satisfactory response.
Many Thanks for your time,

 

[jarlrmai]

Then keep chasing it up.

 

[400bhp]

[copied from @buggi post] I'd change the following paragraph slightly to make it less emotive:

I was told that due to the language used by myself at the time of the incident, the case would not be able to go to court as I would be liable to be charged with a public order offence. I explained that my the reasons for my actions to the officer, however he did not agree with me. When I amAs a vulnerable road user on a bike and someone in a ton of metal passes me extremely close, it can be expected that my reaction may is be colourful. If you drop a heavy object on your foot, chances are quite a lot of people will swear or curse, it's a natural reaction when a vehicle passes me at an unacceptably close distance. As my language was a reaction, and was not the cause of the aggressive driving, Therefore I do not believe that this is any reason not to take further action against the driver.

 

[buggi]

yep, i think that paragraph sounds much better now.. i did struggle with that bit, i knew it wasn't quite right. .

 

[CopperCyclist]

I have composed an email that I intend to send to the Police force in question, but i'd like to see if anyone has any further input or criticism about the email. Many Thanks,

Make it much shorter and to the point. Chiefs believe they are the busiest and most important people in their station - seeing a wall of text like that will make them either ignore half of it as they skim read it, or pass it straight on to someone else as it will clearly cause them too much work!

I've tried to copy your letter to make suggestions but it's not let me on my phone. My basic guide would be:

- reason for letter I.e. I'm writing as I am dissatisfied with service provided
- BRIEF incident description. Eg. I was subjected to ANTISOCIAL (use this word its s buzz word, and used this early on will keep his attention. Antisocial behaviour is a big priority at the moment) and dangerous driving when a vehicle undertook me at speed on the a1234. Video footage is available if required.
- despite being able to provide video footage, I was told by PC plod that no action could be taken against the driver
- of even greater concern to me was that PC plod, while acknowledging that my cycling was in line with the training and recommendations of British cycling/institute of advanced motorists/bikeability, he told me that his own personal opinion was that what they teach is "rubbish" (use his wording) and I should ignore it
-I am concerned at both the lack of action in my case, and the advice from a 'whatever force' officer that at best, misses the point of cycling training, and at worst could encourage already vulnerable Road users to put themselves even more at risk.
-I would be encouraged if you could look into the matter with a view toaddressing my concerns and am more than happy to make an appointment to discuss it at more length.

Keep it literally that short and sweet. Make him do the work in contacting you to find out more, and then you have half the battle won as he's already taking an active role in the investigation. Don't worry about justifying your swearing or explaining the highway code at this point, it's all unnecessary and makes the letter far too long!

 

[Monkreadusuk]

I've received a call from the inspector who will have a word with the officer in regards to the advice given. As for the incident itself, I should receive a letter with the outcome (never had one before).

I guess I'll just wait and see.

 

[BentMikey]

Sorry I missed this before, I did look for it when you asked but couldn't find it.