Police, primary and politness

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
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.
 

betty swollocks

large member
You have made some very fair points.
 
I can appreciate your comments, but asking someone who's just been assaulted to be calm and reasoned because the Public Servant, paid well to see that the law is adhered to, doesn't know what they're on about and is trying to blame you, is asking a lot in my opinion.

Far better to educate those that hold themselves out as law enforcers as well as drivers.
 
With so many more cyclists on the road now, it is ridiculous that Police training doesn't include even knowing the law concerning such road users. The level of ignorance I have seen displayed by Officers is breathtaking, to say the least.

I agree that training should be improved. And all Police trainees should spend some time riding a bike in an unrban environment.
 

400bhp

Guru
Good post.

"Primary" is jargon and it certainly does not mean that if you don't know its meaning you don't understand cycling behaviour .
 

G-Zero

Über Member
Location
Durham City, UK
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

"Razz around" ? - that spoils an otherwise decent post for me !!

IMO the phrase doesn't sit comfortably alongside "safely" and gives the impression of legalised boyracing :wacko:
 
Great post.

My brother is a serving copper. He came for a bike ride with me recently and was surprised I didn't cycle in the gutter, used cycle lanes at my discretion and had no hesitation about taking primary at pinch points etc. "We don't have Dutch quality infrastructure so we have to make the best of what we do have and that means cycling assertively" I said. He hadn't heard of any of this before but conceeded the sense in doing so when sharing the road with ignorant drivers.

He's now just got a job in traffic. So that is one more Lancs bobby with a bit more awareness! Still, I agree it should be an core element of police driver training in particular and driving lessons in general. We can hope!

Thanks for posting.

Oh, and just to add. A work colleague told me recently I cycled dangerously because I was "...in the middle of the road." This was in a 30mph zone, doing about 22mph and approaching red lights. I replied "What. You mean in full view where you could see me yet not squeeze past?" I don't think she could quite grasp the idea she has no more right to the road than any other user and should drive with consideration around 'vulnerable' road users.

OK. Rant over!
 
That's fine but, as your are a police officer nearing ten years service and the fact that you consider your level of driving higher than your normal motorist, you will be familiar with the Highway Code and Rule 163.

Rule 163: give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215).

and the accompanying picture showing a motorist overtaking a cyclist (with the cyclist on one side of the road and the motorist on the other).

Primary/secondary is made-up cyclist speak for positioning yourself to maximise your safety by attempting to influence the actions of other road users - which may mean trying to deter close overtakes from muppets who know nothing about safe road usage.

This has nothing to do with Rule 163. If road users observed Rule 163 primary/secondary would have no relevance because the overtaking vehicle would be on the other side of the road.

When a motorist hits a cyclist the question you should be asking is were they adhering to Rule 163?

 

Thomk

Guru
Location
Warwickshire
Just to add to the OP's excellent points. I have been a qualified driving instructor in the past. It was about 10 years ago and things may have changed significantly since then but I don't remember having a clue about primary, secondary or indeed very much knowledge at all about the safe road positioning of cycles. It wasn't until I started cycling nearly 2 months ago and started reading CC that my eyes were opened.

It may be that I was a poor instructor or it may be that DI training has improved since then but the education of driving instructors, with the obvious associated trickle down effect, would IMO be a good place to start if we want the car driving population to treat us with more respect.
 
Primary/secondary is made-up cyclist speak for positioning yourself to maximise your safety by attempting to influence the actions of other road users - which may mean trying to deter close overtakes from muppets who know nothing about safe road usage.

I take your point to a degree but it is a bit more than "made up cyclist speak".

I quote from Bike Radar in an article callled: Technique - Road Positioning

"The primary riding position is in the centre of the lane (the most left-hand lane on multi-lane roads). The secondary riding position is about a metre to the left of moving traffic, but not closer than 0.5 metres to the edge of the road (closer would mean no room for manoeuvre in emergencies and also riding over glass and other kinds of road debris). While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' aren't defined precisely in road traffic law or in The Highway Code, they are widely used in all recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process."
 

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
Ease off a bit folks, I thought the OP was an honest, and informative, post, talk about shooting the messenger.

Perhaps the correct approach would be to try and get some sort of campaign sponsored, via CTC say, to provide cycling awareness as part of police training procedures. I actually agree with those that think this should include some time on 'bike patrol'.

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. But I'd go a step further and want to see it included in the school curriculum as part of their 'life skills' type courses.
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
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.

Although it's useful amongst cyclicts discussing the finer points of road positioning. there is no need to be familiar with the term or concept of "primary" in order to grasp any road user's need to position herself in such a way as to maximise her safety, communicate her intentions and influence the behaviour of others towards her. This is going to sound rude, but however politely the OP was worded, the bit in bold is a stupid question, coming from someone who considers himself any kind of advanced vehicle user. And primary has very little to do with "the middle of the road" - it's about unambiguously occupying the moving traffic lane.

I can't argue with the advice about explaining things calmly, but I think cyclists have a right to be angry with police officers who haven't the wit to consider why they might be somewhere other than the gutter.
 
Top Bottom