Police, primary and politness

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

doog

....
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.

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.
 
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.
It does just a little bit. The OP is being honest and saying Police Driver Training is not fit for purpose as regards cyclists. He should be applauded for that IMHO
 
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.
Some great points and I for one welcome your input to these boards. It is good to have someone who really knows the score and the law! I also appreciate your honesty.
 

Melonfish

Evil Genius in training.
Location
Warrington, UK
i've seen the amount of law that each cop is supposed to learn, it is without doubt staggering, to then have to learn all the nuances of each law which in itself would fill small books in some cases is once again quite immense. my old man retires this december after wow 23/24 years on the force, i still remember him passing out when i was a kid.

i agree that there should indeed be some education on some things for the police but in a time of cuts and job losses i doubt anything would go ahead as funding is lacking in a big way.
 
If by adopting the primary position you commit an offence of careless cycling or inconsiderate cycling you are in the wrong.
Isn't that really what the OP means when saying "...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." (my italics)
 

twobiker

New Member
Location
South Hams Devon
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.
If the rider was in the Primary and holding up traffic then that would be wrong, like a driver doing 20mph in a 60 for no reason,also if they say why they were in the Primary after an accident surely they leave themselves open to the questioning as to whether they should have been riding like that for those conditions. It becomes one persons descision against the others as to if it was safe,
 

siadwell

Guru
Location
Surrey
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.

+1 :thumbsup:
 
Good post Coppercyclist and very understandable imho.

After explaining to my mother about the safety reason a cyclist was passing parked cars so widely ie. the Door Zone, she has since stopped thinking such thoughts about cyclists 'taking up the whole road'. These things do need pointing out to non-cyclists before they make sense and are then understandable.

Cycling is not popular enough for these reasons to be common knowledge, therefore I think Govt. Information films \ adverts showing how dangerous such things as bikes undertaking lorries, riding in the door zone\opening car doors without looking, being squeezed in pinch points\not taking the lane etc. would go a long way to help our car driving brethren understand our 'habits'.
 

BSRU

A Human Being
Location
Swindon
I know it's probably never going to happen but it would be a good idea if when learning to drive, learner drivers were given some appreciation of other road users unlike at the moment where other road users are considered a potential hazard.

I know I became more aware of bikers needs when I became a biker myself, likewise I became more aware of cyclists needs when I became one. I believe the different forms of road use have made me a better rider/driver.
 

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
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.

Ok Mr Pedantic, I'm sure you can now point to where in my post I said that riding in primary was enshrined in law, or any specific that I claimed in law?

I get that you're looking for an argument but don't make things up and attribute them to me to try and start one.
 

element

New Member
T
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?


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. 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.
There has to be a bit of flexability on both sides for the roads to work. I usually take 'primary' as people choose to call it when I don't want cars to pass, when I think they are safe to pass I move over closer to the kerb as a kind of signall that we are at a safe passing point. I was told to drive around cyclists like you expect them to randomly fall over towards your car. this means that there is a safety margin , however if you want to block the road as much as poccible by riding down the middle of it for no reason then you will make car drivers angry and they will start to pass too close.
 

doog

....
Ok Mr Pedantic, I'm sure you can now point to where in my post I said that riding in primary was enshrined in law, or any specific that I claimed in law?

I get that you're looking for an argument but don't make things up and attribute them to me to try and start one.

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

 

MrHappyCyclist

Riding the Devil's HIghway
Location
Bolton, England
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. 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.
There has to be a bit of flexability on both sides for the roads to work. I usually take 'primary' as people choose to call it when I don't want cars to pass, when I think they are safe to pass I move over closer to the kerb as a kind of signall that we are at a safe passing point. I was told to drive around cyclists like you expect them to randomly fall over towards your car. this means that there is a safety margin , however if you want to block the road as much as poccible by riding down the middle of it for no reason then you will make car drivers angry and they will start to pass too close.

I think that you would agree that riding through a doorway sized gap would be fine, but having a doorway sized gap moving towards you at a similar same speed would be rather more scary as you wouldn't have any control over it. I feel that is the major difference.
 
Top Bottom