Police, primary and politness

[BSRU]

You are right. There is nothing in law about the right to hold a primary position. The reverse is also true, there is no law to say you must be in secondary or in the gutter. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were careless or inconsiderate which is hard if you explain the the advice in Bikability:

Bikability Level 2 Course Manual has this:

Does the law not state that you must ride/drive to the left of the lane dividing markings but does not state where to the left you must be. Obviously unless overtaking/changing less.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Does the law not state that you must ride/drive to the left of the lane dividing markings but does not state where to the left you must be. Obviously unless overtaking/changing less.

I believe it does.

 

[Dan B]

I'd love to know which law that is, if anyone has a reference. Because I rather suspect that "drive on the left" is still enforced under s78 of the Highways Act 1835, which rather predates painted road markings

or if the driver of any waggon, cart, or other carriage whatsoever, or of any horses, mules, or other beast of draught or burthen meeting any other waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts of burthen, shall not keep his waggon, cart or carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts of burthen, on the left or near side of the road; or if any person shall in any manner wilfully prevent any other person from passing him, or any waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts of burthen, under his care, upon such highway, or [...] ; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid, and being convicted of any such offence, either by his own confession, the view of a justice, or by the oath of one or more credible witnesses, before any two justices of the peace, shall in addition to any civil action to which he may make himself liable, for every such offence forfeit any sum not exceeding [F3level 1 on the standard scale]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/78

Almost the only section of that act that's not been repealed or superseded by something more recent ...

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'd love to know which law that is, if anyone has a reference

Nothing much changed until 1773 when an increase in horse traffic forced the UK Government to introduce the General Highways Act of 1773 which contained a keep left recommendation. This became a law as part of the Highways Bill in 1835.



In small-is-beautiful England, though, they didn't use monster wagons that required the driver to ride a horse; instead the guy sat on a seat mounted on the wagon. What's more, he usually sat on the right side of the seat so the whip wouldn't hang up on the load behind him when he flogged the horses. (Then, as now, most people did their flogging right-handed.) So the English continued to drive on the left... Keeping left first entered English law in 1756, with the enactment of an ordinance governing traffic on the London Bridge, and ultimately became the rule throughout the British Empire.
[Hamer] It extended the rule in 1772 to towns in Scotland. The penalty for disobeying the law was 20 shillings (£1).
According to [Amphicars], the UK Government introduced the General Highways Act of 1773, containing a keep left recommendation to regulate horse traffic. This became law as part of the Highways Bill in 1835

 

[Bicycle]

When i did my national standards Cycle Instructors course one of my first questions was do drivers know about this and if not why not? The answer, "It costs too much to advertise" I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.

The OP raised some interesting points and was a good, frank and thought-provoking piece.

This lack of wider awareness raised by AFsolo is critical.

There was a tired, old joke about Belgium changing its traffic laws and adopting the UK system of driving on the left. They decided to stagger it ; trucks and buses one day... cars the next.

If cyclists are adopting a road-position stance of which many other road users are unaware, there is a problem.

To a driver unaware of the concept of 'primary', a cyclist riding there may appear to be riding dangerously, selfishly or similar.

Most drivers are unaware of the concept of bicycles adopting primary position in certain circumstances. I think we are all agreed on that.

Many drivers are not cyclists and are quite unaware of the needs of cyclists (this is not a crime, any more than it is a crime not to drive and to be unaware of the needs of drivers).

It doesn't help that a minority of cyclists either misunderstand the circumstances in which the adopting of primary position may be appropriate or are simply spatially unaware. This is not a troll comment; I refer only to a small minority. We have all seen them.

The broader concept of adopting primary road position where appropriate is far from barmy. There is much to commend it.

Doing so among a wider motoring and cycling public who take their road use seriously (but are completely bamboozled by a cyclist moving into the middle of the road for what might appear to be a quite arbitrary reason) needs careful thought.

Many car drivers bumbling along a single carriageway at 30 might be unsettled to see a cyclist, doing 15 ahead of them, moving to primary as they approach a parked car on the right side of the road. The cyclist can argue that he is adopting primary to prevent a close pass. That may or may not be so. To the driver it may appear otherwise. It is often a good idea to think how our actions appear to other road users. Adopting primary can sometimes appear to some drivers like a red rag being waved. There is no training; there is no wider publicising of the concept; as the OP says, even the Police are not routinely told about it.

The great majority of drivers I've shared the roads with are courteous, skilled and aware of their surroundings. Many cyclists also appear to be.

When using primary in what can appear a fairly hostile traffic environment, it may be helpful to ask oneself what it looks like to the other road users who will need to adjust their speed or direction to accommodate our actions.

There is a danger that the use of primary position by UK cyclists will start to resemble the Belgian-joke scenario.

Thanks again to the OP for highlighting a most interesting topic.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The OP raised some interesting points and was a good, frank and thought-provoking piece.

This lack of wider awareness raised by AFsolo is critical.

There was a tired, old joke about Belgium changing its traffic laws and adopting the UK system of driving on the left. They decided to stagger it ; trucks and buses one day... cars the next.

If cyclists are adopting a road-position stance of which many other road users are unaware, there is a problem.

To a driver unaware of the concept of 'primary', a cyclist riding there may appear to be riding dangerously, selfishly or similar.

Most drivers are unaware of the concept of bicycles adopting primary position in certain circumstances. I think we are all agreed on that.

Many drivers are not cyclists and are quite unaware of the needs of cyclists (this is not a crime, any more than it is a crime not to drive and to be unaware of the needs of drivers).

It doesn't help that a minority of cyclists either misunderstand the circumstances in which the adopting of primary position may be appropriate or are simply spatially unaware. This is not a troll comment; I refer only to a small minority. We have all seen them.

The broader concept of adopting primary road position where appropriate is far from barmy. There is much to commend it.

Doing so among a wider motoring and cycling public who take their road use seriously (but are completely bamboozled by a cyclist moving into the middle of the road for what might appear to be a quite arbitrary reason) needs careful thought.

Many car drivers bumbling along a single carriageway at 30 might be unsettled to see a cyclist, doing 15 ahead of them, moving to primary as they approach a parked car on the right side of the road. The cyclist can argue that he is adopting primary to prevent a close pass. That may or may not be so. To the driver it may appear otherwise. It is often a good idea to think how our actions appear to other road users. Adopting primary can sometimes appear to some drivers like a red rag being waved. There is no training; there is no wider publicising of the concept; as the OP says, even the Police are not routinely told about it.

The great majority of drivers I've shared the roads with are courteous, skilled and aware of their surroundings. Many cyclists also appear to be.

When using primary in what can appear a fairly hostile traffic environment, it may be helpful to ask oneself what it looks like to the other road users who will need to adjust their speed or direction to accommodate our actions.

There is a danger that the use of primary position by UK cyclists will start to resemble the Belgian-joke scenario.

Thanks again to the OP for highlighting a most interesting topic.

Very good post

 

[MontyVeda]

No but if the other side of the road is clear, then why not do it anyway? Being passed by cars isn't a pleasant experience.

So in light of this... do you enjoy cycling on the roads at all?

With regards to the OP's points. Yes, drivers would benefit from regular updates and reminders as to how to drive and how others are permitted to use the roads.

The Drivers CPC should be rolled out to all drivers, not just professional ones to highlight things like this... and it should be free to all.

 

[doog]

I still can't see how you can read the above and take it to mean what you responded to, it is a general comment that police training should cover the laws and rights of all road users....it does not say that primary is a right or a law...though I could have expanded the original to say laws, rights and needs.

I took your post and the mention of law and threw it open as part of the debate rather than anything personal to you so I apologise if you took it the wrong way.

Police training is an emotive subject.... Society is changing so yes the OP is right at some point Police Officers should be made aware of cycling 'guidelines' that are beyond the scope of the law but infringe upon the law they study!

The guidelines and rules for cyclists are circumstantial to any criminal offences but if cyclists are using one set of rules and motorists are unaware of these, its important that someone has knowledge of the middle ground. Very few offences of careless driving by motorists are prosecuted nowadays whereas 20 years ago it was very common so this is an indication that bad driving (by all parties) isnt a priority for Police at the moment.

My daughter is learning to drive and she has never heard of the primary position for cyclists, likewise my son passed his test a year ago and thinks I am talking some strange language. If the motorist has no idea why the cyclist had adopted a road position then what hope is there!

 

[cd365]

<snip>

A very good post by the OP and the post by Bicycle I have snipped is bang on the mark in my opinion

 

[pshore]

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.

In my experience CopperCyclist, you are right. If you can explain calmly is really helps you seem like a reasonable person and I can now get my point across when reporting incidents. Its not that easy though when you are a victim of crime.

I must admit that in my first three years of cycle commuting I was getting seriously wound up by close passing and near misses. Nonchalantly, describing somebody threatening my life was not possible but I have now conditioned myself to do it.

Looking back, my natural reaction was one of somebody who had been threatened or assaulted (without physical connection), but I think people in general and not just Coppers do not recognise the threat of motor vehicles against cyclists in any way that is similar to being threatened by fists, knives or guns.

I would be immensely frustrated and more if I was feeling like my life had been threatened by then had to start defending my road positioning. In a way, it is a bit like a rape victim having to defend their wearing of a short skirt.

Further, if you do run into problems, cyclist-car incidents are being treated as if the two road users were equal. The duty of care of the person in the larger vehicle is missing.

To give an example, if I see a child playing with a ball near the side of the road I rarely see drivers changing their speed or proximity to that child. If that child then ran out and was hit by the car, my belief is that a court today will see this as an accident. Duty of care is a thing of the past.

 

[Mad at urage]

Talking of publicity for (for example) Primary and Secondary as cycle positions, there is of course a motoring organisation which sees itself as having a safety brief in promoting training for car drivers and which has recently expanded into training for cyclists (with the author of Cyclecraft writing their cycle training book). When training car drivers, this organisation still includes no mention of where a cyclist is expected to be!

Members of the IAM may be curious as to why this gross omission continues (I've tried asking, for example here: http://www.iam.org.uk/forum/index.php?f=6&t=525&rb_v=viewtopic). Since the IAM does get consulted by 'the media' they are in a position to promote the knowledge more widely as well.

 

[oldfatfool]

I would applaud the OP for his honesty.

To others argueing about road positioning,

Cyclists aren't much narrower than mopeds and motorbikes, they don't ride in the gutter.

Cyclists are much faster than horses/ horse and carts, they don't drive in the gutter.

Just because a cyclist is small narrow and easily intimidated should not mean they have to ride in the gutter, and afaik there is nothing in law saying they must either.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I would applaud the OP for his honesty.

To others argueing about road positioning,

Cyclists aren't much narrower than mopeds and motorbikes, they don't ride in the gutter.

Cyclists are much faster than horses/ horse and carts, they don't drive in the gutter.

Just because a cyclist is small narrow and easily intimidated should not mean they have to ride in the gutter, and afaik there is nothing in law saying they must either.

 

[growingvegetables]

Excellent post by CopperCyclist - thank you

and nicely "positively provocative"
Angelfishsolo's

I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.

+1 (if I raise my hand one digit at a time, can I make that +10?)
Bicycle's

The OP raised some interesting points and was a good, frank and thought-provoking piece.... and the rest of Bicycle's post

+ 1 (same request)

 

[Origamist]

When i did my national standards Cycle Instructors course one of my first questions was do drivers know about this and if not why not? The answer, "It costs too much to advertise" I would love to see a public information campaign aimed at all road users explaining cyclists road positioning and rights.

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 driving lessons and the driving test in order to better understand the differing needs of other types of road users, be they cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists, pedestrians, HGV drivers etc.