Police, primary and politness

[middleagecyclist]

OK. I'm getting too worked up by this one. I'm going out for a bike ride. Enjoy the debate folks!

Back from my bike ride. Made good use of primary where needed. 40 mile mix of busy multi lane urban roads and traffic free country lanes. Rain and then glorious Sun. No Police encountered and majority of drivers very courteous. What have you lot been up to then?

 

[BSRU]

Back from my bike ride. Made good use of primary where needed. 40 mile mix of busy multi lane urban roads and traffic free country lanes. Rain and then glorious Sun. No Police encountered and majority of drivers very courteous. What have you lot been up to then?

Working hard .

 

[Dave W]

For me, that shows why some people lose respect for the Police after dealing with them.
What you've described there implies that the Police treat everyone as criminals, and getting frustrated and angry with the Police will only reinforce that opinion.
For me that's a failing with the Police rather than with an emotionally charged victim of crime, who will just see the Police actions not as strength but as an arrogant inconsiderate person that isn't listening to them.

Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, you may be the 7th or 8th emotionally charged victim of crime I've seen that day.

It may be a once in a lifetime thing for you but I've done it a million times and it's very easy to forget that. On top of that I might have just told someone their relative has died, had a massive fight with a violent maniac, dealt with a rape victim, ticketed a cyclist for jumping a red light or a myriad of other things.

Added to the fact there's 3 sides to every story when the police are involved, your side, their side and what I think happened. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make you wrong or me right, just means we see things differently.

I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.

The point is that someone will always feel they are being dealt a poor hand by the police regardless. We try our best but sometimes it's not enough to please you, sorry about that.

The OP has a good point though, police officers are in the main human and just like you and me respond very well to polite intelligent conversation. Again we may not agree but it's worth a try.

 

[middleagecyclist]

Working hard .

OMG. 6 Pages! You have been busy little Bees.

 

[Red Light]

Finally, in response to RedLight I think he's being a little unfair and tarring us all with the same brush. Yes, I have colleagues who act like that no matter what. In fact I have one on my shift, but only one on a shift of fifty. The majority of us, when spoken to calmly and rationally are perfectly capable of applying reason to our standpoint, which is why I asked or it as he purpose of my post! I hope you can understand, the majority of people we deal with tend to be dishonest (I found this bag of coke on the floor I was going to hand it in) and use aggression as a challenge hoping they can get us to back down. We're almost conditioned (not trained) therefore to be massively defensive and immovable in the face of aggression, as trust me, showing weakness to some of the underclass we deal with gets you assaulted. On the other hand, because we deal with this so often, meeting a genine, decent person capable of communicating is a pleasure. RedLights post in many ways conveyed my point - stay calm, be prepared to explain the 'cycling knowledge' and you should find yourself avoiding his issues.

There may be a perception filter acting in that the "fair and reasonable" colleagues of yours would never bother with pulling someone up for riding in the primary position in the first place. So maybe all we meet are the ones that are somewhat corrupted by the power who see it as an opportunity to demonstrate their power.

 

[Red Light]

I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.

You illustrate the problem perfectly. The difference is it is illegal* to open a car door so as to endanger or injure someone. It is not illegal to cycle in the door zone. You have immediately ignored an illegal act and blamed the victim of that illegal act in your decision. It is your job to know the law so as you would say to us "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

* Section 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986


Opening of doors
105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

 

[twobiker]

It has been my experience that the "guilty till prove yourself innocent still tends to apply" and often in legal cases the one with the most money wins, as they just drag the proceedings on till the other persons runs out of money to prove their innocence.

 

[rowan 46]

It's not bad advice "to be polite to coppers when you deal with them" In fact I would go as far as saying that's true of anyone. however as the op said we are all human. Interesting post even so.

 

[pshore]

I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.

Modern times. The apportioning of blame is now left to insurers and the no claims bonus has replaced the penalty points system.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

There may be a perception filter acting in that the "fair and reasonable" colleagues of yours would never bother with pulling someone up for riding in the primary position in the first place. So maybe all we meet are the ones that are somewhat corrupted by the power who see it as an opportunity to demonstrate their power.

You asked previously when had you demonstrated issues against the police. I refer you to the above and also your next post.

 

[Dan B]

Modern times. The apportioning of blame is now left to insurers and the no claims bonus has replaced the penalty points system.

This would probably work fine, if only it wasn't so easy just to drive uninsured

 

[Origamist]

I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.

Sorry to pick up on this part of your otherwise helpful and informative post, but this is just wrong. Cycling in the door zone does not absolve a driver of his resposibility as it is an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”.

If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). (RVCUR r. 105; RTA s. 42; RTOA Sch 2).

Edit - RL beat me to it.

 

[Dave W]

You illustrate the problem perfectly. The difference is it is illegal* to open a car door so as to endanger or injure someone. It is not illegal to cycle in the door zone. You have immediately ignored an illegal act and blamed the victim of that illegal act in your decision. It is your job to know the law so as you would say to us "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

* Section 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986


Opening of doors
105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

Yes it is illegal to do so as the law states, and no I haven't ignored an illegal act as you try and insinuate. I have looked at the facts of the incident and in line with policy, the law and the guidance of supervision have deemed that it is not in the public interest to prosecute, nor will have a realistic prospect of conviction. Therefore no further action was taken. If we applied the law as you seem to wish then every driver who parks at the side of the road should be prosecuted under the same law, ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree. In addition I fail to see where I blamed the victim for the accident or have you just stuck that in to be emotive?

Inadvertently you have illustrated the problem perfectly, we clearly have a difference of opinion and yours is so strong you have even hunted the internet for the exact bit of law and been incredibly patronising by telling me what my job is. How any reasonable person can expect *anyone* to know all of "the law" is simply beyond me and is generally simply used as a stick to beat someone (usually the police or a lawyer) with.

 

[Bicycle]

This has the makings of a very interesting thread, but there is a danger it will become a weep fest about bad, naughty drivers without insurance and horrid, aggressive police officers who 'side with the guilty'.

I was hit many years ago in my van by an uninsured driver. It was jolly unlucky, but I had to lump it. It happens.*

All my dealings with the police have been with highly professional and courteous officers, whether I was a cheeky bike courier, a three-figure speeder, the victim in a collision or the relative being informed of a tragic death.

Things were going really well on this thread - and might continue to do so if we can collectively resist the (powerful) urge to wave our own pet hates around as war banners and just stick to the topic of the thread.

There have been some really positive, frank and open posts on the thread. It would be wonderful if it stayed that way.

* He cannoned off me backwards in his stolen and went into a parked vehicle, picking up serious neck injuries.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

i'm sorry cc, but i find the word 'underclass' very unprofessional from a highly paid civil servant (compared to other civil servants). the public are the public and should be at all times treated as innocent until proven guilty. i find the thought of every police officer being in a frame of mind where there is such a phrase of 'underclass' quite worrying and perhaps shows us the real face of the police force.

surely your training includes dealing with angry people?

imagine how many angry people mental health / psychiatric nurses have to deal with daily (and probably a hell of a lot more restraints per shift on an acute ward than yourself) yet they never use that sort of terminology.