Nuxx:3c99960e-92de-4421-8bf1-18be4eb37561@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3c99960e-92de-4421-8bf1-18be4eb37561@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: IAM Cycle Safety presentations Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT) References:    <87zlc8t8ri.fsf@toy.config>  <6onf3599ooiouvgcmlrpgks0fa00jqbbih@4ax.com> Lines: 184 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245221647 28378 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2009 06:54:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:54:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 11178 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:710246

On Jun 16, 7:06 pm, satur...@no.thanks wrote: > On 16 Jun 2009 18:39:53 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson > > > >  wrote: > >In article <87zlc8t8ri....@toy.config>, Daniel Barlow  wrote: > >>I note that your brother was a police instructor as well, and this does > >>lead me to wonder whether the police driving system is different from > >>the civilian IAM in its effects simply because the repercussions if a > >>police driver fucks up (e.g. loss of seniority, face or job) are > >>greater. > > >In July 2007 I was stopped in Cambridge for riding in the primary > >position, preventing a following police car (not on an emergency call) > >from overtaking unsafely. The police officer was then very hostile > >towards me and expressed `cyclism'-like prejudice. > > >My full account is below. I complained and did on this occasion get a > >personal visit from an Inspector who was very apologetic, so I was > >satisfied and didn't take the matter further. But don't tell me that > >the `police driving system' produces good drivers. > > >Another example: police drivers in Cambridge regularly drive in > >mandatory cycle lanes and it seems that the force as a whole don't > >even accept that they shouldn't. > > >From: Ian Jackson  > >Subject: [ijackson] Stopped by cops for riding according to Cyclecraft > >Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:30:24 +0100 (BST) > > >Today I was riding down Union Lane (towards the river) at about > >1:55pm. I was riding in a primary position at about 15mph. There > >were parked cars to my left so it wasn't safe to overtake. > > >I looked behind and saw a police car. It seemed slightly too close so > >I kept checking it more frequently. The driver was definitely too > >close and hooted at me. I made a keep back gesture, but this didn't > >help. I remained in the primary position since there was still no > >room to overtake without me entering the dooring zone. > > >When there was a suitable gap in the cars on the left I pulled over > >and coasted to allow the police car to overtake, waving them past with > >my right arm. Instead, they pulled level and told me not to ride in > >the middle of the road. > > >I replied `what's your collar number'. They indicated they wanted to > >have a fuller conversation so we pulled past the next parked cars and > >stopped. Two officers got out, a male collar number #### and a female > >whose tabard said PCSO, collar number ####. > > >I don't have a complete record of the following conversation, but > >items that I wrote down at the time or now remember include, roughly > >in chronological order: > > >The male officer told me I had blocked the carriageway and obstructed > >his passage. I said that I was doing about 15mph and that there > >wasn't room to overtake. > > >The officer said there was plenty of room; I said there wasn't and > >that's why I'd adopted that road position. I asked him whether he > >agreed I was doing about 15mph and he refused to answer. > > >The officer said he could report me for an offence (I infer or recall > >that he meant prosecuting me for inconsiderate cycling) but instead he > >would give me a caution. I said `I do not accept the caution', which > >he must clearly have heard. He started `I am cautioning you ...'. I > >interrupted with `I do not accept the caution'. > > >He asked me whether I was a member of the `Safer Cycling Campaign'. I > >reconfirmed his question and confirmed that I was a member of the > >Cambridge Cycling Campaign. > > >I said that to let him past earlier I would have had to ride in the > >space where a car door would open. I asked him whether he agreed. He > >declined to answer and started to repeat his complaint that I was > >inconsiderate. > > >He told me he thought I `owned the road' and that he didn't like my > >attitude. [He] told me I was arrogant and ignorant. > > >I asked again whether he agreed that to let him past earlier I would > >have had to ride in the space where car doors would open. Again he > >declined to answer. He did say though that that was a matter for the > >people in cars (ie, for them to take car of); that people in cars > >should check if someone is coming and that if they opened a car door > >in my path they would be committing an offence. I agreed with this. > > >So I asked again whether he agreed that to let him past earlier I > >would have had to ride in the space where car doors would open. He > >again declined to answer but told me that other riders nearby > >(including a friend I had been riding with) had managed it. My friend > >has a habit of riding in the dooring zone in a manner I think unsafe, > >and I think was doing so at the time, but I didn't wish to go > >overboard with offering unsolicited advice to people I ride with > >particular since it leads to this kind of incident! > > >He instead said that he was offering me advice. He advised me that I > >should not have obstructed the road. I asked him whether he was > >advising me that I should ride in the space where a car door would > >open and he refused to answer directly, instead saying that he was > >advising me to ride further left. > > >One of the reasons he gave for refusing to answer my questions was > >that `I would write a one-sided piece in your [CCyC]'s magazine'; he > >repeated this statement more than once. > > >During the conversation he seemed quite angry. He kept interrupting > >me and wouldn't answer my perfectly reasonable questions. He told me > >that he wasn't supposed to answer my questions and that he wanted me > >to answer his. I said I was quite happy to answer his questions. > > >He approached very close to me - about a foot away from my face - and > >was agitated although I didn't think he was about to become violent. > >I asked him `could you stand back a bit please' and he said `no; you > >could stand back'. I did so but later in the encounter I found he had > >approached me very close again and I had to ask again and take another > >pace backwards. > > >I tried to ask his colleague the same question with wording along the > >lines of `may I ask your colleague whether she thought I would have > >had to ride in the area a car door would open' and he said `no'. > >Later he changed his mind and said I could ask her but that she didn't > >have to answer. > > >I asked him directly `are you advising me I should ride where a car > >door would open' and he refused to answer. Instead he said he had > >already answered me. > > >He gave me an encounter and stop/search record. As they were leaving > >I asked his colleague directly the question above, but all she said > >was `we've just given you some advice' or some similarly neutral > >wording. They got in the car and drove away. > > >I spoke briefly to my friend who had witnessed the encounter and asked > >her to go home and write up some notes of what happened. She said > >`aren't you glad you're not black' and I said `yes, only a cyclist, > >not black - you're absolutely right'. We didn't discuss any of the > >details of what happened except that I did ask whether she saw the > >officer approach me very closely twice and when she said yes I asked > >her to make sure that was in her notes. > > >My friend and I hugged and went our separate ways. > > >After this I decided to return home immediately and make this writeup, > >which I've started at 14:00. I haven't reviewed the camera footage > >yet. (I have quickly checked that I do have footage throughout; my > >conversation with the officers is barely audible and not > >intelligible.) I'm going to post this article now, set my video > >postprocessing going, and go back to my planned shopping expedition. > > Another controversy-seeking fuckwit. Hope he runs you down next time > and then just says you pulled out on him.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Amazing the way that the car- haters insist on self-righteously provoking motorists even when those motorists happen to be police. "You're driving, therefore you're a selfish irresponsible scumbag who can't be trusted and needs to be physically prevented from overtaking except when *I* see fit (me knowing better than you when it's safe to overtake, simply because I'm a cyclist and am therefore an expert compared to you, even if you've had police training)." Almost unbelievable arrogance.

Jackson should have had the book thrown at him; road users with attitudes like that towards the police and other road users are the ones who most need dealing with. It's time there was a blitz on such types, instead of so much effort being wasted on law-abiding, skilled motorists with the right attitude who are happening to travel above an arbitrary number on a sign which has no relevance to the prevailing conditions. Anyone who is so hellbent on their moral crusade that they're prepared to martyr themselves by defying and thumbing their nose at the police so blatantly needs stopping sooner rather than later.

I know a number of people who are normal cyclists (i.e. they just cycle to get around and they don't have a hatred of motorists). None of them cycle in "primary position" and none of them insist on leaving a huge gap between them and parked cars. In other words, such things are simply devices invented and used by URC-style car-haters to inconvenience motorists while using "safety" as an excuse. As if anyone was in any doubt.

Reading posts like Jackson's makes me sick. I never cease to be amazed by the bad attitude of so many of the URC "regulars".