The head of Durham Constabulary has branded one of his officers who drew up the force’s cycling policy “a single-issue zealot.”
Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, chief constable Mike Barton – who later ripped up the policy – also said that “nervous” cyclists should not ride a bike.
“Bradley Wiggins doesn’t work for me…. so I just swept it [our cycling policy] aside”
Durham’s Chief Constable Mike Barton calls a cycling sergeant a “single-issue zealot” for having a 30-page police cycling policy – which he then scrapped. pic.twitter.com/45RUsbA5w4
— BBC Radio 5 Live (@bbc5live) September 10, 2018
“We had a bicycle policy,” said Chief Constable Barton, whose comments were widely criticised on Twitter.
“So if police officers were riding a bike there was a policy. It was 30-odd pages.
“So the sergeant who had written it, he was a single-issue zealot. I know that’s being rude.
“He wanted the world to be cyclists and he wanted them to be safe cyclists. So he was going to surround them with rules.
“I think page 32, he described how police bicycles shouldn’t be used as police pursuit vehicles,” the c chief constable continued..
“And you know, Bradley Wiggins doesn’t work for me, so the chances of one of my officers riding a bicycle chasing a car is frankly ludicrous, so why put it in a policy?
“So I just swept it aside. ‘Look’, I said, ‘if you’re nervous, do a Cycling Proficiency Test. If you’re really nervous even after that, don’t ride a bike. By the way, if you think you can get away with Lycra, by all means wear it, but I’m not telling you to. And deal with it with a bit of humour’,” he added.
At that point the show’s presenter interjected with “That’s 30 pages condensed right down there in three lines.”
“Precisely,” he replied. “In any given circumstance, do the right thing regardless of the consequences.”
The chief constable’s comments come just a month after his own force launched a close pass operation targeting motorists who overtake cyclists too closely.
Just as they do for other areas of policing, many police forces across the UK have cycling policies in force – although when it comes to bicycles, it’s something that has been met at times with derision from some elements of the press.
52 thoughts on “Durham police chief calls officer who drew up force’s cycling policy a “single-issue zealot” (+ video)”
It can’t be any surprise that
It can’t be any surprise that some police forces ignore crimes agains cyclists with the attitude displayed by this chief constable. The ethos of an organisation comes from the top, and this man clearly doesn’t care about the safety of vulnerable road users. Don’t they have a Police and Crime Commissioner in Durham, so that all the local cyclists can write to them and get him to enforce the law.
Not sure I’m all that impressed with the interviewer either, but her approach was exactly what I’ve come to expect from the BBC. They treat cycling as a bit of a joke or dangerous, when they mention it at all.
I’m not sure he’s being as
I’m not sure he’s being as much of a d1ck as the heradline suggests here.
If 30 odd pages actually put people off then it’s a stupid document. One persons opinion, militant cyclist or lycra hater is just as dangerous as the other (read any helmet thread for proof).
The nervous issue and cycling proficiency is potentially the worst bit – maybe the first 10 hours of driving tuition shouldn’t be on the road, maybe if you’re a nervous driver then you’re a potential killer etc.
alansmurphy wrote:
Irrespective of his stance on cycling, anyone who comes out with such empty shit as
“In any given circumstance, do the right thing regardless of the consequences”
is exactly and entirely a dick.
If I came out with such useless twaddle to my kids they’d laugh me out of the room.
If anyone in a leadership position comes out with such bluster while addressing policy, their staff or superiors should rip them a new one.
davel wrote:
Indeed, some subjective notion of doing the ‘right thing’ trumps all consequences? As in ‘I’m sorry everybody died, but I was just doing the right thing’.
The nervous cyclist comments are pretty wretched from someone in his position. Imagine the outcry if a senior office responded to concerns about increased street crime by saying ‘if you are worried about being mugged, just don’t go out’. Complete disavowal of the whole point of having the Police…
davel wrote:
“In any given circumstance, do the right thing regardless of the consequences” is exactly and entirely a dick.
——————————————————————————————————-
Maybe, but on the other hand he may just be suggesting that if a Police officer saw a murder and the suspect running on foot then you wouldn’t want bike plod to check the air pressure in his/her tyres, fasten his bike helmet and second check it, adjust the handlebar mirror to an appropriate angle and ensure daylight lights were both on before giving pursuit.
It is entirely possible that the process document written was over-zealous piffle!
alansmurphy wrote:
Of course… and you’d expect us, kicking around examples on a Web forum to come out with a silly extreme example like that, or the bloke in the pub to come out with the CC’s fatuous shit.
What we’ve actually got is a CC, in very public communication, making the kind of non-cop member-of-the-public-type knee jerks that are right at home on here or in the pub. I’m inclined to expect ‘more’.
alansmurphy wrote:
It’s entirely possible that it wasn’t and was a well written and concise document that followed protocol for vehicle use by the police, both constables and PCSOs and everything else associated with it.
People here are guessing based on the page length and the reaction by someone who clearly doesn’t have a clue about safety, cycling nor the responsibility hierachy on our roads. He also doesn’t understand how these types of documents can run to hundreds of pages – probably because he’s a box ticking handshaking PR person and nothing more, he’s forgotten where he started from and now is a power crazed fuckwit who is out of touch.
That a constable went to such lengths to then be described in such a derogatory way publicly is disgusting, in fact he should be disciplined for that. The document content and how it’s drawn up and dealt with should be an internal matter and not be airing his personal views about a person below him and indeed instead of binning it off, if he had anything about him he would actually have said we’ve trimmed it down so that it fits better for a modern force not bound by rules for the sake of rules but taking fully on board Health and safety of our officrs and members of the public, or some shit like that. But he didn’t he laid straight into someone and ripped it up simply because he has a beef about cycling in his police force for his officers and also for cycling as a whole, it’s so fucking obvious.
Basically he’s a dinosaur, and a dangerous dinsosaur to boot.
To be clear, this is (was) a
To be clear, this is (was) a policy for use of bicycles by Police Officers in the course of their duties, not a general diatribe against cyclists and was ripped up for being an exercise in policy wording health and safety overkill rather than a practical / pragmatic / useful docment.
Is that correct, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
A copy of the deceased document would be interesting. If it was full of policy recomendations such as helmet specifications, the appropriate use and fitting of bicycle bells, the correct way to avoid cross chaining, and standard forms for reporting punctures then maybe the Chief Constable has a point.
Mungecrundle wrote:
It wasn’t just the police policy, he went on to give his views on all cyclists, hence the comment about nervous cyclists staying off the road, but if there is one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s that being nervous keeps you safe. It’s the idiots who are supremely confident in their abilities who are most likely to be involved in or cause a collision, a rule which applies to all areas of life.
burtthebike wrote:
Go back and relisten to the video. Its quite clear that he is referring to a policy about police officers riding bikes for their policing, including the nervous cyclists and wearing lycra comments. And to me a 32 page policy on riding a bike for work does sound like OTT Elfin Safety.
Tony wrote:
— TonyProbably better to have a word count.
I don’t think a 32 page work based document is that long really. Have you read any of your HR work policies ?
[/quote]Probably better to
[/quote]Probably better to have a word count.
Have you read any of your HR work policies ?
[/quote]
I would if they existed
So there’s no policy now?
So there’s no policy now? While an over the top policy could be a hinderance, writing off a whole group of people as not worth the effort is pretty ridiculous, not that it’s much of a surprise.
Nervous cyclists should not
Nervous cyclists should not cycle.
Nervous drivers should not drive.
Nervous walkers should not walk.
Nervous speakers should not talk.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Nervous walkers is a new one on me!
What about a nervous pooh, what do we do with those?
peted76 wrote:
We keep well clear.
peted76 wrote:
Hunny. Lots of hunny.
I’m with mungecrundle here,
I’m with mungecrundle here, 32 pages of policy before a copper is allowed on a bike is ridiculous, this document had no relevance to the policing of cycle law.
Why was it even mentioned on the radio, I suspect the writer was more of a misguided HSE zealot than anything else .
Let’s judge him on how his force performs in relation to cycling in general, though his nervous comments don’t leave me with a lot of hope
‘if you’re nervous, do a
‘if you’re nervous, do a Cycling Proficiency Test…’
not quite a “is there life on mars” – “beating up the wrong guy” flashback moment but Cycling Proficiency was renamed/redesigned in 2007 as Bikeability (only one word to remember) suggesting that the Chief Constable lacks any interest or concern for cycling. (thats a full stop)
My initial thought was that
My initial thought was that the Chief is a typical motor-centric policeman. Then I thought that 32 pages sounds like a lot of paperwork that in the real world, no-one is going to read.
Then I came to the conclusion that the Chief is probably right about the 32 page policy, but also has a sucky attitude towards policing on bikes.
I don’t see why we don’t have more police on bikes as they’re cheap to run (as long as you don’t keep buying the latest stuff advertised here) and very agile. Bikes are probably the easiest way to catch motorists using mobiles, but then that might not be something he wants to concentrate on.
Poor clickbait headline
Poor clickbait headline
check12 wrote:
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, I would say that the headline is entirely accurate in that a CC does indeed ‘slam’ an officer who wrote a policy doc. The only thing that we are unclear on is whether the doc was 30 odd pages of mindless H&S or good valid advice. My suspicion is the former (I didn’t need to read 30 pages before I hopped on a bike aged 5) but we don’t know. I appreciate that not knowing the facts never stops us having an argument though
32 pages doesn’t seem that
32 pages doesn’t seem that unreasonable, given how bureaucratic this country is. I could easily write 32 pages about cycling, and that’s without a police angle. 32 pages about cycling for fun? Easy. Cycling competitively? 32 and then some. 32 about cycle commuting? Yep. So no, 32 pages about cycling for a police job doesn’t sound that stupid.
I’ll bet there’s more than a pamphlet on police driving.
vonhelmet wrote:
Indeed
http://www.roadcraft.co.uk/roadcraft/
I think if I were ever
I think if I were ever interviewed about anything vaguley important I think I would wholehartedly cock up communicating and say the wrong thing whilst trynig to communicate something which in my head would be entirely sensible. This reminds me of another silly escalation of a conversation my wife had with the school nurse the other month.. the phone converation went like this..
Nurse: Hi is that WifeD
Wife: Yes, who’s this?
Nurse: I’m Mrs Hatchet the School Nurse
Wife: Oh! Is DiddyD okay?
Nurse: I’m afraid there’s been an accident
Wife: Oh my god what’s happened. Is she okay?
Nurse: DiddyD crossed the road..
Wife: Oh my god is she okay, what’s happened
Nurse:..to get to the canteen..
Wife: IS SHE OKAY!!
Nurse:.. and she trapped her finger in the door..
Wife: What? Oh my god, is it still connected…
Nurse: Her finger appears fine, but she’s very upset and we’d reccomend you took her to hospital to get an x-ray*
(*Nothing serious at all it turns out.. treatment for DiddyD involved a plaster, a bangage and some ice cream).
peted76 wrote:
This is brilliant, though I appreciate not so much at the time. The words “bedside manner” spring to mind.
Don’t I recall two very
Don’t I recall two very recent stories on here where the perps were caught by cyclists? Maybe the CC needs to think a little deeper.
Given the speed of local traffic on our congested roads, chasing a car with a bike is not exactly far-fetched, is it?
burtthebike wrote:
And you get to ride on the pavement, jump red lights and ride the wrong way up a one way street – all legit !
“the chances of one of my
“the chances of one of my officers chasing a car is frankly ludicrous”
and we all know that the only way to operate is in a car, nothing ever happens outside of one does it?
Here’s a suggesting for a new
Here’s a suggesting for a new, brief, policy for Police officers in Durham who want to ride a bike. This policy takes into account the need for specialist equipment, the need for road safety and the need to be able to cycle:
1) If you can ride a bike then swing you leg over the saddle, feet on pedals, hands on bars, look around you and off you go
2) If you can’t ride a bike sign up to free “learn to ride” sessions (which of course the CC should arrange) and then see (1) above
shay cycles wrote:
Just a strawman though.
The recent clip of the bike pursuit we had on road.cc – say the officer was only within touching distance of the ‘crim’ – should he take him out with a clash of front on back wheels? What circumstances would this be ok? What circumstances would it not be ok?
How does an officer pursue a teenage ‘crim’ ? What safeguards are required? How do other policies impact on this policy?
I’m sure you can add plenty more.
26 of the 42 Police Services
26 of the 42 Police Services in the UK attended our Road Danger Reduction Forum September 2017 training day (with West Midlands Police Road Harm Reduction Team) on policing close passing of cyclists. 3 others have been involved in joint operations, 5 others have shown interest or run operations. Durham were one of the very few disregarding cyclists.
I could easily write a 32
I could easily write a 32-page police policy yer ‘onour:
When perambulatin’ hupon their velocipedal vehickles in a peaceable hand law-abidin’ manner, constables of heither gender, them bein’ heither of the masculine type or, alternatively of the feminine, that is to say, weaker, sex (pardon my blushes, yer ‘onour), or them circumstances bein’ hinappropriate as it may perchance ‘appen, and the aforementioned constable bein’ of hunspecified gender or none, nevertheless, said perambulations not necessitatin’ the accelerated pursuit subject to PACE 1978 clause 137ii sub-section 94, of a non-velocipedal, or combustion-type vehicle having a plurality of wheelage exceeding the number one (1), that is, in the common vernacular, a motor cycle or car, neither of the aforementioned bein’ unicycular…
and on and on…
Well at least we have all the
Well at least we have all the information and all of the Polic Cheif’s comments were reported in context and the article was written so that the points to consider were made quite clear, otherwise we might start jumping to conclusions and and calling people a dick unjustly.
Well at least we have all the
Well at least we have all the information and all of the Polic Cheif’s comments were reported in context and the article was written so that the points to consider were made quite clear, otherwise we might start jumping to conclusions and and calling people a dick unjustly.
jazzdude wrote:
I’ll nibble.
Did the chief constable, discussing policy on national radio, say the thing that I said made him a dick?
I understood this to be a
I understood this to be a policy document on how police officers should use their bikes when on duty.
32 pages sounds excessive to me, but how does it compare to similar documents for police officers using a car when on duty, or even police officers using their feet (i.e. walking) when on duty? I bet there are lenghty documents for both those activities.
Zigster wrote:
Today I learnt that police need a lengthy policy document to tell them how to walk.
Myself, I learned how to do that when I was but a toddler.
Zigster wrote:
Duncann wrote:
You missed out the thoughtful chin pose, or is that detailed in the “standing still” policy documents?
hawkinspeter wrote:
There must be an official guide to ‘addressing the public in a sarcastic manner’. They definitely get training in that.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
That’s level 2 comms.
Level 1 is overly officious to ensure you come across all thick-like.
‘I was proceeding in a Westerly direction…’ Do fuck off, roboplod.
davel wrote:
I’ve long thought that film to be underrated. Paul Verhoeven stuffs that film full of satire (I’m not a fan of the Christian interpretation of it, though) and even has gender neutral changing rooms (similar to the also underrated Starship Troopers).
hawkinspeter wrote:
“Do you want to know more?”
brooksby wrote:
“It’s back. Big is back, because bigger is better. 6000 SUX – an American tradition!”
Not quite what I was thinking
Not quite what I was thinking but …
But do the police have regulations on what shoes to wear when “proceeding along the pavement”? Or perhaps rules that they should wait for the green man when crossing the road rather just than scampering across when there is a gap in the traffic?
It’s not teaching them “how” to walk as someone facetiously misinterpreted my comment above, but how to behave when on duty and a representative of the police.
I know how to dress myself in the morning, but my employer still has a policy on acceptable dress when in the office. I know how to drive, but my employer still has a policy on using my car on business. I know how to use the internet, but my employer has a policy on appropriate use of company laptops. (I’m working from home today so am wearing jeans, walked to the back of the garden to my home office, and am using my ipad for this comment …)
Without sight of the policy document, it’s pretty hard to say whether or not the Chief Constable was being a dick.
Zigster wrote:
Your employer has separate policies on how to behave, dress etc. which is why your employer doesn’t need to have a “walking” policy and similarly neither do the police. They’ll have lots of info about how to behave in public and how to deal with the public and that will be applicable whether they’re walking, cycling or roller-blading.
Driving would be an exception as I imagine that police drivers would need lots of extra training as they’ll be dealing with potentially very dangerous situations that could easily maim/kill bystanders. It’d be difficult to walk so badly as to injure other people.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to hear the Chief Constable’s thoughts on Durham Constabulary’s racial equality, disability discrimination and sex equality policies.
Do they mirror his thoughts on the cycling policy, or is this the only one he dare voice his opinions on?
Good luck, Sargeant Zealot,
Good luck, Sargeant Zealot, with your grievance case.
what a complete prick.
what a complete prick.
Mr Barton do you also believe nervouse drivers shouldnt get behind the wheel of a car.
john1967 wrote:
Behind the wheel of a [i]police[/i] car, you mean.
.
.