Cyclist criticises police car driver for “dangerous manoeuvre” while passing due to oncoming driver not moving aside or slowing down

Because the highway code explicitly says you should *avoid* doing so - and clearly some folks think the written version is Fake News where it conflicts with what they have in their heads?

That does seem a crazy prohibition to me though, across large swathes of the country it's OK for people to drive over the kerb to park up partly on the pavement for hours or days but you shouldn't bump over the kerb for a few seconds when it might be the only way an emergency vehicle can get through traffic?

It's 'avoid' rather than 'DON'T', which seems fair enough - if you can let them pass without mounting the kerb, you should, because it reduces the potential for hitting anyone who happens to be the other side of it. Also, it probably assumes that people are likely to be more flustered in this situation, which potentially increases the possibility of an incident (though whether being flustered is actually any worse than the more common just not paying attention is another question).

mdavidford wrote:

[...]Also, it probably assumes that people are likely to be more flustered in this situation, which potentially increases the possibility of an incident (though whether being flustered is actually any worse than the more common just not paying attention is another question).

IIRC we've had a few videos cited on here where drivers have completely lost their heads in their effort to get out of the way of the blue lights.  (I recall an Edinburgh one featuring someone jamming themselves trying to get into a cycle lane and unnecessarily holding up an ambulance>  Obviously commonly titled something like "Ambulance held up by cycle infra"...grr)

bensynnock wrote:

Why would you expect somebody to pull onto the kerb?

pull to the kerb, not onto the kerb. i.e. pull over/stop and allow the emergency vehicle as much room as possible. The driver of the other vehicle has decided that the police car on the other lane is not his issue at all, and the police car given no space to move around the cyclist has decided whatever emergency he is en route to is more important than not risking the cyclist's safety.

Or, more likely, the driver of the police car didn't think he was risking the cyclist's safety.

You didn't really need the last six words there.

The expert hath spoke. From his musings we can conclude 1. Lance Armstrong invented toe clips / straps / clipless pedals 2. Contrary to common belief you have less control of the bike when you use racing shoes and pedals than if you use flip flops and flat platform pedals.

I could never understand why Rodney Bewes was cast in Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads - Armstrong would have been much better in the role. Of course he did get to play alongside James Bolam much later in the TV series New Tricks. A very good actor in my opinion.

Did you prefer the "Likely Lads" to "Whatever happened to the Likely Lads"?

Whatever the answer, they certinaly don't make TV programmes like that anymore: mores the shame.

Think I preferred the original but enjoyed them both really.

Indeed - would suggest we all head on over to the HC 219. It does say "pull over" but only "if necessary" - but it doesn't say "throw yourself in a hedge, it's your lookout once they've deployed blues and twos":

Highway Code wrote:

Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.

Of course ... that's assuming the police have read it and aren't just going with the popular version of "blue light? Get out of way by pulling over"...

and it clearly also says "take appropriate action to let it pass", appropriate action is not do nothing, or carrying on riding as you were, pretending its not there, because its but actually technically their job to find a safe way past you.

its youve got a part to play in it too, the key part being not to create more of a hazard for them by your actions or even inactions.

Er... but the rider did appear to take appropriate action while keeping themselves safe.  They certainly appear to have shoulder checked, slowed and pulled over.

Arguably pulling over made this less safe by "inviting a close pass" as the other driver continued and the police then "threaded the gap"!

Obviously different situation but had the cyclist been in a car in this case it seems it would have got the police through quickest if they had continued on at the same speed!  Since the other driver didn't appear to slow - if our "cyclist as driver" had dropped anchor - that would have forced the police to slow yet further (no space for them to pass due to oncoming car...)

Perhaps the cyclist here could have bunny-hopped onto the path - but that's all I can see would be "better" and maybe that didn't seem a safe course to them?

chrisonabike wrote:

Er... but the rider did appear to take appropriate action while keeping themselves safe.  They certainly appear to have shoulder checked, slowed and pulled over.

Arguably pulling over made this less safe by "inviting a close pass" as the other driver continued and the police then "threaded the gap"!

Obviously different situation but had the cyclist been in a car in this case it seems it would have got the police through quickest if they had continued on at the same speed!  Since the other driver didn't appear to slow - if our "cyclist as driver" had dropped anchor - that would have forced the police to slow yet further (no space for them to pass due to oncoming car...)

Perhaps the cyclist here could have bunny-hopped onto the path - but that's all I can see would be "better" and maybe that didn't seem a safe course to them?

yes, as a driver I do not stop if the other lane is not clear, I continue to move until I can facilitate the police passing. Amazing the number of drivers who think blue lights = freeze and cause an obstruction.

However a car is faster than a bike, so causes less delay while proceeding

stonojnr wrote:

and it clearly also says "take appropriate action to let it pass", appropriate action is not do nothing, or carrying on riding as you were, pretending its not there, because its but actually technically their job to find a safe way past you.

its youve got a part to play in it too, the key part being not to create more of a hazard for them by your actions or even inactions.

the original report is clearly not doing nothing in response to the siren, he pulls over and stops.

Persoanlly I am sceptical about not having time to unclip, because I always unclip as soon as I pull the brake lever to stop. so once stopped my foot would be down. If the argument is that the police car passed before he had even stopped then I don't know what else he could possibly have done, other than perhaps bunny hopping onto the pavement, which would of course be an offence.

the oncoming driver has eyes, right ? looking at the police car ?

stopping is bad I wouldnt advocate anyone just stops in the road you have to enable a space for them to pass safely, that ultimately involves stopping somewhere, but preferably after youve maneuvered out the way first.

It's very possible the incoming car driver had no warning of the police car, their ears are inside an insulated box and even a safe and legal radio volume would further mask it.

What?

They are driving down a road in good conditions with clear visibility looking out of their windscreen.

If the other driver had their music so loud they couldn't hear the siren then it's too loud. I do, however, accept the police should assume that both the driver and cyclist may have impaired hearing and not have assume anything.

Nevertheless, the driver is legally required to have good vision, and if they had  the required observation skills they'd have seen the cyclist and the police car and slowed down or stopped to allow the police car more space to over-take at speed. It's common on narrower roads to slow down and pull over to allow emergency service vehicles on the other side of the road more space so it is safer for them to go faster. Even if they didn't notice the cyclist until the last minute they should have been thinking about pulling to the side.

In the event the driving coming from the opposite direction doesn't slow down or stop and there is inadequate space to safely overtake the bike then the police driver should have waited until it was safe to do so. 

I do wonder if those replying to my comment watched the video. Both cars are driven around opposing angle bends onto the short straight the cyclist films from. The reality for both drivers is that they had vision for a couple of seconds, I made the observation about the siren as that's not line of sight around those bends. Then for the third party vehicle they don't just emergency stop, I think they would have likely stopped somewhere close to the bike anyway.

The definition for driving without due care is driving which is below the standard of a COMPETENT and CAREFUL driver. Like you I would argue that driving in accordance with the RULES of the highway code would be the minimum level of COMPETENCE and that close passing a cyclist is not driving CAREFULLY. Unfortunately Gloucestershire Constabulary are of the opinion that driving in such a manner does not meet the threshold for a prosecution. Whether this is correct or not I don't know but something needs to change. Either Gloucestershire are correct and the guidance needs to change or the training given to their Traffic Officers needs to be updated. I don't understand how some forces can issue FPNs for close passes when others can't.

The bottom line is that the many police forces view the highway code as a set of rules to determine who is at fault in a civil case after a collision. The exception to this is if the rule that is broken is a "MUST" then they will usually take action.

Bungle_52 wrote:

The definition for driving without due care is driving which is below the standard of a COMPETENT and CAREFUL driver. Like you I would argue that driving in accordance with the RULES of the highway code would be the minimum level of COMPETENCE

Unfortunately there is considerable precident of judges advising jurors to consider their own driving to be the standard for careful and competent. So if three of those jurors would pass a cyclist that close, there will not be a conviction. Or you run the gambit of what a magistrate thinks, based on their own driving style, which is a bit of a lottery.

I am sure you are right but it's got to be one of the most ridiculous precedents.

On a more positive note I am experiencing an increasing proportion of considerate driving around me at the moment. It's only a few who are inconsiderate/dangerous and they seem to fall into three categories : those who don't seem to know they are supposed to leave 1.5m, those in a hurry and those who are punishment passing. May be there will come a time when most juries will have less than three anti cycling drivers. If the police won't at least try to take some to court though we'll never know.

many police forces view the highway code as a set of rules to determine who is at fault in a civil case after a collision. The exception to this is if the rule that is broken is a "MUST" then they will usually take action

Except..they (or most of them) won't. They will lie and dodge to pretend and lie about taking action, but mostly they're relying on the reporter not bothering to follow-up on the report. Examine the weasel words when they tell you they're taking action, and don't allow phone communication- you want it in writing.

This is the Highway Code website: It’s illegal to hold and use a phone, sat nav, tablet, or any device that can send or receive data, while driving or riding a motorcycle.This means you must not use a device in your hand for any reason, whether online or offline

This is the reality of Britain's Bent and Broken Police- no response to this, reported to OpSnap with impeccable video as APL141587, about 23:00 19.5.24. No response- if anybody else on here annoys the police by trying to find out the truth of what actually happened, they will likely stop responding to you also.