Weird police cycle training

adr82
adr82 Posts: 4,002
edited November 2013 in Road general
I was cycling into Glasgow this morning and in a village called Thorntonhall I caught up with a bunch of 6-7 people riding in a straggly line, all wearing fluorescent "POLICE" vests. I don't know if they were all trainee bike cops or whatever, but what I found really weird was their signalling. I was going to overtake them when the guy at the back stuck his arm straight out from his body, exactly as if he was about to make a right turn. So I hung back and waited, but none of them turned. Then they did it again a little further along the road and I realised each time they did it they were simply signalling to move to the right very slightly to pass parked cars! Not even cars that were on the road, they were parked three-quarters on the pavement. Does anyone else do this?! Is it common?? Crazy IMO, any driver seeing that is going to think the same as I did and get very confused. Would have expected better from the police...
«1

Comments

  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    So when driving to you not indicate to pass stationary cars?
  • if there is an obstruction on the left it is normal to point across your back with your left arm
  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    How many non-cyclists would recognise that though.
  • adr82
    adr82 Posts: 4,002
    kwi wrote:
    So when driving to you not indicate to pass stationary cars?
    I don't drive, but virtually nobody does this unless the obstructing vehicle is far enough into the road to require you to pull out into the oncoming lane. I don't want to imagine the confusion if every driver indicated right every time they passed a parked car. It'd be the same problem as I described, other traffic would assume they wanted to make a right turn if they happened to be anywhere near a junction! There's generally some common sense involved, not a reliance on indicating every time.
    if there is an obstruction on the left it is normal to point across your back with your left arm
    Yes, that I would have understood, even though there really wasn't any obstruction as the cars were almost entirely on the pavement.
    kwi wrote:
    How many non-cyclists would recognise that though.
    Better than totally misusing a signal that means something else entirely...
  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    You are actually meant to indicate when you leave your normal line, regardless of crossing the central divide or not. It's the changing course or direction bit of the highway code.
  • Mickyg88
    Mickyg88 Posts: 289
    You are going to wish you had never posted this, not sure why ..
  • adr82
    adr82 Posts: 4,002
    kwi wrote:
    You are actually meant to indicate when you leave your normal line, regardless of crossing the central divide or not. It's the changing course or direction bit of the highway code.
    Yes, but there are lots and lots and lots of things you're meant to do on the roads that most drivers do not do! Just read the bits where it lists places you're expressly NOT allowed to overtake. Then go out and ride around for a while and watch people violate every last one of those rules. This why there are so many accidents every year. There are also parts of the highway code that would seem to prohibit what these guys were doing:
    make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
    Source (103). This was a textbook case. There was absolutely no need for them to signal in the way they did at the place that they did, it was very confusing for me and would have been the same for any drivers in the same place. What if a couple of cars had been coming the other way, the one in front started to drive past as normal, then this guy sticks his hand out, the driver jams on the brakes because he thinks the cyclist is about to cut in front of him, and he gets rear ended by the following vehicle? It was a stupid thing to do and makes me wonder what else they were being taught.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    Are you sure it said police and not polite? There's a company out there producing safety vests with polite on them made to look like police. I don't know why as I recall a warning that wearers would be prosecuted.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bibs.html

    http://www.highvisibility.uk.com/polite

    Having recently retired after 30 years in the police I have never seen any officer given cycle training. Of course the new executive of chinless wonders who will have done a risk assessment and strategy document on the use of bicycles by staff may have decided in a knee jerk moment that everyone must do cycle training to avoid a vicarious liability claim against the Chief Constable.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • ben-----
    ben----- Posts: 573
    > Are you sure it said police and not polite?

    That's exactly what I was going to say. Only last night I was cycling and went past a rider on a horse and her bib/jacket thing said, I thought for a second, POLICE, but on second, even third, look, I realised it was POLITE. Funny thing to have printed on your jacket. I might have one made up saying THOUGHTFUL or ...
  • dnwhite88
    dnwhite88 Posts: 285
    if there is an obstruction on the left it is normal to point across your back with your left arm
    This is what we always do
    "It never gets easier, you just go faster"
  • It's a sensible practice IMO. So many drivers can't see beyond their own bonnet and have no comprehension of cycling at all so much that they have no idea you have to move out because of parked cars, making this obvious is a good thing.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Depends on the obstruction, traffic and what vehicle I'm using. As has been said above - it's to indicate you're about to deviate from your normal line - so if I can see an obstruction in my path I generally try a gradual move out to go around and not indicate - however, if there are lots of cars passing me then I may stay in and indicate a bit later then pull out - because it allows more cars to get past.
    I generally indicate when in my car because it's a fooking great 4x4 and nobody can see past me to know I'm about to go past an obstruction...
  • antfly
    antfly Posts: 3,276
    I put my arm out whenever I want to discourage drivers from overtaking, mainly when about to accelerate down a fast downhill. Before I did this cars would sometimes try and pass me and it led to at least one very dangerous situation.
    Smarter than the average bear.
  • thistle_
    thistle_ Posts: 7,121
    adr82 wrote:
    Does anyone else do this?! Is it common?? Crazy IMO, any driver seeing that is going to think the same as I did and get very confused. Would have expected better from the police...
    If there's a lot of traffic trying to barge past then I'll signal so say I'm moving out. If there's nobody around then I don't bother.

    When I did my driving theory test, one of the situations on the hazard perception test was coming up behind a bike who was coming up to parked cars. You were meant to realise that the cyclist was going to move out and the cyclist looking over his right shoulder was an indication that he was going to move out. No arm signals at all.

    I don't know if this is still included in the test, but the hazard perception bit was a new thing so only people who took their test in the last 10 years or so will have done it.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    Indicate when necessary and when someone will benefit. Simples.

    If plod thought you were about to overtake and knew he needed to move out, it sounds like a correct signal.
  • Having done BikeAbility instructor training, in the situation described by the OP, and remember that is the only scenario we've been asked to comment on, then you don't have to signal but you would turn your head well in advance of the situation to both to check for following traffic and, should there be following traffic, to make eye contact so as to indicate your intention to move out.
  • Remember that the police want to be seen to be doing things by the book when a more experienced non-police cyclist may seem that a hand signal in that situation wasn't necessary.
  • fatsmoker
    fatsmoker Posts: 585
    If you got a hi-vis vest with 'Police' on the back, would it make you safer?
    Although it's probably illegal.
  • Illegal yes; impersonating a police officer.

    However these are common especially with horse riders
    polite-aspey-jacket.jpg
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    The "book" will be Roadcraft based.. Google IPSGA (information, position, speed, gear, accelerate). Arguably the whole "system" is applicable to cycling, though our ability to vary speed makes the SGA bit a bit less important. But the Information phase is applicable to everyone on the road.

    Information - Take, Use, Give (TUG). He could have archived the same by taking up an early overtake position to address the parked car or thanked you in advance for holding back.

    Fat frank from the taxi rank may be more experienced than your avg. driving instructor, doesn't make him an expert.

    Overdoing signals, observation etc. is not doing it by the book its driving like a learner. If its necessary do it, if not don't.


    You need to do a bit more than wear something that vaguely resembles a plod jacket to be guilty under sec 90 Police Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90
  • katiebob
    katiebob Posts: 208
    antfly wrote:
    I put my arm out whenever I want to discourage drivers from overtaking, mainly when about to accelerate down a fast downhill. Before I did this cars would sometimes try and pass me and it led to at least one very dangerous situation.

    I put my arm out and the cretins STILL overtake! :lol:
  • adr82 wrote:
    kwi wrote:
    You are actually meant to indicate when you leave your normal line, regardless of crossing the central divide or not. It's the changing course or direction bit of the highway code.
    There are also parts of the highway code that would seem to prohibit what these guys were doing:
    make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
    Source (103). This was a textbook case.

    But presumably if you know your highway code, it wouldn't confuse you at all? I've always known that when pulling out to go round parked cars, or even just to take a primary position in the road, you should indicate. I don't always do it, because I always assume that the driver behind me is a numpty and will be startled, but sometimes you just need to make your intentions clear.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    diy wrote:
    The "book" will be Roadcraft based.. Google IPSGA (information, position, speed, gear, accelerate). Arguably the whole "system" is applicable to cycling, though our ability to vary speed makes the SGA bit a bit less important. But the Information phase is applicable to everyone on the road.

    Information - Take, Use, Give (TUG). He could have archived the same by taking up an early overtake position to address the parked car or thanked you in advance for holding back.

    Fat frank from the taxi rank may be more experienced than your avg. driving instructor, doesn't make him an expert.

    Overdoing signals, observation etc. is not doing it by the book its driving like a learner. If its necessary do it, if not don't.


    You need to do a bit more than wear something that vaguely resembles a plod jacket to be guilty under sec 90 Police Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90

    Thing is, those vests are items of clothing that by their colouring, design and logo imply that the wearer is a member of a police force. Adding wording such as "Slow" or "Slow down" can only add weight to an allegation. Personally I wouldn't bother other than to let the wearer know what a sad bastard I thought they were. :lol:
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    philthy3 wrote:
    Thing is, those vests are items of clothing that by their colouring, design and logo imply that the wearer is a member of a police force. Adding wording such as "Slow" or "Slow down" can only add weight to an allegation. Personally I wouldn't bother other than to let the wearer know what a sad bastard I thought they were. :lol:
    They work - once or twice - then the drivers will just assume it's some sort of sad twat trying to tell them how to drive ...
    Personally I rather object to being told to "Slow Down" - especially since I've driven/ridden carefully to start with - but then the message isn't aimed at ppl like me - it's aimed at the twats who "m u s t o v e r t a k e" now ...

    I put the blame squarely at the cheap availability of power for no effort - in the past, if you wanted a high power car or motorbike then you had to work on the engine - or have enough money to buy something fast - and it wasn't cheap ... these days you can get something that goes like sh1t off a shuvel for a few hundred quid and need to know nothing about how it works.
  • ednino
    ednino Posts: 684
    dnwhite88 wrote:
    if there is an obstruction on the left it is normal to point across your back with your left arm
    This is what we always do

    ^this
  • The main problem with the "SLOW DOWN" messages its NOBODY thinks it applies to them ;)
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    ednino wrote:
    dnwhite88 wrote:
    if there is an obstruction on the left it is normal to point across your back with your left arm
    This is what we always do

    ^this

    This is not a signal a motorist would recognise though, is it? Neither would a cyclist who has never ridden with a club; me for instance. It's the cycling equivalent of a masonic handshake; clear to those in the know, but baffling to mere Muggles.
  • nweststeyn
    nweststeyn Posts: 1,574
    I (probably incorrectly, but it seems to help drivers) use arm signals that vary slightly depending on if I'm turning off the road, or pulling out past obstacles on the left. To turn off, my right arm would extend straight out from my shoulders. To pull out into the lane/road, my right hand/lower arm would point out the way at a lower level, about in line with my hip. I sometimes wave my hand/arm a bit aswell to make the point. Indicating a hazard on the left by using my arm behind my back is something I only do in groups of riders and drivers will NOT understand it.
  • adr82
    adr82 Posts: 4,002
    Hmm this got more responses than I expected.
    nweststeyn wrote:
    I (probably incorrectly, but it seems to help drivers) use arm signals that vary slightly depending on if I'm turning off the road, or pulling out past obstacles on the left. To turn off, my right arm would extend straight out from my shoulders. To pull out into the lane/road, my right hand/lower arm would point out the way at a lower level, about in line with my hip. I sometimes wave my hand/arm a bit aswell to make the point. Indicating a hazard on the left by using my arm behind my back is something I only do in groups of riders and drivers will NOT understand it.
    Yes, absolutely! I keep my arm low if I just want to move out or change lane. An arm held parallel to the ground should always be used to mean you're making a turn.
    diy wrote:
    Indicate when necessary and when someone will benefit. Simples.

    If plod thought you were about to overtake and knew he needed to move out, it sounds like a correct signal.
    I was on a bike too, he had no idea I was there. Didn't look back, and also drifted way out into the middle of the road as he signalled (up to the white line), which only made me more confused as they were passing a couple of junctions on the right and there were no big obstructions on the left that would have justified moving so much.
  • adr82
    adr82 Posts: 4,002
    philthy3 wrote:
    Are you sure it said police and not polite? There's a company out there producing safety vests with polite on them made to look like police. I don't know why as I recall a warning that wearers would be prosecuted.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bibs.html

    http://www.highvisibility.uk.com/polite

    Having recently retired after 30 years in the police I have never seen any officer given cycle training. Of course the new executive of chinless wonders who will have done a risk assessment and strategy document on the use of bicycles by staff may have decided in a knee jerk moment that everyone must do cycle training to avoid a vicarious liability claim against the Chief Constable.
    I'm willing to admit I'm not 100% certain and unfortunately didn't have my helmet cam on to check for sure, but I was sure they were police at the time. And presumably the police must do cycling training nowadays? Pairs of police patrolling on bikes are becoming a relatively common sight in Glasgow, and I can't imagine they just hand out the bikes and say "OK, off you go" to people who have more than likely never cycled in a city before. The people I passed seemed to be kitted out in a near identical style to these patrols, both in terms of clothing and the bikes themselves, and doing some basic training on quieter roads outside the city would make sense I suppose.

    Doesn't really make that much difference though, whether they were police or not I still don't agree with people being taught to ride like that.